Check out that floor, vintage 1942 linoleum. And, yes, it's actually clean despite appearances. I just stripped it. So even the peel and stick sample you can see looks fabulous in comparison. Yay for clean and purdy floors!
And all of me hurts, especially my hips and knees, thanks. Getting old...
(Or, to you non pagans, Happy Halloween.)
Thanks to Avery DeBow for the reminder about this song. Now, go out and get some pumpkin pie!
A few more that I would love to have. But check out the whole page. These are hilarious.
And, particularly great for writers:
This is the last planned post from the Police Procedures For Writers series. In it, I just want to wrap up a few concepts and share a few bits of this and that with you all. I hope that this series has provided some useful information to both put you into the cop mindset and give you some ideas about how an investigator might approach certain aspects of the job. Just remember that I am not a lawyer. This is not intended as legal advice. And you need to do your research before you assume anything I say is on a stack of Bibles correct. I could be wrong. But I believe I have it pretty darn close.
Headology, as Granny Weatherwax would have it.
Firstly, another codecil: When I reference events, unless I say I experienced it personally, you can take it as a generalization and not based on any one person, event or case I was personally involved in. Additionally, some of the things I mention are heresay from other people. What I talk about below is intended to help you understand enough to assist you to get some perspective for the characters of your story.
Stupid criminals, or, understanding how too-dumb-to-sound-real stuff happens.
You hear about morons in the news or the Darwin Award winners, and it sounds like a joke. But idiotic things like a murderer leaving his identification card or wallet at the scene really do happen quite frequently. (In fact, I am personally familiar with such a case.) What you scoffers fail to realize when you shake your head in disbelief is that, when faced with having killed someone, many people simply freak out and just rabbit off without thought, their adrenaline sending them towards the horizon. This is because most people aren't violent offenders and they fall into the "crime of passion" category. They hadn't planned it, and they don't know what to do when they recover their wits and find blood on their hands. And some people panic and get beyond dumb in their first reactions.
This can be quite gratifying for the cops, as you might imagine. If they have to solve a crime like a murder, they really want that person caught as fast as possible. And it's always nice when the criminal makes it easy for you.
If you think about it, the cases that are the most difficult to solve are the ones that are planned carefully and committed in proverbial cold blood. (There is a reason for that term.) So, I say again, cops like stupid criminals. But there are a lot of smart ones out there.
What do cops feel are the most dangerous situations?
Routine situations that based on my own experience I personally feel are the most dangerous are 1) domestic disturbances and 2) traffic stops.
Domestic disturbances. These are dangerous because of their unpredictability. When you go in to stop the fight, it's not uncommon for one half of the couple to be arrested, which causes the other half to freak out and attack the officers. And that can occur when the person who called 911 was the spouse who attacks the officers, and she/he is battered and bloody! Things can get hairy, you have neighbors and friends trying to butt in, yelling and crying and lots of distractions, children screaming, broken articles as hazards all over the damn place, and a kitchen full of cutlery and/or unknown quantities of other weapons at hand you have to look out for. Plus, the family dog you may have to harm to subdue. It ain't pretty, and it's volatile.
Traffic stops. I find these incredibly dangerous because, first, you don't know what you are dealing with until you get there. It's not a call that gives you some idea; you are walking in blind to everything but your own reasons as to why you are stopping the car. There is always the possibility that events will escalate without notice. For example, you might be pulling the driver over just to give them a warning about a dead tail light; but if the guy in the car is a tweaker gone psychotic on meth, or he's a wanted, armed & dangerous criminal who's just carjacked that vehicle-- he's all paranoid and ready to fight. He might have a gun and pull it on you, and you have a gun fight.
But the surrounding traffic is a more constant worry, because people are always coming close or striking the police vehicle or officer. Generally, the cop attempts to prevent the civilian vehicle from being struck by other vehicles by jogging their vehicle slightly roadwards. This has the net result of practically inserting the cop into traffic while the cop is getting in and out of their vehicle. And even with the lights wig-wagging, people "don't see" the car or officer all the time.
Further, if it's night time, the lights are almost like bug zappers for moths. Drivers who are tired or zoning out will aim for the cop car's lights and smash right into them without hitting the brakes. And, frankly, this always scared me the most because, while I can wear body armor and I can assess a car full of hopped up addicts, I cannot do anything to control the idiots behind the wheels of other cars.
[All I can say is, please, peeps, when you are pulled over, pull over somewhere safe for you and the officer. Don't pull over on an off- or on-ramp, don't stop in the middle of traffic, etc. Use some common sense! And if the cop should be angry that you didn't slam on the brakes and haul the car to the shoulder as soon as the lights went on? Well, it would be difficult to argue with your replying "It was unsafe for you or me, sir."]
Now, other officers may have differing opinions about what's the most dangerous situation they commonly deal with. Jobs and cities differ. If I were on a SWAT team, I think I'd list clearing a building as my number one terror, because it would be. (So many things can go wrong when clearing a building. I used to do it all the time as an MP. And I did it solo. With my dog. In the dark. Cuz it was SOP. Don't even think I was really pleased about it.)
Off-duty carry.
TV frequently gets this one wrong in one particular area: cops carrying concealed weapons while drinking in a bar. Laws vary, but just consider a worst case scenario that could involve the town, department and officer all being named in a wrongful death lawsuit, should an officer shoot someone in a bar, with their service weapon, while legally intoxicated. I shudder to picture my butt in that sling! It would be a bad starting point for the defense.
The rules vary, so it's quite possible that in some places, an officer may drink while off duty and carrying. In others the cop may NOT be in a bar while carrying except in the line of duty. In others, it may still be permissable to drink if you leave your weapon in your car or something like that. (Someone told me anecdotally that in Texas the solution was simple: You just gave your weapons to the bartender to hold until you were ready to leave. Hmmm... if true, I wouldn't recommend it!) In still other jurisdictions, it may be permissable to be in a bar while carrying off duty, but the officer may not be allowed to drink booze.
Concealment.
Stake outs and that sort of surveillance stuff are not my area of expertise. But I think that most of us have enough sense to figure out that TV shows err by having autos tailed by a car two cars back, et cetera. Or the overlook of the "plain box van" or cable company or plumbing van (nearly always white) sitting outside a person's house for several days. Or such a vehicle just down the street, even for a short while. I'd notice it in my neighborhood, and so would a criminal! And then there's forgetting that forever in a car on stake out, drinking endless cups of coffee...and no one has to pee? Especially for the ladies, this is problemmatic-- (although truck drivers and male cops have the "magic empty bottle" for their emergencies... Yes, that's TMI and a bit gross; but I wonder how many of you ladies thought of that???)
At any rate, say you are using covert agents in your story. There are some giveaways that are in line with what a street cop deals with assessing his surroundings. Criminals are just as smart and attuned to their environments, and perhaps more motivated to be. They'll catch a cop out if she or he fails to blend in-- which is often due to certain telltales.
I'm sure you are all familiar with the coily wires that connect ear buds to radio mics, right? Those are one example. So are clothes that hang funny or lopsided (indicating something bulky under the clothes), shifts in gait or arm swing that can indicate a person has a gun under their arm or in their waistband. People can have tics where they pat their weapons to double-check they're there. (It's a difficult habit for some to resist, as you must constantly, constantly, every freaking moment keep your gun under control. To lose it might mean you, your partner, or some innocent person will die. So that can give a cop away, just like the eyes scoping everywhere seemingly at once.)
True story of Being Obvious: An example.
I was in Large Urban Zone and sitting in my car, watching the sunset at the beach and chatting with a friend visiting from out of town. We observed several pairs of very fit young men wearing shorts, athletic shoes, tee shirts and windbreakers walking rapidly (in lock step) or running (in lock step) up and down the promenade. (Clue!) It was windy because we were at the beach, but it was also hot out. And yet, to a man, these fellows had their windbreakers zippered or snapped shut. (Clue!) They all had coily wires slipping from one ear down inside their collars, and these wires were plainly visible. (Clue!) A short while later, a helicopter started flying up and down the beach. It was black, and had no numbers on it--not, I assure you, standard. FCC requires markings for civilian craft, you see...(Clue!) And, as the sun went down, we observed a very fast-moving boat zoom out of the harbor to the open sea. We observed a larger vessel that had been approaching the harbor cut off its lights. And the first helicopter was joined by another, and they traded off zooming about 30' off the deck on the beach with swooping out towards the ship I mentioned...sort of like they were expecting to intercept something. The young men kept moving up and down the promenade this whole time, and then they just disappeared and the helicopters swooped off to wherever black helicopters go. This lasted a fascinating 20-30 minutes.
Nothing ever showed up in the papers, but I have zero doubt my pal and I were amusedly watching a so-called (and not very) "covert" operation. If I had to guess by the unmarked helos and how the guys we watched moved, I'd say it was a military op. If I based it on likelihood, seeing as we were on the West Coast, I'd say it was smuggling, and thus either ICE (Homeland Security) or DEA or possibly ATF were involved. But it could have been almost anything, really.
But you can see how true life can be bizarre enough to seem unbelievable...in particular the sheer obvious nature of the mysterious operation I actually witnessed! I think I'd manage an op better than that in my stories, for sure. :)
Firearms carry permits.
Civilians can obtain concealed weapons permits, and the rules for their carrying have similar issues as police officers, but generally with more restrictions. However, in some states you don't need a permit to carry concealed (Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona.) However, in others, your permit only covers certain firearms, those registered to you. Other areas allow carry of weapons but they may not be concealed. So people have them in old style gun belts or visible holsters. A database of weapons law is on this site. (If you are stopped by police and it's looking like a search of your person is immanent, you should inform them if you have a gun and a permit for it before they go and find it.)
General transportation can have hazards for the gun owner as well. (This generally applies to guns that are not on your person because you don't have a concealed weapons permit.) A loaded gun in the car or glove box might net you jail time, especially if it's in reach of the driver and concealed. It might be no problem. Or you might have to keep the ammunition separate from the weapon and the weapon unloaded. Or the weapon must be in the trunk.
Jurisdiction & Authority.
Additionally, some federal agents and officers are not considered law enforcement by state authorities in which they work, and in order to perform or have any authority outside of their federal duties, they must be certified by that state. What this means is that, depending on the state laws, a federal officer may have no authority to intercede in some crime where he is present except for that of the average Good Samaritan, and this might be regardless of whether they are on or off duty, or in uniform or civilian clothing.
A few articles you might find interesting.
This is a repost from 10/7/2007
"I enjoy discovering symbols and meaning when it is subtle and serves completely the needs of the story." Charles Gramlich
Above I quoted Charles' wonderfully evocative post on resonance versus symbolism. I recommend reading the comments as much as his post, too.
The basic point, that he prefers "works that lack overt symbolism but still create a sense of resonance in the reader," is a good one. I, for one, cannot stand to be battered about the head and shoulders by theme, concepts, or symbols that are too blatant.
Layers upon layers.I've stated my opinion about themes on several occasions, but Charles' post reminds me that symbolism also can be too blatant in the exact same way as themes can. Symbols are not story, they are underpinnings, the layer of enrichment that can be found in really good writing. They are a part of the world building, and they are also a part of the elements that can enrich a tale with meaning that grips the reader. But done too blatantly, they are just as off-putting as reading a novel that continually gives a moral or social message with the subtlety of a battering ram.
Writing is like poetry in that the good stuff usually has layers of meaning. Symbolism, the choice of words, their sound, arrangement and flow, all form a layer that reaches the reader in a more subconscious fashion than the overt tale you are trying to convey.
Unless you overdo it. Then you have called attention to it and disrupted the flow of the story and made your reader aware of the mechanics involved.
If a symbol or theme is blatant, it is best left out of the story.I believe this because I believe an author's favorite pulpit material and favorite symbols, while potentially useful, can also be overused to the point of being offputting to readers if they call attention to themselves by being too blatant or ham-handed. They must add to the story you are trying to tell or they should be recognized as crutches we writers use and cut. Might as well treat these bits like algebera and insert some Greek letter in lieu of the symbol, because overdone, it has about that much meaning and value.
Of course (she says tongue in cheek) if we got rid of some of the classic yet overused symbols-- like the Scarlet Letter A-- what would we have to toss as a bone to our high school English teachers? Ack! The mind boggles.!
If you have a glimmer of phychological insight, you can write characters that resonate more easily. Not to say you must have a degree or be able to define the particular label your villian has--because whether or not he is a sociopath, a schizophrenic or a narcissist with the emotional development of a three year old-- we readers want to experience a character that out gut knows is just not a good guy. And similarly for heroes, we want them to display traits that make us believe their choices and actions are realistic for their role in the story.
Laughingwolf linked to an interesting article from Real Simple about "5 Ways to Win People Over." It has some interesting tips on what you can do to make people like you or how to deal with conflict. Following is a much reduced and partly paraphrased version. Read the whole article for the full effect.
Getting someone to really listen is no small feat. Real Simple spoke to five professional influencers about how they make the magic happen.
1. Puncture Your Own Ego Getting defensive gets you nowhere with people. Instead, be willing to show humility and, above all, humor.
2. Don’t Be Needy
People can smell any sense of urgency, and they’re easily turned off. An audience wants to feel like it’s in good, stable hands...So the next time you want something from someone (no matter how much), try acting cool and blasé. (As a former personnel recruiter, I can tell you that if someone seemed desperate, I didn't like to hire them. It was really off-putting to me, and it was very difficult to get beyond the desperation as I didn't get a sense of confidence or ability when the interviewee was so anxious and/or desperate for a job. You can have characters mistaking this sort of mindset for guilt or something else that's a misunderstanding, or you can have them be shallow enough to think that someone who is desperate is not to be trusted or is weak, etc. Also, the reverse, which would make them look understanding and like a benefactor. A villian might see this type of person as an opportunity to exploit.)
3. Tell Someone (Nicely) What She Has to Lose
Although most folks say they want to hear what they can gain by taking your advice, they’re actually more influenced by what they have to lose by not heeding it...That’s why the phrase “Don’t miss it!” is more effective in ads than “Take this opportunity.” (Use of this one will give an heightened sense of urgency to any appeal you use in your dialog. It's more a mechanical trick than for characterization.)
4. Throw a Curveball in Conversation
This is my go-to technique when I’m faced with a person who isn’t receptive to what I’m saying... Going on a tangent—as long as it’s one you know the other person will be interested in—really works. (Your characters can be distracted by a bit of verbal legerdemaine if you use this trick. Or you can have your character be smart by diffusing a difficult situation via use of the conversational curveball.)
5. Reiterate the Other Person’s Argument
If you’re trying to explain to your kid that he can’t stay up late, begin by stating his opinion—“Look, I know that you want to read the last 492 pages of Harry Potter”—before adding your two cents. Even if he’s reluctant to concede the point, he’ll appreciate the fact that you listened to him in the first place. (I learned this as "verbal judo" where you give unpleasant directions or information to people in a manner that makes you seem more sympathetic, and thus it's far more palatable. A valuable law enforcement tool. And for characters, a character that's a good manipulator can use this technique well. You do not even have to spell out why it works...which might make it particular interesting if you use it with a reliable narrator who turns out to be the villian. That unreliable narrator can use the technique against the readers! But if you do it badly, they will not like you much for the "trick.")
Steampunk isn’t true Victoriana. It’s not five-year-olds crying as they were shoved starving up chimneys; it’s not having to have seven children so you can watch five of them die from pandemics before the age of ten. It’s not a decade of pain from a crumbling tooth because you’re living in an age where cutting-edge dentistry means a long swig of whisky and a short pair of pliers.
It’s faux Victoriana. It’s elegant smoking jackets and flounced petticoats rather than two quid jogging bottoms from Lidl. It’s manners and wit rather than trash-talking curses. It’s understanding and stripping and rebuilding your gadgets, rather than trading in yesterday’s iPhone for tomorrow’s Google Nexus One. It’s comfortable tweed and refined salons, rather than a punch-up in Cardiff City centre because you disrespected some moron by watching him vomit for two seconds too long.
That’s how you understand steampunk.
Steven Hunt, on Tor.com's blog
It seems readily obvious, to me, at least, that steampunk is indeed a pretend game that excises the bad from what we see as good through rosy-colored historically aimed glasses. And there's nothing wrong with that! But it occurs to me that we who like to play pretty pretend games have to acknowledge that we are doing so. I wonder about folks who take their role playing so seriously that they live their whole life that way...is it really a legitimate choice? Or is it a mental health problem and avoidance of things in their lives that they should be trying to deal with? Dunno. But if a person can keep a job, pay their bills, raise their kids and have social connections without needing to be herded about the asylum for their own good-- I figure they have a right to avoid the depressing real world if they wish.
But I do think they need to really see that this is a choice they are making.
Gizmodo has a sexy robot costume contest. What sort of wacky or nerdy or waaaay cool science fiction or fantasy costumes have you created? Do share, and I'll post them on the blahg if you link me to a picture. (Or email me as an attachment to writtenwyrdd AT live DOT com.)
Details:
There are only THREE DAYS left in Gizmodo's Sexy Robot Costume Contest! Can you do better than this cold piece of brass? Remember, instead of judging these for ourselves, we're leaving the voting up to YOU.
All entries to the contest are posted on our Facebook page, where readers (like you) can vote on their favorite robots by "liking" them. On October 27th, the most popular robot wins! So get your 'bot production into gear, or visit Facebook to vote on the hottest robots so far. Winner gets fame, glory and a pizza, delivered right to their doorstep! Will the marvels of the future never cease?
Standard contest rules apply. Voting ends in THREE DAYS, so get your entries in now to give your sexy robots the maximum amount of *eherm* exposure.
Send an email to Sam Julian, the author of this post, at sjulian@gizmodo.com.
Whirl is getting his prize (won in August) before the end of October, if the international mail is kind. Let's just hope he likes it! And I deliberately took a lousy picture of the final version. Sorry. I'm hoping to actually use it some day so I don't want it published as a finished article. But you can see the mostly finished version below. ;)
And now I'm going to sketch out air pirate outfits. Wearing not Victorian, but 18th century and Victorian cross consisting of frock coat, stomacher, bustled overskirt and who knows what all else. Not sure if she should have an eye patch or little glasses, or a top hat or a tricorn. Opinions? Suggestions?
Hey, gang, do you know what time it is? It's NaNoWriMo time!!! Or almost. Starting Nov. 1, it's National Novel Writing Month, that time of year when we dredge up some motivation and play along with millions of others, slapping rough drafts down on paper during the month of November. It's fun. Really. If you do join, make me your friend so we can annoy encourage each other. I'm wyrddsmith writtenwyrdd there. (Sorry for the error; I have a hard time not typing writtenwyrdd after using it so long.)
I'm going to have a blog page up for those of you who want to join in the fun with our own get togethers and check ins. Let me know if you are interested. I've already sent an email about virtual write ins in Nov. to those of you on my NaNo buddy list.
It's not that you have to NaNo, but it's fun to have a sense of community. That's what NaNo means to me.
Here we go again, part zillion of the endless series! I hope it's been informative for you writers, and that you find a lot of useful tidbits for your writing. Again, though, let me state I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say in this series is intended to be legal advice.
HANDCUFFS & RESTRAINTS.
As you will notice as you scroll down, the simple handcuff (about ten bucks a pair) is quite the useful tool for your police procedural's plot. I hope I've provided you with a plethora of stuff you can use to mark your characters as savvy, or not knowing what they are doing, or to provide pivotal points in your plots.
I have always wanted to make myself a costume, a full-fledged, historical to the nines and handmade costume. First, the desire was Rennaissance, with the removable jeweled sleeves, appropriate footwear, undergarments, the works.
Then my tastes turned Wiccan and Ren Faire, which lent me a bit of less than accurate leanings. And I seriously considered Elven styles after LOTR came out, lol.
But now it's steampunk and the cool look to be had there. And I think I may actually sit down and make a costume, bit by bit, just because I want to. It ought to be fun, as well as an excuse to avoid writing and to buy that dremel tool set and engraver I wanted.
I mean, Simplicity even makes patterns that you can pick up at Wally World that will give you enough to go on. I found a Sherlock Holmes over coat, a swallow tailed coat, corset, bloomers, gloves, bustled skirt, top hat, waistcoat and historic dress patterns that I can mix and match to use. Pretty darned cool.
And check out the jewelry on this site. I particularly like the Chthulu necklace.
In any case, I just need to find some cool boots, goggles, and other accoutrements. And develop a character idea so I can dress her up.
Why, you ask? Well, I might make it to a convention with a costumed ball some day. Yeah, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
What about you? What costume would you want to make should you make one? What have you already done? Any SCA folks with handmade chain mail or plate armour? Geeks with gadgets for Star Wars?
And a few interesting steampunk accessory and clothing sites. Goggles, spyglasses and compasses, oh my!
http://www.steampunkemporium.com/store/steam_accessories.php Lots of marvelous items to buy.
http://www.steampunkgoggles.org/ Lots of information on steampunk wear
Amazon also provides, for example, goggles: http://www.amazon.com/JABETC-Steampunk-Goggles/dp/B001Z0WGTC
GAslamp fantasy has a lot of great links here http://www.gaslampfantasy.com/
The steampunk forum at Brassgoggles.co.uk http://brassgoggles.co.uk/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ee9e648dcfe96419bcc7084ee388fd9c&
And another set of great links for steampunk fashion here, at Aether Emporium http://etheremporium.pbworks.com/Clothing-and-Costuming or at Mooky Chick http://www.mookychick.co.uk/style/steam_punk_style.php
Oh, and download a free copy of Steampunk's Guide To The Apocalypse here. And while you are at it, check out Steampunk Magazine.
We have a winner for the Carolyn Crane novel, Bethany C. Unfortunately, her post has no linked web site or email, so I hope she catches this announcement. Email me with your address and your choice of Double Cross or Mind Games and I'll forward your information to Carolyn.
In other news, NaNoWriMo is just around the corner. Do you NaNo? If so, let me know your handle on their site and I'll follow you as a buddy. If you want to follow my travails there, I am wyrddsmith.
I am doing art in my meager extra creative time, so I haven't been writing yet again. I think today will mark some work progress, though. I'm feeling the itch.
But I am also thinking I will reduce the number of posts on the blog to three per week, possibly four, and have regular Monday, Wednesday and Friday posts. I spend inordinate amounts of time writing posts and little to none writing prose, and that has to stop. It's not you, it's me, in other words.
I haven't made that decision yet, not consciously anyhow; but based upon my blogging history for the past few months, I can see that the enthusiasm is not there for constant posting.
Do you know why I think it's important to get a handle on using dialog as a plot tool, as a means of forwarding the plot? It's because we look at information that seems to be unusual or not expected in accordance with Chekov's "Gun Over The Mantle Rule." If something significant or seemingly out of context is mentioned, it is deemed important and will be used later on. (Possibly a learned expectation, because that's the convention we see over and over in our reading careers, but still a factor to consider.) At any rate, it's the same as when you leave clues in a mystery: readers see something seemingly innocuous but placed in the story in such a way as to appear important...because anything in the story is only there because the author (we assume) deems it important. And if it is not important, it's a red herring and needs to be addressed or it is a dangling plot thread.
So when you have characters notice something, or have them say something, or structure the dialog so the reader infers a meaning/problem/whatever that isn't already resolved-- like the gun on the mantlepiece, your reader will be expecting to see that element return and be wrapped up.
So you need to be wary of unintended implications or irrelevant mentions, too. Failure to do so will annoy your readers.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STRONG DIALOG
It's my observation that dialog is often underutilized as a writing tool. New writers in particular, if they aren't busy using too-literal and long-winded speeches, seem to rush through the talk to get to the action scene, or toss in a few words here or there because they know you have to have dialog. They just don't yet have a feel for what to do with it and for how dialog can function to serve the story.
In my observation, there are a few things that are commonly overlooked and which I don't usally see spelled out in articles about dialog:
Subtext. One of the places where I think many writers miss an opportunity is that their dialog lacks subtext. You can use dialog to imply deceipt, foreshadow, or other important things about the story or characters. (Particularly useful if you want to hint at an unreliable narrator.) And you can add a great richness to the reading experience by having layered meaning like this.
Implied subtext is the most difficult type of dialog to write because it's derived from how you say things instead of saying them directly; and the way it works, in part anyhow, is that your reader discovers what is important because of what the characters notice as well as by what they say. The subtlety of this is really fantastic to read when done well, and gives a lovely depth to dialog scenes. (That said, it's not just the actual dialog that accomplishes this, but also the tags, stage business, character thoughts and other details that are part of the scene.)
Using dialog as a plot tool. I really do think that dialog serves a much deeper role than we generally give it credit, at least when we first start out in our writing careers. One of the most underutilized means of using dialog, I find, is based on an overlooked opportunity. We can direct a reader's attention using dialog in a much more direct manner. It's a writer's only opportunity to directly tell a reader something without directly telling them.
An example would be that you obviate a bunch of stage business and move the story along by having your character say, "Johnny, put down that puppy and leave your daddy's razor alone!" instead of walk her through the noticing, the description of the scene with a half-shaved dog and the rest of the actual action. One line does it all, saving you effort and getting past a bit of business that you wanted in the story but which you don't need to dwell on. Because, as we all know, not all events have the same weight, and minor events, even when they are needed in the story, do not need to be given equal treatment. Less important = less page space allocated. So dialog is one graceful way of dealing with a scene in shorthand.
And you can reference past events and provide backstory or narrative in the same manner. This is also a form of subtext or implication, but the shade of meaning is different, because I'm talking about using dialog to direct the readers' attention. Basically, a character paying attention to something is a clue to readers that they should notice and pay attention to this thing, too.
Paraphrasing. A similar technique is the paraphrase, where your character tells us a summary of a conversation. Sometimes a telling detail is needed, but you really don't want to bore the reader with the whole scene or conversation. Or, you may have shown us what's being referred to already, but we need to know another character has been told, thus avoiding a plot hole. We don't need to hear the whole thing again. (There are many examples of this being done badly, so try to be creative and not write an actual summation. A reference to a summation having been given is likely better.)
This technique of paraphrasing is good for both a first person narrator or for a speaker in a conversation (who may or may not be the narrator), but only the latter is actual dialog.
Examples. Statements such as, "Long and short, Joe, we agreed to disagree," or "Well, I gave him what he wanted. Enough said, okay?" are both versions of paraphrasing. But you can see that one sums up a conversation (presumably with a mention as to what it was about coming earlier); and the second sentence is implication. In the second example, the reader is led to infer something about the person saying it, in this case presumably the person is annoyed at having to answer or doesn't want to discuss this point for some other reason. The circumstances the writer presents prior to or with the dialog should fill in the picture and have readers paying attention for further details regarding the matter referenced.
Which last basically points out that choice of details in your dialog make a critical difference in reader focus as well as understanding.
What do you think the important underlying functions of dialog are to a novel in terms of structure?
So, I should be mostly done by the end of the week. (Isn't the slow progress underwhelming?) But that's a couple of hours' work added since the last picture.
"I don’t want to actually confront anything, so make my horror victims special with real hopes and desires, make my monsters sweet yet horrible, and make the settings fun. And let me enjoy the confusion of my attraction to the revulsion I know I should be feeling." Catherine Olson
First, go to that blog post and comment for a chance to win a copy of Catherine Olson's newest book. Then read the article, which is fun and insightful.
There is something about angst and love/hate for a monster, isn't there? I think the first place I saw this was in Frankenstein. The monster's self-loathing is the purest version of the conundrum of love and hate and angst all bound together, because the monster was fighting this battle in his own heart and mind.
But we see that combination of hate and attraction and worry about that attraction in gothic novels; in Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre and romances without number; in Anne Rice's vampire novels, particularly Interview With A Vampire; and in many paranormal romances that are published today.
I think that Ms. Olson has a great point about being attracted to the revulsion or what is supposed to be revolting. Every teenage girl has to be familiar with the perversity that makes them want the bad boy despite knowing he IS bad, evil, dangerous, or otherwise Not What Her Parents Would Approve Of. It is a secret wish of little girls, to court the darkness inside, face the attractions of that darkness, revel in them, and know that they are being daring and avante garde-- but only when it really won't harm them because it's in a novel, right?
Of course, we do see the young girls chasing after the greasers, gang bangers, tough guys, rebel musicians, and other versions of bad boys who illustrate some trait of strength and/or power that is not according to mum and da's plans.
I think the sense of risk is a bit of the thrill, and the danger (which of course can't really be arriving on their doorstep from Mr. Vampire Boyfriend, right?) The monster love interest is profoundly titillating yet safe, as we can't really become involved with a vampire, a werewolf or a demon. We cannot possibly face that danger, so fantasizing about it, playing with that idea, is a way of reaching into that desire for risk and adrenaline-laced rush without actually succumbing to evil as it were.
Or something like that.
Personally, I just think vampires are sexy. heh. And, as Ms. Olson adds in the above-cited post
The truly frightening monsters are the ones we don’t see coming. They are hot and tell us stories of glory and friendship, while dropping bombshells of hints that they would kill us if they ever choose to. That monster could raise his hand to smash your face in, but you love him even more because he restrained himself. You know who you are- sicko. Man, I have to stop calling myself names.
It really is getting close to done.
Electric Spec emagazine has a recent post on their blog about dialog. I found it interesting, and it gave me some food for thought.
What is dialog? We all know that dialog is basically communication between characters. Most of us are also aware that dialog moves the plot along and provides characterization, motivation, or information. It breaks up narrative and can speed up pace and add a much needed dose of seeming reality to a story. But...have you considered dialog very much? Or studied where it can fail or further your story?
DIALOG PROBLEMS
Common problems. The biggest problems I've observed in things I've critiqued are
Dialog that's too literal. We have to write in a manner that feels realistic but actually isn't. Fictional dialog is not like real speech. Real-world dialog is cluttered with junk. It rambles and it makes no sense when used in writing because it's difficult to parse the meaning with all the extraneous verbiage ('How are you?" "Hi," "Bye," and other bits of language that we salt our speech with), and garbage sounds (um, oh, like, you know). Often actual conversation has more than one conversation going on, and people are constantly interrupting each other as well. You also can't translate non-verbal communication (body language/posture, gesture, tone of voice, facial expression) entirely, and must choose selected stage business, description, or dialog tags that serve that purpose instead.
In particular, new writers will begin a dialog as we would in real life. And it doesn't work to have a half page of "Hi, how are you?" "I'm fine, what are you doing?" et cetera. It's crap and doesn't belong, ever.
Speech that doesn't serve the story. Any scene you write, no matter if it's narrative, action, or dialog, needs to serve the story as a whole. It should further the plot, provide characterization, give important information or serve the story in some other manner. Preferably it serves two or even three functions at once. Unfortunately, interesting information isn't necessarily important information. If you can't state why the info needs to be in the story, that bit needs to go. (And this can also include extraneous verbiage like the previously mentioned meaningless pleasantries.)
References that are unclear or when readers are missing important information. We all know that conversations have layers of meaning. Often how something is said is more telling and truthful than what is said. And a writer has to portray this in a way that the reader follows. So it's imperative to consider dialog and attached details for their implications.
Often this is best done from the consideration of what does the reader already know? And, based on that knowledge, what do you want them to infer from your characters' dialog? If you are not precise enough in how you word the conversation, you will not be steering readers to the proper conclusion. And let me just say that, in my observation, the usual expectation of a writer is to give the readers too much credit and providing too few clues. (I suspect this is a case of knowing what you meant but not seeing it's not what you said.)
Let me say this again: Writers often assume the reader understands more than they do.
I'm a savvy reader, and if I can't figure out what you are talking about or I'm not comfortable with my assumption as to what you meant to imply, you really did not have enough information there. It's a fine line to walk between beating your readers over the head with too much information and painting a picture that doesn't need captions. Being pedantic and therefore obvious and heavy handed is just as bad as confusing readers. (Thus the value of beta readers, who can point these places out.)
A scene is especially vulnerable to confusion early on in a story, when the reader hasn't yet been introduced to all the issues or complications. As an example, I recently read something by a friend which was very good, if still rough. But on page four there was a conversation that confused me because I didn't know enough yet to understand the reference implied. I was left to guess which of two known issues were meant, but neither fit, so I was confused, irritated, and frustrated...and I focused a lot of my attention on figuring out what later details could have been meant! I had to read about thirty pages on before I knew what was being referred to on page four...and it turned out there were not one but two different things that were important to understanding that conversation!
Parallel conversations that create confusion as to meaning. Basically, having two topics at once = confusion. When done poorly, dialog makes the reader guess at your meaning, and readers hate that. Readers like to feel smart by reading between the lines of the dialog...but they must be right in their guessing or you make them unhappy because your writing was flawed and misled them to the wrong conclusion. They are also made unhappy by having to stop and puzzle out what you are saying. And it's worse when a reader hasn't got the information yet to understand what you are implying, yet knows you are implying something. (Frequently, this latter is by a vague and open-ended reference.) So (oxymoronically) you need to make your implications plain and unmistakeable...but not state them flat out.
It's possible to manage parallel dialog so you clearly have two conversations; but it's much easier to muck it up and give the reader crossed signals, especially if you create a parallel conversation unintentionally. An example is if you have one character, who is already mad at a friend, dealing with some other issue (in this case shipping a package.) So in the same sentence your character answers a question about where to ship a package with two different statements. "You know I hate it when you do that, leaving before we're finished. And I think that you should have sent this yesterday, when it wouldn't have to go overnight."
Okay, so we have two topics here: the reason for the anger and the package. We get that the speaker is peeved and that's carrying over to the dialog, but the first sentence obviously refers to something about which we have no knowledge, and the mention seems out of the blue if you have no background on the fight or their relationship except to tell me that Mr. POV is angry at Mr. Package (snicker). But we do get it that the first part is maybe referencing something besides the shipping of a package, which is halfway there. The writer just needs to get the rest of the situation to the reader before this sentence or needs to change the dialog to clarify. (And beyond the lack of background, the writing in the sentence is poorly structured anyhow, adding to the confusion.)
Unintended confusion like that makes the reader pause to consider what you're trying to say, pulls them from the story, annoys them, and makes them trust you less. And, most* of the time, it's better to rewrite the dialog than to leave that sort of double-meaning sentence in there. (*That would be about 99% of the time.)
So, you need to be careful that you either say one thing at a time or that you orchestrate the dialog to carry both topics without confusion.
There are a lot of ways to use dialog to your advantage, but its far easier to use dialog mechanically and with little thought to elegance. So, what I suggest is that you give an edit to your work and decide what your dialog can be used for, how it can be used to add depth to your writing.
What do you find are areas where novice writers or you personally have issues?
Tune in Wednesday for part two.
You have until tomorrow to comment here in order to win a copy of either Mind Games or Double Cross, part of Carolyn Crane's Disillusionist trilogy. Sometime tomorrow, Carolyn will be choosing a random commenter in the comments here.
In other news, I have today off. Assuming the recent scheduling holds true for the winter season, I will be getting a two-day weekend every third week, and only Sundays off otherwise. I can live with that.
Spent all my spare time today writing blog articles, but at least the 3k words on dialog are pretty good. Imagine if I'd spent 4 hours actually writing prose, huh?
I hate it when I think like that...
If you want to win a Kindle 3G, you can get a shot at one at Hadley Rille Books. Go here for more information. If you purchase books from them, you can get additional points as well.
I am not sure I actually want a Kindle (it's an Amazon product and they do tick me off in their draconian behavior and policies) but I do think an ebook is the way to go for someone who travels. Especially if I decide to snowbird in the winters after I retire. I won't be able to haul around the 1200 plus books I own in an rv! Nor can I schlep them from summer to winter quarters!
And a cool site, FCKH8. Watch the video, but be warned: it's not safe for work! If you are easily offended, religiously fundamentalist, or opposed to same sex marriage, ignore this link. But moi? I'm ordering the tee shirt.
So, anyhow, what am I up to? Not a whole lot as it turns out. I had a nasty cold last month that lingered until a week ago. Now my cat Molly has caught it, but it's only viral and she's sneezing a lot but not in respiratory distress, which would necessitate a "vacation" for her at the vet's. (Given the way she shredded Madre last week when she was taking Molly to the vet for her shots, necessitating a trip for Madre to the ER when her bitten hand got infected, I would have to make a more expensive emergency visit so I could handle the cat myself. I have no problem coralling a cat, but Madre is not a cat wrangler by any means.)
The writing avoidance. I'm also working on a hand pieced duvet cover that will be dog claw proof and protect the down comforters, as I plan on getting an English Setter pup, and it might be this December (only might; I prefer to wait a bit longer, but there are circumstances which might make me change my mind). I'm piecing high quality polar fleece via blanket stitch, as that looks nice and the seams will stick out, instead of them having to be double stitched with my crappy sewing machine so they lay flat. (Without looking, I bet you that 'lay' is incorrect. But I'm too lazy to go to my own blog post on that very topic!)
I also have been doing artwork that I owe Whirlochre for his prize in my blogoverssary contest in August (yes, I'm slow), so I've been working on that. I am not a particularly speedy worker when it comes to art or writing, you see. I think I like the process most, and I tend to be a perfectionist. Anyhow, it's coming along and a few days more should see that project complete and in the mail. (I hope!) You've seen the in progress shots of late. I might hate Painter 11 (so far) but Painter Essentials is pretty user friendly so I've gone back to using that for the moment, and it's really fun to do digital work.
And I just bought peel and stick tile for the kitchen, which I have to apply some time soon. And I have a vintage stainless double sink with drainboards on each side that has to go in to replace the current sink, which means a plumbing project as well as retiling the backsplash and counter this winter. (I'm saving at least $1200 by laying peel and stick tile, and if you saw my house, you would understand that my 1940s kitchen doesn't deserve a really nice floor. I refuse to dump even 10k for new stuff in that room when I'm retiring in 7 years. It works, after all.) So the kitchen is going to eat my one day off a week, pretty much all winter.
Then there's the fact that I'm on the Board of Trustees as secretary for the church. I have a bit of work in that, too. But it's worthwhile stuff, so I don't mind. And it really doesn't take much time once I get all the papers that haven't been organized organized, and scan all the historical documents. (Yeah. I know. But I'll get to that stuff later.)
The writing. With NaNoWriMo coming up next month, I'm thinking plot for a project. I'm forced to restart Another Shade of Pale, a military sf story that I really want to write. The initial plot elements are badly wrought, and I need to start from scratch. So perhaps NaNo will see me producing some writing at long last! (It's been 3 months, I confess.) Nothing actually written this month as I successfully avoid working on the thing I most want to do. *eye roll* How is it that making excuses to not do what you really want to do is so damned easy???
What about you? Are you derailing your writing successfully, or are you actually getting it done?
On-the-ground priorities post shootout.
One thing that people don't consider is what happens when there's been a shootout and an officer is down? What happens with a wounded subject or bystander? Do ambulances or fire trucks respond when they are in immanent danger? These are important factors, and understanding them can impart some interesting stuff to your story. The following is a basic run through of what happens if you have two cops, one of whom is shot and unconscious, the other okay.
First, the functioning cop ensures her own safety. The cop will check the scene for other shooters and call in the situation via radio if possible/still needed. If she is wounded, she will deal with her own wounds so that she won't die/pass out.
Second, the mobile/uninjured cop is going to ensure the threat is ended, e.g. the shooter is no longer a hazard. He immediately cuffs and searches the subject for weapons and secures the weapons. Important point: The subject is cuffed regardless of whether the cop believes the subject to be alive or dead. (The shooter might not be dead, or, despite injures, might be able to escape or cause further harm.) And it doesn't matter if the bad guy is dead or just wounded, whether you are cuffing a guy with a dislocated shoulder or bleeding gut...the cop doesn't have time to frig around with pulses and what not, he's got a partner who is bleeding to death, and a lot of craziness going on around her, right?
Third thing, the cop will attend to her partner before she applies first aid to the shooter. (Come on, let's get our priorities straight, the other guy was shooting at them, they aren't going to let their partner die because of sympathy for an attempted murderer. Of course, if the partner doesn't need immediate life-saving help, the cop attends to the shooter, see below.)
But how does the cop go about administering the first aid to the downed officer?
The priority for dealing with this is different than the public might think: Before administering first aid, the cop has to get her partner's gun and secure it. Why? Because the downed cop with a weapon is a potential hazard*. The last thing the downed cop will remember upon waking up is that he was shot, and he's likely to think anything around him is a threat. He may not be cognizant enough to know if he's shooting his own partner or a civilian, so you must disarm him before rendering any aid. So the cop goes up, talking to her partner, telling him it's her, they're okay, and when she's close enough she kicks the cop's gun away from his reach and secures it. What you need to take away from this is the knowledge that a cop has to consider weapons and safety issues before anything else. It sounds inhumane but it's one of the realities of the job. Similar things apply in combat. *Also because a loose gun is a gun that develops legs and walks away...possibly to be used against the cop who let it do so. Especially if the subject has pissed off friends in the vicinity.
Fourth thing, the cop triages first aid between bad guys and bystanders. If someone is injured but not in danger of bleeding to death, a cop might leave them for the ambulance. And if civilians can be ignored, the officer's primary responsibility is to render first aid to and continue to secure the shooter(s) until backup arrives.
Fifth thing, it's possible that if things haven't gone so badly, say the partner is just knocked out and no one is seriously injured or no shots are fired by the cop (or the subject wasn't badly wounded or wounded at all) and there is a squad car in which to stow the subject, the cop might begin securing the crime scene and gathering witnesses. However, let me just clarify: If shots are fired, it's not standard procedure for the cops involved to do any of the investigations, as the officers involved are going to be scrutinized and the powers that be (usually Internal Affairs (IA) will determine if it is a righteous shoot* or not. *That phrase is outdated, but I still like it. Old time fogey cops will trot out that kind of passe slang a lot.
This is all subject to change based on the variables of the situation, of course, but that's my version of the fairly standard model.
Mindset as it relates to survival.
Here's a little known fact: if you believe you have lost the gun fight, you are far more likely to die. In fact, if you get shot and think that you're gonna die because you got shot instead of getting pissed off about it and carrying on intent on winning...you are vastly increasing the chances that you will die even of a non-fatal wound. This is FACT. There have been people who shouldn't have died, civilians or LEOs, who died because they thought they were going to die...of flesh wounds that a pressure bandage could likely have staunched.
Another area where mindset is key is coaching the victim. If you are rendering first aid, DO NOT TALK NEGATIVELY AROUND THE VICTIM. They may be conscious enough to understand. If you tell them they are goners, they might die when they might have otherwise lived. The thing you ALWAYS tell an injured person, be it victim of an accident, shooting, what have you, is that it's going to be okay. I don't care if they are split in two pieces, you say that anyhow...because you aren't God and you can't say who will pull through and who won't.
And to back me up, there are documented cases where people actually die of minor wounds mostly (the investigators/ME determined) from believing they were going to die. I cannot find citations to link to for this stuff, but many years ago at Undisclosed Academy I had a lot of related information shared with me, including videos. Lesson: Giving up will kill you.
Do other emergency response crews have to attend an emergency if their lives are in danger?
Short answer, if it's the middle of a fire fight: No. If there is a gun battle, the fire dept., paramedics, ambulance crews do not have to enter the area. They can do no good if they are killed in the line of duty, and getting shot at is not a part of their job description. They didn't sign up for that responsibility or risk.
I think a lot of people base their expectations that fire/ambulance people should rush in "where angels fear to tread" on either a faulty understanding of what approach emergency responders take to emergencies and what the public wants, which is unfailing heroism as it pertains to themselves. (Nope, not cynical. Not me.) I call boo on people who assume others should risk dying for them, if it's the case.
See (and this is me speaking generally, which doesn't deal with lots of factors that could sway a decision) a firefighter will go into a burning building--if it's feasible, if he or she can survive. But if the roof is coming down, if the building is engulfed and there's no safe entry, or if other factors mean the firefighter who goes in there is likely committing suicide...they likely won't go. The unvarnished truth is that the policy default is to not go in, despite how awful the fire fighters may feel about it.
But if it isn't a fire fight: If you look at the heroism and self-sacrifice during the events of 9/11, for example, they illustrate how first responders risk themselves selflessly in emergencies where they can do the jobs they are trained for. Those firefighters, cops and others rose to the occasion knowing they were in serious danger, knowing the Towers might collapse on them. (It's enough to make me tear up thinking about it.) They went in to rescue citizens and their fellow first responders who were trapped and in danger. Had those folks known what would be the result of their efforts, I think they'd have made the same choice to go in and try to save people. Because that's what they do in crises like that. But you can see how it differs from a fire truck or ambulance driving into a gun battle, can't you?
GENERALITIES
Generalities that exist in the public mind set are often (IMO) unconscious assumptions that they will be rescued no matter the cost to others or the situation. The sad truth is that it is not the case. And the sad truth is that when crap hits the fan, officers and first responders have to make judgment calls that may be Monday Morning Quarterbacked and found wanting. So the aftermath of any high-profile or violent encounter can be that there is outcry, criticism or unfair expectations pasted on the officials involved regardless of fairness or the situation as it existed at the time of the incident.
That common problem of Monday Morning Quarterbacking can be quite useful in a novel.
Also, as a writer you can use the disconnect between the average citizen's expectations about LEOs and the pragmatism of reality. Likewise, you can use the negative expectations in areas where cops or other government agencies are sneered at, where cynicism rules--in poorer areas, gang-banger areas, or in areas where the city has failed to provide adequate coverage. The oppressed, the economically disadvantaged, the marginalized, the homeless, or the criminal element all commonly have grudges against the system, because they expect nothing from the system except, perhaps, grief. (As I am sure you know.)
Conflict is good in stories, so the disparate points of view post-incident can make for great plot points.
Seeing as lately I have nothing of note to mention (I haven't been reading or commenting on blogs either) here's the present state of the art project. I have to say it was quite a bit further along, but I had to close the file without saving due to a screw up on my part. So the two hours of work that had the left upper quadrant nearly completed are missing. *shrugs* Such is life. Good thing redoing a sketch isn't difficult!
Carolyn Crane, author of the Disillusionist series, book two of which (Double Cross) was just released, has graciously agreed to post a bit about her writing process for the series. I found Mind Games, the first book, to be a wonderful read. I was particularly impressed by the daring choice to make the protagonist have a serious mental illness, e.g. rampant hypochondria that was destroying her life.
Having had a grandmother with the disease, I know how messed up it can make someone's life.
At any rate, I'm looking forward to reading Double Cross.
And...if you want a shot at winning a copy of either of these books, leave a comment here on the blog. Further instructions at the bottom of the post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Random science and setting ingredients!
Hey everyone! So, I’ve been following Writtenwrydd forever, or at least since I entered blogland. I love all the cool factual and world building information here - mixed with the reading and life items of one Ms. D. Lynn Frazier. So, I’m so psyched to be here! Anyway, I thought I’d do a post on things from my real life that ended up in the world of the trilogy, mostly just inadvertently.
Brochures I was hired to write
As a freelance copywriter, I pay my bills by writing brochures and websites for companies, which leads me to learn a little bit about a lot of things - mobile clean rooms, shipping logistics, etc. A lot of that stuff shows up in my novels in a skewed way. For example, in Double Cross, book #2, there is this weapon this guy Avery invents. I won’t give plot stuff away, but the technology involves waves carrying information, and is tweaked off info I learned from writing this website about EMFs. For a different new series, I found myself building on things I learned about reflective technology. (Thanks 3M reflective vests brochure job!)
Fairytales where people are magically imprisoned
One of my favorite ever fairytale tropes is when somebody is magically imprisoned somewhere. Merlin, Rapunzel, ogres and various other characters, good or bad. I love imprisoned characters! In Mind Games, my tortured hero, Packard, is imprisoned for eternity in a Mongolian Restaurant in Midcity, but he makes use of his time recruiting messed up people to be on his psychological hit squad.
Most people think he’s the owner, and don’t realize the restaurant is his prison. His nemesis has power over force fields and has been stashing people all over town—coat check booths, gas stations, you name it. All three books have imprisoned characters, and they’re all up to something.
The most depressing book ever
I got the first spark of the idea for the disillusionists after reading Straw Dogs by John Gray, a hugely depressing sort of philosophical book that takes a SUPER dismal view of humanity. It made me feel really awful, and I thought, if I had an enemy, I would give them this book as a gift, so that they could feel as disillusioned as I did. Then I thought, what if there were people who disillusioned other people for money? Hey, that would make an interesting UF plot.
My friend who struggles with mental illness
So, the disillusionists are able to zing their darkness into victims - their emotions are weaponized, so to speak. The way it works comes partly from my experience with a friend who was slowly going insane—conspiracy theories, voices, the whole deal. It was really terrible, and sad. And whenever I’d hang out with him long enough, then afterwards, I’d feel a little crazy and wired, too, as if I’d soaked up his crazy energy. I remember when I first realized that this was happening, and it really surprised me that I’d feel so messed up after seeing him. That was the prototype of zinging.
I think it happens a lot, in negative as well as positive ways. You hang out with somebody who’s intensely angry or depressed or incredibly light and happy, and it greatly affects you.
Anthroposophical theories of Rudolf Steiner
Steiner was this thinker and scientist who lived in the early 1900s in Germany; his system of thought, Anthroposophy, spawned new techniques in farming, architecture, medicine education, and more. Some of his ideas were appropriated from Hinduism, like his one about humans being made of several bodies, only one physical. According to this theory, emotions live in this “Astral body” that pervades the physical body, but also extends out of it.
Ready made for urban fantasy technology! I tweaked it for my book. This multiple bodies thing is an instrumental part of my characters ability to zing dark emotions into their victims.
Genetics and stem cells
I like when paranormal things seem like they could happen, which is why I was attracted to a genetic explanation for characters’ strange powers. In the Disillusionists Trilogy, these genetic mutations endow some characters with extra brain capacity—these characters are highcaps. (Short for high-capacity brain.) Each highcap has a specific power.
The highcap gene is a kind of wild card, like a stem cell—it’s blank until it’s told what to do at a certain point during toddler-hood. A toddler who wants something from across the room ends up a telekinetic. A toddler who wonders what others are thinking ends up a telepath. And there are dream invaders, memory revisionists, you name it.
Childhood car rides in Chicago
When I was a little kid, I lived in Lombard, IL, which is a suburb of Chicago. My experience of the world was limited to family dogs and swing sets, except when we would go to Chicago. I loved how big and industrial it was, and the steely, rusty, underpasses, the decrepit buildings, the boarded-up storefronts. It struck me as a kind of enchanted forest. Midcity is really that Chicago of my childhood car rides, blended with Milwaukee, another place we rode to in the car. It has very little to do with the reality of Chicago.
Chicago’s Spaghetti Bowl interchange
There is this snarly highway interchange in the books, called “The Tangle” based on Chicago’s famed “Spaghetti Bowl.” This, too, comes from my experience as a kid, riding in the car with frantic mother driving. This thing seemed so wild and frightening and monstrous. In the book, there is a chance the genetic mutations don’t actually come from the river, like people assume, but from the Tanglelands (the strange no-man’s land under the Tangle.)
So! Some background stuff. And, there’s a contest! Leave a comment to win your choice of book #1 (Mind Games) or, if you’ve read it, then book #2 (Double Cross).
And again, D Lynn, thanks so much for having me!
Tomorrow, October 12th, I'll,be hosting author Carolyn Crane, whose new release, Double Cross, the second volume in the Dissilusionists series, is now on the shelves at a bookstore near you. There will also possibly be something in it for some lucky commenter...
Please help a fellow writer grow her audience and spread the word. Ms. Crane has a great thing going with this series.
Oh, and the picture? I just thought the clouds were pretty. I'm at the Dunkin Donuts drive through, getting my favorite coffee, extra large cinnamon with cream only. Mmmmmm.
Not bad, eh? I have to tweak the shading and color levels a bit so that things match, but that's pretty typical. I might have the thing done by Tuesday.
Click on the image to enlarge it and be sure to read the whole sign. (From a humorous--and possibly 'shopped-- email.)
I hope you find it interesting seeing the progress of the artwork. I spent about 4.5 hours working on the drawing. Not even halfway done. Pretty good stuff, though, I think. Much better than the colored pencil attempt. :)
This is digital work, starting from the sketch I scanned. Can you tell what part is "real" pencil and which is the digital? I did a pretty good job getting the look of pencil with the tablet, didn't I? Now just give me a few days to frig finish this one up...
I'm not sure if I want to crop the picture down or not, but if I do, it'll be a bit larger than this one so the image shows the hands and tail fully.
And, just so you know, this is about 2 hours of work, just doing the mouth and part of the head. I'm not particularly quick with the old artwork.
Well here we go again. More on police procedures. I hope this one is useful, but it's mostly information about what sort of means there are of doing research, training facilities, and information on credentials that I thought you might find useful. Just remember that I am not a lawyer. This is not intended as legal advice. And you need to do your research before you assume anything I say is on a stack of Bibles correct. I could be wrong. But I believe I have it pretty darn close.
Books you ought to have for reference.
A short but informative list:
Tactical Edge: Surviving High-Risk Patrol, by Charles Remsberg - If you can only get one reference book on police procedure, get this one. Seriously.
Under And Alone, by William Queen - seeing insider's pov of a DEA investigation.
Black Mass: The true story of an unholy alliance between the FBI and the Irish mob, by Dick Lehr and Gerard O'neill. Interesting look at how federal agencies can get their hands way too dirty under the influence of either too much focus on the goal rather than the means to it, e.g. forgetting the laws they are supposed to uphold.
And a maybe-have book: Running with the Devil: The true story of the ATF's infiltration of the Hell's Angels, by Kerrie Droban. I haven't yet read this but intend to, as it sounds particularly useful for a couple of projects I have in mind.
Credentials versus badges as proof of authority.
Here's the thing: an officer of the law has identification that states she is a LEO (law enforcement officer) and has authority to arrest. This, though, isn't the badge. The badge is not proof of identity nor authority-- the credentials are. Credentials are generally laminated plastic documents with holographs or other security measures like embossed seals. Those are what you see the cops on TV flash in that leather wallet along with the badge. They even spell out the individual's authorities and usually have pictures and badge numbers included.
Why ask for credentials?
Not every badge that's genuine looks it, and not every genuine badge is with its proper holder. An officer can lose a badge or credentials. Badges get lost or stolen in the line of duty. The pin can become loose or break during a scuffle and the badge falls off the officer's shirt; or someone can take the badge from an officer. The cop's home might get robbed. It's therefore possible lost or stolen badges can be used to dupe the public. So, if someone is suspicious and they know what they are talking about, they'd ask the officer to show their credentials.
And, no kidding, real badges can look like something you get for $.50 from a gumball machine. Even the gold-plated ones can look like junk. But the white metal ones in particular look fake. If you want to see how confusing the various badge permutations can be, how someone with a fake badge can dupe the public, check out this image result on Google for NYPD badges. And bear in mind that, without having a genuine one to compare to, it's pretty hard to know which is correct. Plus there are similar but different badges for different roles, like Chief, Special Investigator, Agent, Officer, Deputy, Sheriff, Detective, Office of Internal Affairs...any or all of these (and more) can have different badges within the same department.
(Oh, and don't get cute and try to take the credentials from the officer when she displays them. You think she is going to hand them to you to cuddle? Not a freaking chance!)
Jargon re badges and credentials. Some people call them "creds." I haven't heard it often, but I have heard it used instead of "credentials." "Shield" for "badge"? Dunno. Haven't heard it used myself except in books or on TV.
Training facilities.
One thing that cracks me up is the occasional assumption that all federal agents are trained at Quantico. Yes, that is a major training facility for the FBI, but it's not the only training location out there. Joint facilities for things such as basic investigations courses or pursuit/high speed driving courses (where you learn the PITT maneuver, etc.) are joint facilities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) is one such place. Quantico is another (but just for FBI and DEA, although there are some seminars and such for other agencies, I believe.) Below is an excerpt of the wikipedia article on this.
"Federal law enforcement training can be divided into various categories, the most common being basic, agency-specific basic (ASB), advanced/specialized, and agency-advanced/specialized. To operate safely and effectively, U.S. special agents and criminal investigators, must possess skills and knowledge regarding criminal and civil law and procedure, enforcement operations, physical techniques, and technical equipment, to mention a few. They must also be physically fit. While possession of a college degree can aid in obtaining employment in this profession, only extensive training provided at specialized facilities, combined with on-the-job training, can provide the skills and knowledge needed to perform the duties of a federal criminal investigator.
U.S. special agents and federal criminal investigators generally receive their basic training at one of two primary locations: the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), in Brunswick, Georgia, or the FBI or DEA training facilities based at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
Only DEA and FBI agents receive their basic training at Quantico. Because of their size and mission scope, the FBI and DEA operate completely self-contained academies that provide all levels of training to their agents. These academies make no distinction between basic and agency-specific basic training. New FBI and DEA agents train at their academies for approximately five months before they begin their first investigative assignment. Both agencies' academies also provide advanced training in various subjects to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In fact, the FBI's National Academy is perhaps the most prominently recognized federal supplemental training resource for non-federal and non-U.S. law enforcement personnel throughout the world.
The FLETC, commonly pronounced flet-see, is a consolidated training facility that provides economical basic training to U.S. special agents and other federal law enforcement personnel not employed by the FBI, DEA or U.S. Postal Inspector Service (USPIS). The FLETC also provides advanced and specialized training for most federal, state, local, and non-U.S. law enforcement agencies willing to share in the cost. The FLETC's basic training course for special agents, the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) lasts about 13 weeks, depending on changes to program content or holidays. Nevertheless CITP only represents the beginning or basic training received by U.S. special agents not employed by the FBI, DEA, or USPIS.
After completing the FLETC CITP, most agents immediately transition to training provided by their own agencies (hence the term agency-specific basic, or ASB), lasting another 2 to 16 weeks and sometimes longer, depending on the agency. Some smaller agencies, like the 64 Offices of Inspector General (OIGs), operate consolidated academies, such as the Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy (IGCIA), through which specialized but common ASB-type skills and knowledge are more economically taught. So agents employed by the OIGs first attend CITP, then attend the IGCIA's IG Investigator Training Program (IGITP), then attend their own agencies' ASB training after completing IGITP, receiving a total of up to 16 weeks or more of training before conducting their first investigation. Many of the agencies utilizing FLETC maintain their individual academies for providing ASB and agency-specific advanced training on the same grounds as FLETC and share use of the same facilities. Some agencies, such as the U.S. Department of State's Diplomatic Security Service and the U.S. Secret Service, conduct their ASB training in separate agency-owned and operated facilities."
Other agencies were traditionally given their basic law enforcement or agent training at the FLETC facility: F&W (Fish & Wildlife), BOP (Bureau of Prisons), Border Patrol, Customs and Immigration officers, etc. However, with the advent of major shake ups in federal agencies (the creation of Homeland Security in 2002 and the placement of Customs and Immigration in one agency [Customs & Border Protection] and Border Patrol separately under DHS) the training facilities and who is trained where have changed in the past decade. (Although FLETC is still a major training facility.) It would behoove you to do some research as to who studies what where before making statements in your writing.
Wikipedia has a number of articles you can access via their Law Enforcement Portal here.
TV terms vs reality.
Can I just say that, although I cannot swear definitively that these terms aren't used by LEOs here and there, I personally haven't heard anyone not in a TV show, book, or movie use the terms "perp," "unsub," "cop shop" for the station, or "vic" for victim. Not as general, everyday jargon. And another term I've rarely heard is "perpetrator," although in my experience that one's pretty uncommon.
In the real world, the typical terms for the bad guy are "subject," "individual," "individual in question," or "person of interest." Generally, it's "subject." And I've never heard anyone say "vic," just "victim". Sometimes you also hear "complainant" for the person who made a call to the police. And that, peeps, is my experience in the 'real world' talking. Your mileage will vary on this, I'm sure. [And let me just add that there's no real harm in using jargon that isn't in use in the real world. But if you are trying to make it look like your story is set in the real world instead of writing a paranormal urban fantasy? I'd consider being as accurate to life as possible.]
However, that said, I am sure that too much TV has affected the jargon of various departments. I recall lingo from Hill Street Blues entering our chatter when I was an MP in the Army, for example. (Do chime in if you have similar experiences and have different terms you've heard, especially the ones popularized by television.)
The FBI as a resource.
Going to the FBI website is very user friendly. And you can find out some of what they do for other agencies when you go to their lab web home.
For example, they have a Trace Evidence Unit. The TEU has staff who are physical scientists, geologists, and forensic examiners. The unit "maintains reference collections of human and animal hair, natural and man-made textile fibers, fabrics, feathers and wood."
The CIA as a resource.
First off, do not forget the ever-useful CIA Factbook, which maintains all sorts of useful data on countries around the globe. The CIA as a source of law enforcement databases or assistance is not going to apply to the general run of officers and certainly not a detective in a local police department. It would be for those who likely work (high up, I'm presuming) in intelligence and have a need to know, security clearance, and who meet certain additional criteria I'm not aware of, lol. Seriously, we are talking about national security, and that ups the ante for the access rights. The CIA does have some information on what they do here, however. Nothing very useful, but as writers using a blank-faced agency, we can pretty much do what we want and cite "black budget operations," right?
The Department of Defense as a resource.
Like the CIA, the DoD is not particularly user friendly regarding any enquiries. Civilians can request info under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) but they do not generally release information to the public in any fashion, even law enforcement agencies, without need to know or when arm-twisted with FOIA. The DoD sites are varied, as well. Where are their law enforcement or intel databases? I would suspect the military records, including medical and personnel records of active duty members, are held in a common database for those not active duty; and the individual departments of Navy, Army and Air Force have their own records for their active duty members. But it's also possible that these active duty files are held jointly in DoD somewhere, or possibly with the USDA, which manages the payroll for most if not all Federal agencies.
DoD law enforcement databases are a big question mark. I was unable to find a definitive answer on whether the DoD or the various military agencies have separate databases for their criminal investigations, and, if so, any rules or regs for civilian or federal law enforcement agency access. (When I was an MP, I wrote a lot of reports, but we only used paper copies back in the early 80s. I have no idea what computer records were available back then, and I never accessed NCIC or anything like that, which was the realm of the CID gang (Criminal Investigation Division.)
Interpol or other foreign agencies as a resource.
I gather there is some cooperation between intelligence agencies--even between the notoriously adversarial CIA and FBI!--especially in light of 9/11. However, you may safely assume that no LEO in the US is going to have access to foreign agency computers or systems, although they might have limited access to certain databases (Interpol.)
Now, I can envision circumstances where limited systems access might be given to officials/investigators of other governments by our agencies or the other way round... But the intelligence field is not my area of expertise, so can only guess that, if there were some kind of cooperative venture in the works, there might be access afforded to the individuals who needed it...and only with heavy watchdogging and limited in scope. (And I presume that no one who's ever been involved with such a task force would ever kiss and tell, either, so I don't think we can do more than give our best guess! But, in this case, I doubt anyone is going to doubt you if you the author say these things are going on. Just make it sound plausible.)
Paper records-- the old way is still often the simplest and best way.
One of the simplest means by which an agency can share information is via paper records. First, they can control access to their records with complete surety that way. Second, they can excise things that are deemed classified or otherwise inappropriate. Third, it can be a lot simpler and faster to fax, mail, or courier copies of a file or database than to get someone in another district or agency access to troll about the system. Fourth, why provide access to your databases (takes time, costs manhours from the computer dept, and etc.) when someone who already has access can do a quick search, make a print out, and fax the stuff to the agency who's asking? (Besides, this sort of interpersonal assistance builds contacts and gets a lot more info than you'd imagine. See the grapevine entry below.)
Say you are trying to determine if a person in custody is the subject of a warrant elsewhere. You might need to get records from the issuing agency and verify that it's the same person. Or you might have to send them prints and/or pictures so they can verify against their files. An emailed scan or a fax of the prints might be the quickest way to prove the subject is the wrong guy so he won't have to sit there for several hours feeling picked on. (I've seen it.)
So don't make the mistake of thinking that paper records are bad or outdated. Sometimes paper is the most efficient means of dealing with something.
Then there's the grapevine.
Talking to fellow officers can also get you great information, much of it not available in databases or files. Things besides what can be put in the records. Things like their hunches: what they suspected but couldn't prove. Possibly useful bits of insight you wouldn't get any other way! And talking to a cop who has dealt with a particular individual or relevant case might get you info from his or her notes (that may not have been admissable or relevant in court previously but might be useful to your investigation.) Or you can get the unpublished details of an unsolved/ongoing case to compare with something you are investigating.
WRAPPING IT UP
There's no way I can cover everything, but I hope that the information I have included gives some aid in your writing. You should have some idea about the ways and means of researching information, enough to add some realistic, throw-away details. With a bit more effort and thought, you could also create plot points or sticking points for your characters. The main thing is to understand there is no universal database, and there are a variety of reasons that some information might not have made it into NCIC or other databases. The limits of the law, the limits of the databases that feed the federal system, the age of records, or the lack of manpower or funds to fully digitize information.
I hope this helps you think about research the way an investigator might. Happy writing!
So how many of you are doing NaNoWriMo this November? I am, and, as I've mentioned before, you can tag me as a buddy under wyrddsmith there.
I've been considering what project to work on for this NaNo, and I think I'll go back to the same project as last year, the military sf Another Shade of Pale. I have to revise the plot, though, so I think I'll be working on that as a run up to the NaNo event. There's a lot of stuff I wrote for that story (originally intended as a novella) and I have a definite direction and cast of characters...but I recognize that the beginning is All Wrong. I have to revise and streamline the plot elements I've got and add some more things to fix the problems.
It's becoming obvious that by starting the story with a combat patrol, I am showing my lack of actual real world experience doing combat patrol. My only experience taking point in a "combat" situation was in hawaii, during a Green Harvest where me and el doggo were in the lead, looking for people and trip wires leading to a paramilitary group's marijuana fields. That was certainly nerve wracking, but it doesn't lend itself as well to a true rendition of how a squad of soldiers goes about an urban patrol or handles an assault.
It's a good thing my work partner is a retired and combat experienced Army vet. And two of his boys are veterans of Iraq and Afganistan. And then there's my ex, who is also a retired Army vet with a lot of combat experience. (Yes, odd as it may seem to many, we stay in touch.) At any rate, I have plenty of brains to pick about military procedures, for which I'm very grateful. :)
This is a prime example as to how knowing people can be useful.
This is unfortunately what I deem a fail. I got a little crazy with the colors and now I have to begin all over. An interesting experiment, though. I've got the bristol board, pen and ink all ready for another go round. Eventually I'll end up with something I like. That's what sketching is all about!
I'm reminded this morning by the dearth of posts for the blahg that sometimes you just feel like a dry old well full of old leaves, muck and other detritus. Where does the imagination go sometimes? Does it take a vacation, or is it just being drowned out by the buzz of your circling hive-full of stinging, waspy, every day thoughts?
I woke up this morning with thoughts and the tag ends of dreams galloping about my brain, feeling scattered and unsettled and very, very ungrounded. I can feel the need for some centering and meditation and wish quite badly that I did not have to be at work. Part of the problem is that I didn't sleep well because I drank 16oz cup of coffee between 8 and 9pm, which was really stupid; but it's also a lack of previously-mentioned centering and grounding.
But (getting to what the real point of the post is) I got thinking about writing and how the fluttery-bird thoughts can be used to write. Or, rather, how one can harness those thoughts and get them to work together and become words on paper.
And the answer is free writing. Free writing is all you need. Just start writing, whatever you want to write, your thoughts, an image, a bit of dialog... You will find your mind dropping into that writing place in short order. And the more you practice writing like this, the faster it will occur.
What do you do to get into the writing mind?
The Register reported a while back that they've found a possibly habitable planet about 20 light years away...which, in galactic terms, is next door practically.
October is here now and I find I haven't written a lick during the month of September. Honestly, that's got to be a record for me. I at least dink around with something I'd started a while back. But, nope, this past month I've not even typed a word on a project except for blogging.
Now that NaNoWriMo is starting again next month, I hope it will help me regain my writing focus. Of course, I have to finish a couple of art projects and get some stuff done around the house before the snow flies. That will be a priority because of impending snow, of course. Might derail myself yet again. Bleh.
Autumn is here in full force, though. We had that rainstorm with 50mph winds so there are a lot of leaves down now, but the colors are more beautiful for the damp and grey skies. And even though the colors aren't as brilliant as they can be, it's pretty darned gorgeous.
Oh, on an aside, we have an archeological dig nearby that is really, really exciting. But I can't talk about it yet.
I am taking my sweet time with this one...not that I am that quick in the first place. It's just that I am not sitting down to work more than an hout or two at a time.
I've rambled on about how cops think, some evidence collection points, who can do the investigations, and such. But what I find lacking in a lot of stories or TV shows is an understanding of how the search for information works. Just where do cops go for information on their suspects? And if it's out of their district/jurisdiction, how do they find information?
In this age of the internet, people expect to find everything via computer. Well, not everything is online, gang. And just because some people can access some of it, not every cop can access all of it.
That is a very important point.
Again, my codicil: I'm not a lawyer, and you shouldn't take anything I say here as gospel or legal advice. These are just a few thoughts that are intended to help writers to write more effectively when dealing with police procedural matters in their work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Databases, or Finding the Bad Guy with the click of a mouse.
Okay, if you have any computer savvy at all, you are bound to know that all of us are in some databases which can upchuck lots of information on us as individuals. Credit checks, SSN, and even a whitepages.com search can, scarily enough, find and reveal all kinds of things about you, your life, your spending and possibly make you susceptible to identity theft. Also, your DMV records and criminal history can be found by any cop who pulls you over, should he run a check.
So, some of your information is available to any cop who has a reason to pull you over (it's called probable cause). However, these sorts of records are (generally) not evidence that ties you to, say, a murder scene, or even everything in every system in the nation. Those are the sorts of databases that may be crucial to an investigation.
Flaws in the system.
As a writer, you need to know some things that limit the usefulness of databases:
1) Just because a person's information is in one database does NOT mean that it's accessible via NCIC or any other federal/state/local database. (It would be nice, but you can't just assume this is the case, cuz it's not.)
2) Not all databases are even computerized or complete. The thing a cop has to realize and inquire about when searching any agency's databases (including their own) is whether an agency's records are all in their digital database. There may be fingerprint cards from decades past which, for lack of real need, are not digitized. Perhaps the only digital fingerprint records are from the time they installed the digital print readers. Same thing with DNA, blood type or other information. The old low tech records are still valid tools, but the cost in time and money to get everything into a database is prohibitive and most/many agencies do not (or cannot, due to cost) do so. Old records may be in the system for arrests, traffic tickets* or DMV data; but it's also possible that, unless a person is rearrested, their old data may never be entered into a database...and sometimes not even then, perhaps only if the arresting agency can find the paper record or is the owner of said records.
In short, presuming that a database you can access has every datum available is what you might liken to fishing with a torn net. NOTE: In the vast majority of cases, you wouldn't need to go back very far and old records are not likely to be a big issue. But it's important to be aware they might be relevant.
*As an example, when I was a police dispatcher, the project of entering all the old traffic tickets into the computer was in progress. They didn't go back further than (I think) five years. s
3) Not all databases have the same data fields. Even if you can access their data, they may not have digitized fingerprint cards or DNA results, or possibly other pertinent information. A cop might have to call and ask, send comparison prints to that location for comparison against the original. (See later posts on this topic for discussion about DNA databases.)
4) No program exists that can compile all databases together (unless the government has a super secret thing going on). For one thing, the programs vary, and it takes special software for one program to talk to the other, most of the time. Additionally, secure portals or limited physical locations in which to access certain databases can be in effect. This is for security. The federal systems have the best access to other systems because of the "tit for tat" effect (the Feds have the most data, so everyone sets themselves up so they can access that national data in return for sharing their local data). But the feds can't for example just cruise through Interpol's databases without cause, and they have limitations on acces to their own data. (See below.)
Additionally, there are limits to sharing of information and records even between federal agencies. (See below.)
5) Access to databases is not automatic. Few people who haven't dealt with federal law enforcement databases are aware of this, but not all federal records are openly shared between agencies. Some databases (NLETS, NCIC) are accessible to subscribing agencies 24/7/365.
Some agencies can access another's databases depending on the requesting officer/official/ or agency's need to know and clearance level. But the information cannot leave that agency for a third agency (e.g. FBI sharing CIA data with Dept. of Army) without authorization of the initial owner of the record. Confused? I thought so. But that is the way it works. In effect, the system is like handling any form of classified data. If you have ever held a clearance in the military or civilian employ, you've been exposed to the thinking process. In the interest of security, the owner of the records is entitled to say who/what can have access to that record in the database.
Why the limits? You have to consider the safeguarding of information. If everyone had access to everything, a lot of intelligence or cases could be compromised. Just because cops are honest doesn't mean they don't get curious, or think they are entitled to know something they aren't. And if they know something, if it becomes general knowledge, someone will let slip a tidbit, someone else will let slip something else...and soon an enquiring mind can net the entire story. Recall the old WWII slogan: Loose lips sink ships? Yeah. That's why access is controlled.
A plot hole/problem you might consider relating to this access and need-to-know issue is that many agencies have tracker programs that allow them to determine who accessed what via keystroke logging programs. It's illegal to troll through someone's records without a need to know, e.g. probable cause is present right then, or it's part of an investigation. (Check state/local laws.) This means the old book trick of "my friend the cop checking out that license plate for me" isn't that simple any longer. And it's definitely not legal.
6) Data access for civilians. For civilians, the means for obtaining copies of information in federal law enforcement databases (or records in general) is via the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA is both a boon and major stumbling block to civilian inquiries. A boon because it provides access; a bane because it's an arduous and lengthy haul. Don't expect to be getting anything in less than weeks, and open your wallet! It will cost the individual who requests the data an amount undetermined until the documents are gathered. (As I understand it, they charge you for the pages they find pertinent to your request, and you won't know how much there will be or how useful it will be until you get it. Some things that are classified are blacked out, and that can be many pages of the documents you receive. Nevertheless, they bill you for each page they copy, even if the entire page is blacked out....something you see in UFO reality TV shows, lol.)
7) Sometimes there are duplicate records that occur naturally. In other words, you can get a zillion hits on a particular name and dob combination. Conversely, you might have a difficult time clearing some folks off the list if the suspect has a common name. Joe Green can net you fifteen "hits" with the same dob. Perhaps they are some of them of a different race; but if there isn't something that disqualifies a person from your search, you may not be able to determine which Joe Green is being referred to without more information. So know that close matches can come up and require investigation to dismiss them.
8) Coding errors. If someone entered the data incorrectly (or if all the records related to a case have the wrong dob--date of birth--or name spelling due to officer or clerical error) the right guy may be overlooked because a search will not turn up the relevant person.
9) Not all names are equal. Another area where problems can occur are people with names that aren't as cut and dried as the WASPy names we expect to see, such as Hispanic names where a person may have seven names and go by Hernandez-Cortez one minute, then either Hernandez or Cortez the next. Or women who don't use their husband's last name. Or those who sometimes hyphenate and sometimes don't. Or people who always go by their middle names or a nickname that has nothing to do with their official birth name. Or people who have changed their names legally. Or people who have legally changed their sex! Then there are Asian names--particularly Chinese-- in all their confusing variety, because in the US most of us can't decide which is the first or last name, and if you aren't familiar with the language, you won't be able to tell. And on some records the last name is correctly (for our standards) listed last, but on others the last name is first. (Speaking of my personal experience, in processing hundreds of visas when I worked for an immigration attorney, it was often difficult to decide which name went where without assistance.)
10) Military records. Existing databases for military service members, past and present, are often shown to be accessible from any police computer. Nope. Doesn't work that way. I'm not aware of any local agency being able to access this information directly. Additionally, there was a huge fire in 1973 that destroyed a lot of military records. So a lot of older records are lost. Newer military files do include DNA as well as blood type and other medical info...and this is encoded onto the new digitized id cards, too. The records are protected by the Federal Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. (Oh, and under the possibly-useful-tidbit title, let me mention that military service or military i.d. is NOT proof of citizenship. The cards don't even show citizenship, and a lot of people obtain residency status and eventually citizenship eligibility via service in the US military. I've seen that one get misused on TV, too.)
11) Medical records. Medical records are subject to a variety of protections--the newish HIPPA law for one thing, has strict limitations as to what PHI (personal health information) can be released to law enforcement. As an example, during my recent hospital stay I was reminded that the medical staff doesn't have the right to know if a patient is HIV positive as it's a violation of the patient's right to privacy. (This issue has gone back and forth over the years and varies state to state as well, but so far as I can tell the HIPPA law trumps that arguing and makes such information private and that's that.)
12) Limitations of the law. Various Statutes, both State, Federal, and Local, determine the length certain information is kept in a system. You may be aware that juvenile records are generally (but not always) expunged when the juvenile reaches their majority. Also, some jobs (teachers, jobs that require a bond) require fingerprinting for background checks, and those prints are not retained. (Yet you see references to someone having had a background check in Law & Order and other TV shows. Wrong!!!)
13) Default limitations of the general information search. Most systems, to save time and computer resources, will have a limited search as the basic default. Not the entire country. So, depending on the agency and area, a default standard query is likely to be, at most, your state and the surrounding ones. If on a traffic stop the person's drivers license is for NY when you are in CA, then the search will be entered for CA driving records as well, netting that state's information in addition to or instead of the default search settings, depending on how the query is entered.
What you should know is that, unless other or more complex searches are requested, it is unlikely you will receive an automatic driving record query for the entire country with a routine query.
Additionally, NLETS and NCIC may be part of a standard query in a given system, or it might have to be done separately or selected as part of the standard query. It depends upon how the department's software or any automated search functions are set up. (See this document for some examples of how it can work.)
For writers, I think the important thing to know are a few of the database acronyms and the idea that not all checks are equal. You can fudge the details in your story and sound like you know what you are doing without having to be terribly precise.
14) Other records. I am sure there are other examples I've failed to consider, but here are a couple that might come up for you: Student information can only be released under certain circumstances; and that of public officials has limitations to protect their privacy. Note that the links are for specific state laws, which should serve to remind you to research the laws of the state in which you are operating if you are writing about a local law enforcement issue. Federal has limitations as well.
Various databases and resources you may hear reference to.
While not a definitive list, here are a few resources that might be useful to be aware of when writing your crime story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So the TV trope that implies if you are in one database you are findable in every database is a myth. Just because you give California's DMV your finger print to apply for a drivers license doesn't mean even that state's law enforcement can access your information. There are a couple of issues at work here. First, the right to privacy and the need to know. If you are not being arrested, your fingerprints shouldn't be released for law enforcement databases, because you have done nothing which automatically entitles them to that information. (But there are laws out there which may give wider authority to obtain and add fingerprint and DNA information to local databases; the rules are subject to change. It is quite possible just being a person of interest could place you into a database in some areas. For example, if a warrant was issued that forces you to provide DNA or fingerprints, that may be entered into a database...or it might not, depending on the status of the legal decisionmaking at the time, because this is a hot button issue and the courts are still debating!)
Generally, though, once you are booked, your fingerprints are justifiably available to law enforcement, at least in that district where you were booked. And once you are actually convicted, your fingerprints and, quite possibly, your DNA, will be placed into the law enforcement database (usually CoDIS for the DNA adn IAFIS for fingerprints). As a rule of thumb, though, bear in mind that the federal databases tend to have greater yield. Meaning Federal databases have uploaded data from state and local agencies, because it's in the best interest of these smaller agencies to add to the federal database. But you can't just assume the Federal records are all inclusive.
That said, there is a hell of a lot of information available out there. When I learned NCIC in the 80s, it was the kludgiest DOS-based program you have ever seen. Now I understand it's more or less Windows based. Likewise, many State agencies and departments are linked up regionally and some are linked nation wide. You need to research this, but know that there does not and never has existed a universal database of bad guys, and especially there's never been the mythical Database Of Everything About Everybody. (God forbid it ever occurs, too.)
A great site for research is the National Archives on line. Also, some info on forensic databases.
I'm a writer of science fiction & fantasy who dreams of the day she can run screaming to the bank with the advance check for the next Great American Novel.
Recent Comments