Tonight I finished watching LIFE, a two-season television show starring Damian Lewis on NBC. It was cancelled, but somehow that seems to happen a lot with some of my favorite shows.

I can tell you why it was cancelled. 1) There was little action for a police drama. 2) It was too different (for a police drama) for network audiences (I suspect if it was on the WB of FOX it wouldn’t have been cancelled.) 3) It was subtle.

The premise of LIFE is simple, but don’t let the simplicity of a good log line fool you into thinking it was a simple show. A cop goes to prison for 12 years for a crime he didn’t commit. When exonerated, he’s given $50 million in restitution–and his job back.

Intrigued? I was, thanks to Toni who clued me into this series a few weeks ago.

When most people think of police drama, they think Law & Order. Hill Street Blues. CSI. They expect highs and lows, gun fights and car chases and clear good guys and bad guys. Viewer expectations in television are as important as reader expectations in genre fiction. LIFE was different, and because it was network television–the big guys–they didn’t quite know how to do different. But it’s not really their fault, it’s (again) viewer expectation: network television + crime drama = action.

What makes LIFE a brilliant show is, in fact, it’s subtly. Dialogue is crucial, but even more important than the dialogue is the actors themselves–how they react to what is laid out before them. How they see it, how they think about it, how they work through the puzzle.

I’d never seen Damian Lewis act before, but he was perfectly cast as Charlie Crews. While most viewers might expect him to turn violent when he confronts the men who framed him, his internal battle is clearly shown in his expression. Not all actors could pull this off. But the writers and creators are as much to credit with this as the actors. When Charlie crosses the line, what would be unacceptable is now acceptable. We are with him, we understand him, even when he doesn’t talk his trauma to death. The subtly of action–and the clues that the still waters run very deep (pardon the cliche)–makes the show a bit too “smart” for the casual viewer.

I’m not saying that television viewers aren’t smart–believe me, I’m a tv addict. I love good television. I have multiple shows going on now–HEROES, FRINGE (which I suspect will be cancelled), L&O SVU, CASTLE, SUPERNATURAL, and my daughters and I are half-way through season 4 of BUFFY. But for a mass audience, there is a certain formula for success. High stakes. Action. Love. Betrayal. Hate. Irony. Puzzles. While LIFE had a crime that was investigated and solved in every episode, it also had an overarching plot that was threaded through every episode. If you didn’t watch it from the beginning, you might be lost.

Consider THE X-FILES (Fox) and SUPERNATURAL (WB) and BUFFY (WB). All three shows have “stand alone” episodes, and their over-arching storyline is easy to understand even if you missed a few. (SUPERNATURAL seasons 4 and 5 went away from that–they are hard to follow if you haven’t been there from at least the beginning of season 4, maybe 3, but they still have the stand-alones.) But . . . they were all on “off” networks. Networks who could survive with smaller audiences–niche audiences.

Ok, going back to the show. All the characters were strong, but LIFE was Charlie Crews. Donald Maass says in FIRE IN FICTION:

“An aura of greatness comes foremost not from who a given character may be, but from the profound impact that character has on others.”

When I think about why Charlie Crews was such a great character, I could focus on the details of the characterization–his love of fruit (he couldn’t eat fresh fruit in prison.) How he would use his siren and authority to pull over his ex-wife’s new husband (she thought he was guilty, divorced him and remarried.) His affinity for Zen philosophy or his odd comments that have us tilted our head quizzically just like his partner, Dani Reese (who represents us, the viewer, the outsider, in so many ways.)

But Charlie wasn’t a great character because of his idiosyncrasies. He wasn’t a great character by the characterization–the combination of writing and acting. He was a great character because of how HE impacted those around him.

A catalyst is: “a person or thing that causes a change.”

Technically, a catalyst is something that causes a change that is in and of itself not affected. But I like this definition from the online Free Dictionary:

“A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process.”

Putting the chemical relationship aside, consider your hero (in this case Charlie Crews) as a catalyst. To be a true hero, they must increase the action/reaction/stakes but not be consumed–diminished–or destroyed in the process. They must create something better than themselves to be a hero. Solve a crime without becoming a criminal. Save a life without taking another. Save the world without dying themselves.

A true catalyst changes those around them. They become better–bigger–happier–than they were before they met the catalyst. Every person Charlie Crews came in contact with was changed . . . even while Charlie remained the same. The major characters–his partner, his captain, his former partner, his former prison-mates–were of course impacted and became better people because of how Charlie interacted with their lives. But even the minor characters–the crime survivors, for example–were better off because of something that Charlie gave of himself to them–that didn’t change Charlie himself. And I think that’s so important in fiction.

Characters must have an impact on the world around them. They don’t live in a bubble. Every action has a reaction; every choice has consequences.

Toni emailed me last week and said she’d just finished watching the Season Two finale (and the end of the series) and wanted to talk about it with me. Now I know why. It was truly the single best ending to a series I’ve seen. Everything came full-circle. We had the answers, but nothing was laid out on a silver platter. We did have to work for it. And Charlie changed in some ways, but he was never consumed or diminished by the process. He could have been–he should have been–but he was a hero.

This is one series I’ll be watching again, from the beginning.

If you want to talk about LIFE, I’m game! Or if you have another larger than life character from books or television or movies that may be overlooked as a pitch-perfect character, tell us who and why.

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

1  1  2  3

Last year it was Cherry Adair. We were both at the Emerald City Writers conference and she told me about this new show called FRINGE and I absolutely had to watch it. Those of you who know Cherry understand that excuses are not accepted, so she really didn’t pay attention when I explained I didn’t have time to add a new show on my watch list. And I was admittedly intrigued by the concept. It took me awhile to buy it on iTunes. Half the season was over. I thought, okay just one episode.

Now I’m waiting weekly for the new episode. Rumors of it being cancelled because of low ratings has me panicking.

Then it was Anna Stewart, my friend and president of the Sacramento Valley Rose chapter of RWA. This time it was CASTLE. (Anna also turned me onto VERONICA MARS but I started watching it after knowing it was canceled so I went in knowing there were only three seasons.) At the same time Anna recommended CASTLE, our Toni said I had to watch it. In fact, there was a buzz among the writing community because Rick Castle is a writer on perpetual ride-along with a NY City detective.

Initially, I enjoyed the premise and since I love Nathan Fillion (the idiot Hollywood move to in canceling FIREFLY is second only to the idiot move of canceling VERONICA MARS) I had to watch. But they lost me after five or six episodes for many of the reasons former cop Lee Lofland mentions on his humorous and stinging blog. But my mom said season two was really good, so I caved and bought it, and she was right–it was much better than season one. There are still many problems with the stories, but for me it’s a guilty pleasure. I mean, Nathan Fillion! And I love his relationship with his daughter.

Well, blame Toni this time. She emailed me a week or so ago about a canceled show called LIFE. Two seasons, that’s it. Not too much of an investment in time. On her recommendation, I downloaded season one.

One week later I had finished watching all eleven season one episodes and downloaded season two.

(Damn you Toni!)

Among my other current favorite shows are HEROES, SUPERNATURAL and LAW & ORDER SVU. I have the first episodes downloaded for WHITE COLLAR, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, and THE PRISONER to see if these are shows I would like . . . but I hesitate to start watching them. I’m also intrigued by THE GOOD WIFE. I loved the defense attorney show MURDER ONE (again, canceled after two seasons–a total shame) and have been waiting for another good one, and THE GOOD WIFE has an intriguing premise (wife of corrupt and adulterous politician who goes to prison and she has to reclaim her life for her children by going back to her former career as a defense attorney at a prestigious firm.)

I was thinking about why these shows all intrigue me. CASTLE with it’s bad police procedure and FRINGE with it’s oddities. HEROES has had some ups and downs–but mostly ups.

It comes down to one thing. I could say the cool premises, but those are just hooks. A cool premise is nothing without a good story to back it up. I could say the actors–I mean Nathan Fillion and Joshua Jackson and Milo Ventimiglia and Jared Padalecki! What’s not to like? I would be close. I could say the writers–and I would be closer. The writers of the shows I’ve mentioned are truly talented–the stories are by and large compelling.

But the single common denominator in all these shows is Character.

The talent of the actors plays a role as does the skill of the writers and creativity of the story creators. But all that together combines to give me the one thing I have to have when I invest time in a television series.

Good characters.

The movie AVATAR confirmed this truth for me. AVATAR had a cool premise, absolutely incredible CGI, fantastic music, and some good actors. I did appreciate the movie for the visual and auditory theater. The world building was fantastic. But–and this is a big BUT–the characters were weak. Sure, there were a few other irritating aspects–like with THE DARK KNIGHT, I was intensely frustrated during the last 25 minutes when the writers felt the need to beat the moral of the movie over my head. I got it already. I’m not an idiot. I suspect that SUBTLE is not in any of the writer’s vocabulary. But the single greatest problem with the move was with character. Every damn one of them a stereotype. The tortured hero (literally–he had no use of his legs); the villain, a military commander who promised surgery if the hero helped feed information back about the Navi (the native people)–a villain who was so rotten to the core that he became comic. The brainless soldiers just following orders–like NO ONE questioned the guy? At the climax I would have been much more satisfied if half the soldiers (all American soldiers) turned on their obviously insane commander and refused to follow orders of annihilating an entire race of people. Seriously, if the guy was charismatic or had a soft side or gave a compelling argument as to why they needed the minerals under the Navi’s home tree, then I could understand EVERYONE following him. But it was all “we have to kill them because they’re like animals.” Pul-eeze. More stereotypes? The noble, smart, tough scientist. (Played by the very talented Sigourney Weaver.) The tough female pilot who is the ONLY ONE who seems to have a brain questions the morality of genocide. And then there’s the Navi themselves–the heroine, who’s the daughter of the head chief of the tribe. The warrior she’s supposed to marry (but of course she falls for the hero.) The shaman character (the heroine’s mother.) There was not one character that wasn’t a two-dimensional stereotype.

It was after seeing AVATAR on Saturday that I realized what I need in every show I watch–at the movies or on television. Characters. Real characters, people who I believe exist. In film this means a symbiotic relationship between the writer, the actor, and the director. All needs to come together to create someone I believe could exist. Rick Castle–he’s real to me. While I need to suspend disbelief on the premise of the show, he makes it easier for me to do just that. I mean, what if Lee Child wanted to play ride-a-long with NYPD? I can totally picture it

HEROES is another fantastic example of over-the-top but real characters. Peter Petrelli is the “hero” of the show (in my mind)–he’s the moral core. He has flaws, namely acting without thinking, but he always acts for the right reasons (as he knows them.) He makes mistakes, but at his core he is a good person. Everyone else is on the scale of good to bad, but I can see why they do what they do. Their goals, motivations, and conflicts are REAL. I believe them. Even with all the over-the-top scenarios and the fantastical elements, at the core the show is about how ordinary people deal with extraordinary talents.

LIFE, my newest “acquisition,” seems to be low budget and other than the premise (cop goes to prison for 12 years for a crime he didn’t commit–he’s released with a huge multi-million dollar settlement–yet goes back to work. A great twist on THE FUGITIVE.) But the character of Charlie Crews is so compelling. He’s so controlled, due to his years of reading and listening to zen tapes. He is quirky–his obsession with fruit, his huge house without furniture, his odd comments–and you wonder how he could be so calm after spending 12 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Then he does something spontaneous–but totally in character–like tossing the zen tape out of the window of his fast-moving car. He’s walking a fine line as he breaks laws and rules to find out the truth about who framed him and why. The other characters are good as well, though perhaps a little on the stereotypical side. Charlie Crews (Damian Lewis) carries the show. His partner is also good. I thought she was going to be a stereotype, but over the first season she grew into something more.

Characters become friends . . . and enemies. We become attached to them, we care about them. We love them, we hate them, we bite our nails because of them. But we CARE. We want the bad guys to get what’s coming to them, we want the good guys to win, we want justice for victims and hope for the future. And we want that because we care about the people involved. And in fiction? That means character.

Who are some of your new favorite characters?

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

1  1

It’s the last day of November. Can you believe it? Sometimes I look back on the year and think it flew by. Other times, I think of certain events and it feels like they happened ages ago.

Still, it’s definitely feeling like winter to me. It’s 52 degrees outside. The heater is on and I’m bundled up in bed with my netbook. The Christmas tree is up, the lights are lit on the house, and the stockings are hung from the fireplace mantel. I haven’t bought a single present yet, but I’m looking forward to the wrapping when the time comes.

As the year ends, so does (do?) some of my favorite television shows. Sons of Anarchy only has one episode left before it goes on hiatus after a truly phenomenal sophomore season. Katie Sagal continues to blow me away in her role as Gemma Teller Morrow. Charlie Hunnam is bad boy-licious; he makes a girl want to do bad things. Ron Perlman is brilliant, as he is in everything he does. The storyline for this season broke all the characters (and therefore the club) into tiny pieces, then somehow managed to pull them all back together even stronger than they were before. It was a no holds barred ride that for many shows would have been final-season worthy. For SOA, it’s only the beginning. I can’t wait to see what happens next, and I hate that I have to wait until next year to find out.

Another of my beloved shows, Dexter, is two episodes away from the close of the season. I really enjoyed this year’s storyline. John Lithgow rocked the house as the Trinity Killer. Quinn’s animosity toward Dexter heated up. I wonder if he’ll catch on to Dexter’s Dark Passenger like Stokes did. I’ve adored Dexter Morgan from the first, but this year, he really won me. He grew as a character by leaps and bounds. He’s always had moments of dark humor, but they seemed much more evident this year. He came to some deep revelations about himself, which was fascinating to watch. I’m going to miss Dex. September is so far away…

At least The Tudors will be returning in the spring. It’s just too bad there has to be a gap in between.

How about you? Which shows are you sad to see go on hiatus? Which shows are you looking forward to picking back up again?

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

3  1

Our MSW sister Toni told me I HAD to watch CASTLE, so I bought it on iTunes and watched the first five episodes in two nights. As far as I know, there’s only 10 . . . I don’t know when, or if, there will be more. Matt from TV Guide says it will be back . . . but ABC has yet to announce it officially.

No major spoilers, but some general commentary.

CASTLE has a great premise and strong acting. I adore Nathan Fillion (Malcolm in FIREFLY, a brilliant show that was killed by the station that moved time slots around and showed the shows out of order.) I think the actress who plays Kate Beckett is good, and I really like the supporting cast, especially Castle’s daughter.

The show in a nutshell: Successful crime fiction author helps detective solve cases in NYC.

As a writer, I find the show’s writers have done a wonderful job getting into the mindset of a crime writer. I really enjoy Rick Castle’s humor, the way he looks at the crime scene, the way he takes parts of his books. “Like in XYZ, the killer did 123.” Kate Beckett, a fan, is more serious and resents being forced to let Castle tag along—think a more hands-on ride along program They don’t ridicule writers, yet expertly showcase their foibles and fears and frustrations. As well as the hard work that goes into writing the books. (Though I think Castle must be a night owl since he’s hanging with Kate during the day . . . )

I can buy into the premise very easily, and am willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the banter between the two protagonists. I like the characters very much and think that the show could be terrific.

But there are a few problems that I hope the writers will address if the show returns next season.

1) Humor. I love the humor. I think it’s strong. But when I watched the five minute intro to the show–sort of a pre-show–and they hit me over the head with the fact that it wasn’t going to be a dark program, that it was light and humorous while dealing with some darker aspects–but it’s not dark, no, it’s funny! Think Moonlighting. Maybe I went into it skeptical–but I think they are trying so hard to keep it light that’s it’s almost become a cozy. A little darkness is good. I’m not opposed to cozies, but the premise and the subjects of the episodes I’ve watched aren’t really cozy set-ups. Keep the humor by all means, I love the chemistry between Kate and Rick, but don’t after-school-special the conflict.

2) Plot. I hesitate to mention this, but after five episodes I’ve discovered the formula and I am banging my head. There’s a crime. They have a lead. They pursue it, confident they’re right. They’re wrong. They ponder. Rick has an idea based on one of his books. They pursue it, confident they’re right. He oversteps. They’re wrong. They ponder. Kate has a lead based on evidence. They pursue it, confident they have the killer. They’re wrong. They ponder. Rick uses psychology to figure out what’s what, Kate’s skeptical, but pursues it, and voila, case is solved.

Okay, maybe I’m simplifying it, but I have the sensation that everyone is moving in one direction–the same direction–and then as lemmings do, following en masse off the cliff. Whoops, that didn’t work, let’s do something else. En masse they go in another direction. Charge! Sometimes, they all just seem dumb as far as crime solving is concerned. Maybe I’ve just watched too much Law & Order, but I just don’t get the feeling that I’m dealing with super smart people. Fun, yes. Funny, yes. Interesting, yes. I just hope as the show grows into maturity, that the stories themselves don’t follow the same format.

So while I’m having some trouble with CASTLE, I’m sticking with it for at least one more season if it returns (it’s apparently on the bubble.) I’d love to see Castle at the ITW conference this July where there’s a murder and he’s one of the suspects . . . Just this once, I’d love to be a script writer.

Where I have unwatched episodes of CASTLE on my Apple TV, I don’t have unwatched episodes of FRINGE. Why? Because as soon as I started watching it, I was hooked. I have to know what happens. The show is smart, savvy, with great acting, strong characters, and a fantastic conspiracy plot. Think: CSI meets the X-Files. It’s already been renewed. No surprise there. It’s officially my second favorite show, and my favorite since season one of HEROES . . . I have the same strong feeling of anticipation and have to watch as I did then. (My favorite show is SUPERNATURAL . . . but I can write 10,000 words on that show, so I’ll save it for later.)

What is FRINGE doing right?

First, Joshua Jackson. Need I say more? My only quibble . . . give him more screen time. Please.

Okay, seriously:

To like FRINGE you have to buy into the premise of “fringe science”–ideas that are theoretically (cough-cough) possible in science, like telepathy, time travel, telekinesis and teleportation. And like the X-FILES, there’s an over-arcing conspiracy plot that is unraveling slowly, taking the characters in new directions so you never quite know what to expect. But, also like the X-FILES, there are “stand alone” shows that, while they may loosely connect to the over-arcing storyline, they “stand alone.” This helps if you miss an episode or have a bad memory

CHARACTERS: I was skeptical about Agent Olivia Dunham. I really didn’t want to like her. I’m picky about my female characters, maybe too picky. But by episode two, I was hooked on her. She’s smart and strong without being masculine and bitchy. She’s pretty without being drop-dead gorgeous. She’s resourceful without being a superhero. She’s driven without being obsessed. What’s not to love? She was betrayed at the beginning of the season . . . or was she? She’s the best female law enforcement character since Dana Scully and Olivia Benson. The show did something smart right off the bat–they gave her a family. True, a sister and young niece, but it helps soften her enough so that she’s not obsessed.

Walter Bishop, brilliant scientist, is both a driving force of the show as well as comic relief (especially him and his son Peter Bishop, aka Joshua Jackson.) Walter isn’t all right in his mind and quite eccentric, but he also has secrets . . . which makes him even more intriguing. How much is an act and how much is him? What does he really know? And Peter also has secrets–there are people who want him dead. But he’s also very smart intellectually, as well as street smart–so Olivia, the trained agent, doesn’t emasculate him. (I don’t think anyone can emasculate him . . . )

Yeah, yeah, yeah, get on with it.

The secondary characters all have a part to play–they are pivotal. They aren’t just window dressing. There’s a purpose and they may only be on the show for a short time, but you know that they are not window dressing. They are all deeply developed, from Olivia’s friend and second-in-command of the fringe science department, Charlie to Astrid, an agent who assists Walter to Nina Sharp, the gatekeeper of Massive Dynamics. Everyone has secrets, everyone has allies and enemies, and Olivia is “us” — she’s the constant. We might know a little more than her in some areas, but not much, only enough to know that she’s important to certain people . . . but why?

Hand-in-hand with great characters is great acting. The show was smooth and polished from the first episode.

STORY: They said that “character is story” and that is always true, but more important is how the characters react to conflict. Unexplained paranormal phenomena is always an allure, but more than that is how the situation drives the characters into both external and internal discoveries. So not only is the crime solved (or explained, or not solved, or partly solved), it has a lasting effect. It’s like each episode is building a foundation, and you just know that the next stone is going to make it even better.

I have not been disappointed.

I think the reason this show draws me is not just that it’s original–or rather an original treatment of common themes–but that it’s intelligent. It doesn’t overexplain. The characters are growing, and you can see the hero’s journey unfold, particularly with Olivia Dunham. All the classic archetypes are present–the mentor, the trickster, the gatekeeper. She has allies and enemies, and sometimes her enemies are her allies and vice-versa. There is a classic story element laid over the new and original contemporary science fiction storyline. It’s like season one of HEROES is that way.

Maybe that’s my problem with CASTLE. The character growth from episode to episode is practically the same. It’s the coolness of the plot twists and the dialogue that makes the show. With FRINGE, it’s that everything that happens has an impact on the characters, and that impact is taken into the future. It creates a sense of forward motion, impending doom, all leading to a final confrontation that Olivia and the others have been unknowingly preparing for.

On a personal note, I finished CUTTING EDGE over the weekend and have started writing the first book of the Seven Deadly Sins series. We’re talking titles now . . . I can’t wait to share when they’re settled. Toni helped me work out some hiccups in my premise, and I think I’m good to go. I have 80 pages written from long ago, but they need major editing. Tuesday night I wrote the prologue, which takes place during and immediately after the fire at the end of “Deliver Us From Evil” in the anthology I share with Rocki and Karin, WHAT YOU CAN’T SEE. And, before I blog here again in two weeks, FATAL SECRETS will be out! Yes, it’s on sale on May 19! RT Book Reviews gave it a Top Pick: “A master of suspense, Brennan does another outstanding job uniting horrifying action, procedural drama and the birth of a romance — a prime example of why she’s tops in the genre. “ And my mom just finished it and told me she really liked it, and she doesn’t lie Oh, and watch for the July issue of RT Book Reviews . . . I’m on the cover (gulp) and Brenda Novak interviewed me for the article. But even more fun, I wrote an article about Brenda, myself, Anna Stewart and Regan Taylor visiting the morgue . . . and the fun that ensued! We took pictures and more . . . I don’t know what’s going to make it in the article, but I really had fun writing it.

So what’s new with you? Read any good books lately? Watch any good shows? Seen any good movies? Anyone looking forward to the Star Trek movie coming out . . . when? This weekend? Next? And . . . today is my son’s birthday! Brennan #3 is EIGHT YEARS OLD. I’m having TEN little boys over at the house on Saturday . . . yep, I’m feeling every one of my nearly forty years . . . .

OH!!!! And before I forget . . . check out Brenda’s Diabetes Auction. I know many of the MSW gals donated items to the auction, and some of us are bidding (and losing!!! damn! gotta go back in . . . ) I donated a Crime Fiction Readers basket that includes all eight finalists for Best Romantic Suspense in the Ritas, and the 10 finalists for Best Novel and Best First Novel of the Thriller awards, plus many more goodies including my books, my favorite season of CSI and more. AND I donated a Crime Fiction Writers basket with my favorite research books, writing books, and . . . a 50-page critique. Shoot me now. I just had one of those moments. Believe me, they are rare. But it’s for a good cause!

Now I’m really going . . .

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

1  1

I used to be addicted to television.

From the time I was little, I knew the television line-up seven days a week. As I grew up, I planned my life around my favorite TV shows. Whether it was Little House on the Prairie early Sunday night or, Hills Street Blues Wednesdays at 10 (past my bedtime, but I convinced my mother I HAD to watch it,) or CSI on Thursdays, I had to be there. In fact, I didn’t have a VCR until I was married.

So when I gave up television for three years, it was a huge sacrifice.

If I hadn’t, I would never have finished a book.

I made that realization when, in 2002, I decided I had to get serious about my writing. I had over one hundred beginnings and no endings and I knew that if I didn’t finish a book, I would never be published. I wanted to be an author. It had been my dream since I was little, and I had a lot of misconceptions on how to get there. (For example, I thought that the hardest part to getting published would be FINISHING a book. Pause. Okay, stop laughing. Seriously.)

At the time, I had three kids, a full-time job, and very little time. The only way I’d finish a book was to write in the evenings when the kids went to bed. (ASIDE: I started writing early in the morning because my son, then 10 months old, was a great sleeper, but used to wake up at four-thirty every morning for a bottle, then go back to sleep. I started the habit of making coffee and having two hours of peace and quiet–there’s nothing like the quiet before dawn–and I wrote, even after he stopped waking at four. But when I got pregnant with Brennan #4 that summer, I was too tired and it was easier to tack on an hour in the evenings than it was to get up at four in the morning.)

The only way I could write in the evenings was to give up television. I’ll admit, the only show I still watched was CSI on Thursdays. I know, I know, it’s not accurate but I didn’t watch it for the forensics, I watched it for the stories. It got dumb, but the season with the dollhouse killer was, I think, the best season of all. I watched it on my iPod.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

For three years, I watched a very rare hour or two of television each week during prime time. Most of the tv I watched were true crime shows and re-runs of Law & Order (which I had never seen before) late at night while I was trying to wind down from my evening cups of coffee (and often proofreading contest entries or one of my many WIPs.)

Once I sold, I had deadlines and so using my evening hours to write was even more critical than before. It wasn’t until I quit my job in early 2005 that I considered watching television again.

The problem? I hated it.

I couldn’t stand the commercials. I couldn’t sit still for an hour (this has always been a problem–it is a very, very rare show where I am so riveted that all I’m doing is watching television. I used to read while watching tv, edit, shell pistachios, etc.) I was bored. I contend that there were two reasons for this. First, giving up tv for three years showed me how stupid most of the shows were; and second, the tv shows were, in fact, inferior for several years in the early to mid 2000s.

So while I no longer had a personal ban on television, I didn’t start watching it again. Instead, I bought seasons of shows on DVD to reward myself for meeting certain goals. This was also a nod to my husband who felt that I had neglected him by not watching television while he fell asleep on the couch.

This is how I watched LOST (seasons one and two–yes, I’m behind); DEADWOOD (seasons one and half of two–yes, I’m behind); FIREFLY (great show, a tragedy it was cancelled) and PRISON BREAK (season one–yes, well, you get it.)

In May of 2007 I bought the 5th generation iPod. I don’t know what they call it now, but it was the first you could watch videos on. I got the 80 gb–the biggest at the time. (It was a present to myself for hitting the NYT list–it’s important to reward yourself!) I bought it primarily to watch season two of SUPERNATURAL, but I also bought season one of HEROES and the dollhouse season of CSI, plus whatever the current L&O: SVU was that year. (ASIDE: The reason I wasn’t watching season two of SUPERNATURAL with my daughters was because I still had to write at night–but I’d bought season one on DVD and we watched it together and I was hooked.)

The quality is fantastic, I love earbuds because the story is right there in your head, and because there are no commercials, every episode is 40-48 minutes long. Perfect to watch in bed before drifting off, or while you’re getting a pedicure, or on a plane.

I once again realized how much I despise watching television live when NBC and Apple couldn’t come to an agreement over the price of HEROES Season Two. I had to watch the show when it aired. (Yes, I could tape it . . . but that’s another story.) I hate being chained to my television (remarkable, considering my past); I hated the commercials; I hated that I couldn’t pause; and I hated that I couldn’t bring the show with me.

That was the last time I’ve watched television that wasn’t on my iPod, through my AppleTV, or recorded on my satellite digital system (which we had to get when we moved to the country.)

I was recently looking through the shows I’ve bought on iTunes to decide what to watch next. I’ve hesitated to start Season Three of HEROES because the second season disappointed me. (There were three reasons for this: first, the beginning of season two was convoluted, though after episode four it picked up; second, I HATED Maya. Hate hate hate hate hate. When I head through a spoiler that a hero was going to die, I prayed it would be her. Believe me, I was PISSED OFF that the whiny idiot survived;) and three, I wasn’t confident that they would be able to recapture the magic of season one. I LOVED this show. It’s perfect in virtually every way and every writer on the planet should watch the first season. I will watch season three . . . but it’ll probably be this summer.

L&O SVU–believe it or not, I watched four episodes while wrapping Christmas presents on Christmas Eve. It’s as good as it ever was.

And of course SUPERNATURAL–I watch that with my two teen-age daughters. It’s one of the best shows out there, and exactly what I love about suspense. But . . . I could write an entire blog about this show, so I’m going to hold off my reasoning for another blog.

I discovered a new show this year. FRINGE. Thank you (and curse you!) Cherry Adair for telling me I HAD to see it.

Synopsis from FOX:

With Marine Corps experience and an impressive dossier of solved cases, Special Agent Olivia Dunham was a rising star in the FBI. But now, horrified by the tragedy of Flight 627 and stunned by the betrayal of someone she trusted, Olivia can no longer return to the world of traditional criminal investigations. As she delves ever deeper into the dangerous world of fringe science, Olivia comes to realize that science and technology have already advanced beyond our dreams… and nightmares.

Chosen by Homeland Security Agent Phillip Broyles, Olivia has assembled a task force to investigate The Pattern – a mysterious sequence of unexplained phenomena suggestive of someone or something performing experiments on the world. With the help of mad genius Walter Bishop and his estranged son Peter, she aims to bring high-tech criminals to justice, while defusing previously unimaginable threats to national security.

FRINGE is everything I love in a television series. The premise is essentially the X-Files meets CSI (surprise–two of my favorite shows. The original CSI, not the two spin-offs.) An FBI Agent working for a semi-secret elite FBI group investigating strange events and deaths works with a strange, brilliant scientist fresh out of a mental institution and his son, the GORGEOUS Joshua Jackson, who is brilliant in his own right, gorgeous, and his father’s legal guardian. Where Walter goes, so does Peter. Peter is played by Joshua Jackson. Who’s hot, as my daughter would say. (Actually, she probably wouldn’t say it about him because he’s a bit older than she likes–she thinks Jensen Ackles from SUPERNATURAL is hot. I, personally, am a Sam girl . . . but I digress.)

What appeals to me about FRINGE is that it gives me first and foremost great characters. I wasn’t 100% certain I’d like Anna Torv to carry the role of Agent Olivia Dunham–I’m very, very picky about my female leads. They can make (Kate, LOST; Scully, X-FILES) or break (I hate being critical, so I won’t say anything here) a show. But wow, by episode three I was right there with her. She hasn’t done too many TSTL moves, she’s smart, methodical, passionate, but serious. I love her. And Peter

But the other thing FRINGE has going for it is story. STORY!!! Like the X-Files, and SUPERNATURAL, it has two threads. There is an over-arcing storyline ( What is the Pattern?) about how all these “fringe science” events are connected and why; but there are also distinctly separate episodes which may or may not be connected to the pattern or the continuing story thread.

And, of course, it’s a twist on what’s popular–unique, but the same. (Hmm, the same but different?) It’s original, but blends the elements of what we loved about the X-FILES (the unknown, the truth, the unexplainable) and CSI (science, the explainable) with the #1 requirement of all series: characters we can root for.

There’s another thing I’ve noticed about my favorite television shows. Other than the great characters and the over-arcing plot–along with enough stand-alone episodes that you don’t feel like if you miss something you’re completely lost–is that they have a strong cast. WHO plays the part is as important as the character themselves. The actor becomes the character, which is what–as an author–I try to do when I’m writing. Whether there’s an ensemble cast (FIREFLY, LOST, DEADWOOD, HEROES, CSI) or a strong, smaller core cast (FRINGE, SUPERNATURAL, X-FILES), the most important thing is that I can lose myself in the story because the actors are so in tune with the character they play. And that is the key of a good novel as well: you want your reader to lose themselves in the characters you create on the page. You, the author, are the actor, using the printed page instead of the visual screen.

I’m hooked. I’m also scared. I fear what happened to HEROES in Season Two may happen to my new favorite show (after SUPERNATURAL.) And there’s a limit on how far you can extend a storyline. The creator of SUPERNATURAL said he had a five season story arc. Knowing the show as well as I do, I’d say that’s perfect. Too much, and you kill it (X-FILES, MASH, BUFFY) and too few and you ache for more (FIREFLY, MURDER ONE.) And then, of course, are the shows that start fantastic and get dumb (ALIAS). (I swear, when Sydney slept with her reporter friend, I wanted to shoot her. It killed the show for me. Sark, on the other hand, was a great love-to-hate bad guy. I miss him.)

I said at the beginning, I used to be addicted to television. In all honesty, I’m addicted to stories. Stories connect us, they fuel our imaginations–even those of us who aren’t creative or storytellers–they speak to common joys and fears. Great stories are universal. And, after thousands of years, they are never going away. They may change mediums–oral, written, visual–but stories are the foundation of human existence. Without stories, society would wither. Fortunately, we crave stories, and as long as we crave them, they’ll be created.

So I have lots of questions today! First, what’s your new greatest find on television? Sell me on why I should buy it on iTunes or DVD.

And who below would you want to be stranded on a deserted island with? (Yes, I know, these aren’t all the hot guys on television today, but sometimes, you just have to limit yourself searching for pics on the Internet when you’re on deadline . . . )

In order: Nathan Fillion (FIREFLY); Jared Padalecki (SUPERNATURAL); Jensen Ackles (SUPERNATURAL; David Anders (ALIAS; HEROES); Milo Ventimiglia (HEROES); Joshua Jackson (FRINGE, DAWSON’S CREEK); David Duchovny (X-FILES)

And take a peak at my new book trailer, if you’re so inclined . . .

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

1  1

Let’s talk about some of the 2009 films! There is a whole slate of interesting, unusual, thought-provoking, and action-adventure movies releasing this year. I’m really only going to mention the action-adventure movies, because those are my faves in film fare. Give me a great blow ‘em up action movie over any other and I’m happy.

But first… I completely spaced on my post today. I’m so sorry.

February has been a crazy, crazy month for me. It started out with two crash schedule deadlines, two sets of galleys, and, about a week ago, I received copy edits. Today, in the last week of the month, I’m down to one crash deadline and the wrapping up of a set of galleys. It’s been nuts. It’s 9 PM here in California and I just woke up from a four hour nap. (can you call them naps when they’re that long?)

I totally spaced on the Oscars, too. I only realized I’d missed them when the 11 o’clock news came on last night and they talked about the winners. Was very happy to see Heath Ledger win. His performance as the Joker blew me away. I FORGOT it was Heath playing the part while watching it. He seriously became someone else for me.

So… 2009 Movies!!

On my list so far are –

Race to Witch Mountain (the Rock. Yum.)
Watchmen
The Wolf Man
Night at the Museum 2 (my kids love the first one)
Fast and Furious (Vin Diesel is back — ’bout time — along with the rest of the original cast.)
Spy Hunter (if the Rock is in it, must see it.)
G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, jr. and Jude Law as the detective and his sidekick)
2012 (Mayan prophecy and an all-star stellar cast)
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Colin Farrel, and Jude Law playing the same role)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Terminator Salvation (love this franchise)
Avatar (James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver)
Angels & Demons (Tom Hanks. Love him)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Hugh Jackman *drool*)
Star Trek (prequel with young actors in the familiar roles)
Public Enemies (Christian Bale and Johnny Depp. Yummy)
The Taking of Pelham 123 (Travolta, Gandolfini, Denzel)

Other notable releases –

The Surrogates (Bruce Willis science fiction flick)
Nottingham (Russell Crowe playing both Hood and Nottingham)
Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino and an all-star cast)

What did I miss? What are you looking forward to seeing at the box office this year? Were you in agreement with the winners of the Oscars this year?

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

1  1

Yesterday was Brennan #2′s 12th birthday. Like I do for the older kids, I took her from school at lunch time for three hours of alone time–lunch and a movie. She wanted to see PROM NIGHT. (Warning: SPOILERS Ahead.)

Based on the synopsis, I wanted to see this movie as well. My older daughter saw it with her friends, so it was just #2 and me. Literally. One thing about going to a movie that’s been out awhile, in the middle of a school day, is that NO ONE ELSE was in the theater. Which can be fun.

The movie started promising. Three years ago, Donna, a high school freshman, was the target of an obsessed stalker. The backstory itself–which was handled very well in the movie–is the most interesting part of the show, and unfortunately only took the first 10 minutes or so of the film. Donna’s stalker was one of her high school teachers. He became obsessed with her, followed her, wasn’t very subtle about it, and was removed by the school board. He then continued to stalk and harass her. They got a restraining order against him. He then killed her family trying to find her–she was under the bed watching while he strangled her mother, who lied to protect her daughter.

The murders were told in a dream/flashback that seemed real and appropriate to the story to convey a lot of information in a scary and powerful way. The history of the stalker was told by the detective who had worked the case to a new detective who hadn’t been around three years ago. Okay, a little cheesier, but it worked. (The detective was played by a guy I’d never heard of, Idris Elba, who I thought was pretty good. It wasn’t his fault that some of the writing was way off.)

Actually, the acting wasn’t bad. It made the show tolerable, and even a bit enjoyable in parts if wholly predictable. Okay, there were a few parts where I was a bit surprised, but for the most part I predicted everyone who would die (except one girl) and they built the suspense up pretty well–at least for young teens who haven’t seen as many “scary” movies as I have.

But there were two things that really, really, really bugged me. (There were other things that bugged me, but two big ones.) First, when the aunt and uncle who raised Donna after her family was killed learned that the killer had escaped from the mental institution, the uncle didn’t want to ruin her prom night. Yeah, they played lip service to a “good” reason–i.e., they had no proof he was in town, he was supposed to be 2000 miles away, and they didn’t want Donna to have a relapse because she’d spent so many years in therapy with nightmares, etc., etc. Okay. But the cop should have said, “Look, I understand, but other lives are at stake here, and the only way I can protect her and make sure that no one dies is to bring her home and surround the house. Until we find him, she’s here under lock and key.” So the whole premise of the prom night didn’t work because it was stupid that the cops let her stay there up until the point they found a dead body and realized he’d car jacked someone and taken his identity.

Two other procedural things really bugged me. First, after the bodies were found they cleared the hotel (good) but they didn’t check the faces of everyone who left. Come on, this guy killed a bunch of people, escaped from a mental institution, and is wholly obsessed with this girl and will do anything to be near her, and they didn’t check the faces and ID of everyone who left the hotel? I don’t buy it. And then, at Donna’s house, there were only TWO COPS watching the OUTSIDE of the house–both of them alone? Right. Don’t buy that, either. Sitting ducks (and the both ended up dead, surprise.) I’d think once they confirmed that this guy was loose, he’d already attacked Donna, he’d killed a bunch of people, that they’d have people INSIDE and OUTSIDE of the house, KNOWING the guy is going to go after her.

Okay, one more technical detail. The jury said he was insane. This wasn’t California so I don’t know all the rules, but I was under the impression that insane means that you’re not competent to stand trial, so it never goes to trial–that when and if you are “cured” then you will go to trial and would need to prove that you did not know what you were doing was wrong. Very hard to prove. And even if the guy did go on trial and pled insanity, he would still have to prove that he did not know what he was doing was wrong–he literally did not have the cognitive reasoning to know that murder was not okay. But I digress.

Okay, the second BIG thing that bugged me. Blood. There was very little. Not that I wanted a gory movie, I much prefer suspense than gore which isn’t in and of itself scary, I still had a huge problem with this. I know, I know–they didn’t have a lot of blood because they needed a PG-13 rating. This would never have passed muster with the hardcover Rated R scary movie crowd. But come on! The killer uses a knife. He stabs his victims multiple times, either in the chest/abdomen or slits their neck. The only marginally realistic scene was when he killed the best friend. We didn’t actually see it, but he slit her throat and an arc of blood hit a plastic tarp, and that’s what we saw (and yeah, that’s good scary rather than seeing the actual murder.)

But the first girl he kills by stabbing her repeatedly in the abdomen. There are only little red lines on her torso when her body is found. And no blood in the carpet? He kills her boyfriend same method on the tile of the entry of the hotel suite–and no blood? Yeah, he could have cleaned it up–but I’d have liked to have SEEN him at least clean up one of his kills so I could at least suspend disbelief enough that he did it with everyone. All we saw was him washing the bloody knife (and where were the bloody towels? Smears? Arcs of blood on the walls or ceiling?) BUT the big thing was, this guy only has one outfit. He doesn’t change until near the end when he kills a hotel worker and takes his uniform. He stabs to death four or five people and has NO BLOOD on his clothes and is able to walk around the hotel without being noticed? Stabbing people is messy, especially the way he did it. There is blood. The guy didn’t change. That bugged me big time. That interfered with the plausibility of the entire story. I could almost buy that they didn’t show a bloody corpse because they wanted the PG-13 rating, but when that interfers with the actual STORY, it doesn’t work.

There was one other big important plot point that was completely ruined because there was no blood. BIG SPOILER (not that I think any of you are going to see this movie.) … . . . . .. . . .

Near the end, Donna’s boyfriend is staying with her in her room and she gets up to use the bathroom. Comes back and lies down and says she’s happy he stayed with her. He doesn’t respond. She turns his head. He has a gash in his neck (not very bloody, but red.) He’s dead. Duh.

Sorry, that plot point didn’t work AT ALL. If he had his throat slit so deep to kill him that he wouldn’t have had time to move or try to defend himself, there would have been blood on her nice white comforter and pillows. The blood would have seeped into the bed. She wouldn’t have been able to NOT see it when she came out of the bathroom. It wouldn’t have ruined the scene to have her walk out, see the blood, and try to scream, only to be grabbed by the killer. But this was such a dumb set-up.

My girls hate going to movies with me or their dad because we predict everything that will happen (especially with the teen movies.) I remember seeing DISTURBIA with the girls and Dan and I predicted pretty much everything. The movie wasn’t as graphic or violent, but it was definitely more suspenseful and I’d recommend it. Suspenseful like THE HITCHER (the original) where there is a lot of build-up (though there isn’t much overt violence until the very end.)

Like PROM NIGHT, the set-up for DISTURBIA was very good. In DISTURBIA, the teen hero’s dad died and the teen becomes withdrawn and acts out. He hits a teacher and is put on house arrest for three months. The actor, Shia LaBeouf, is very good in the movie, an the writing was good. DISTURBIA is essentially a teen version of REAR WINDOW where LaBeouf’s character believes his next door neighbor is a serial killer, but he can’t leave his house or he’ll be put in jail. There’s other good backstory set ups about why the cop doesn’t like him, etc., so this becomes believable. Like most teen movies, there are some problems with plausibility, but unlike PROM NIGHT, they didn’t ruin the movie for me. My big complaint about DISTURBIA is that the climax was too fast. A lot of great build-up, then the ending came too fast.

I love movies, and I’ll see the good and the bad. After all, that’s how we learn, by seeing what works and what doesn’t work.

Right now, I’m looking forward to the INDIANA JONES (who isn’t?) I love the first three movies, and THE HOLY GRAIL (III) was outstanding, one of the few franchise movies where the third movie was the best. So I have high hopes for THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

What movies are you looking forward to this summer?

©2010 Murder She Writes. All Rights Reserved.

1  1