Kid History

These guys are one of the funniest guys on youtube.  They are safe for kids to watch, and still funny as heck.  My kids love their antics, and watch their skits and snippets again and again.  Their YouTube page is Bored Shorts TV

Comma Use

     The comma is my bane.  I tend to write a lot of run-on sentences.  I misuse the comma frequently, so this Thursday Truth might be mostly for me.  However, I'm sure there are others out there who may benefit from it.

     I had a teacher who often told me, "When in doubt, leave it out."  As I've studied the use of the comma, I'm finding that the exact opposite is true.  Most of the texts, blogs, and other online help say to put one in if you have a doubt.  I was in elementary when I received the, "when in doubt" advice, so maybe the teacher was trying to fix a child's problem of just throwing commas everywhere.  The truth is, this concept still confuses me.  Proof of that may have already been exemplified in the writing of this page, but, like I mentioned before, the comma is my bane and I'm trying to defeat it.

     Let's get started with a few basic rules:

1. Use a comma to separate the elements in a series.  example: "The teacher taught the lesson, gave us homework, and asked us to study for the test." This one always throws me because writers (especially newspaper writers) take liberties with the rule, and it is considered acceptable to leave out the last comma.  The rule says to put a comma between all of the elements in a series, including the last two.  The exception is when there is an "and" between the last two elements.  When you use a comma there it is called a Serial Comma or the Oxford Comma.  The problem with leaving it out would be that the last two elements could seem to be meshed together as one element instead of two in the series. (i.e. macaroni and cheese). So, "When in doubt, leave it out," does not work here.  In fact, "when in doubt, put it in," is better. 
2. Use a comma and a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, or, yet, so) to connect two independent clauses.  This is another one which throws me off because many writers will leave out the comma in sort, balanced independent clauses.  I've read from several resources, mainly The Gregg Reference Manual , that it is always correct to put it in.  I've seen heated debates on blogs and writer's groups over this issue.  Some writers, I presume, feel that it cramps their creative style, and the sentence flows better without the comma.  If you are a well versed, creative, and a grammatically correct person, and you feel that you can leave the comma out, then go ahead.  For the rest of us, "when in doubt, put it in."
3. Use a comma to set off parenthetical elements.  A parenthetical element would be a phrase which could be removed without changing the essential meaning of a sentence.  example: "The teacher, for the most part, doesn't like giving homework over the weekend."  The phrase "for the most part" could be removed and the essential meaning of the sentence wouldn't change.  This is difficult for me, and many others, to follow.  This concept is actually the first rule mentioned in The Gregg Reference Manuel.  When talking about the comma, it begins by defining essential and nonessential expressions in a sentence.  The easiest way you can tell the difference is by trying to omit the expression.  If you can leave it out without affecting the meaning or structural completeness of the sentence, the expression is nonessential and should be set off by commas.  Sometimes, however, you need to say the sentence out loud to determine if the expression is essential or nonessential. example: Nonessential: "Finch and Helwig would prefer, therefore, to limit the term of the agreement for two years."  Your voice tends to drop when saying "therefore."  Essential: "Finch and Helwig would therefore prefer to limit the term of the agreement to two years."  By switching the words "therefore" and "prefer" you change the emphasis of the word "therefore," and you will notice that your voice doesn't drop while reading the sentence aloud.  This rule is huge, so bear with me.  Appositives (a noun, noun phrase, or noun clause which sits next to another noun to rename it, or to describe it in another way) are almost always parenthetical elements, and should be set off by commas.  example: "Mary, his wife of thirty years, suddenly decided to start her own business."  The phrase "his wife of thirty years" is an appositive, and could be removed without changing the sentence.  However, writers will often omit the commas if the appositive is closely related.  example: "His wife Mary suddenly decided to start her own business."  In this sentence "Mary" could be set off with commas, and that would, in fact, be correct, but many writers will leave out the commas because we assume he only has one wife, and the "His wife Mary" phrase could be considered a single unit.  I know, I'm confused, too.  Once again, I refer to "when in doubt, put it in".  You may even have editors remove these commas, but it is correct to have commas there.  When city and state, or state and country are mentioned together, they are always considered a parenthetical element.  example: "Salt Lake City, Utah, is where I was born."  The exception (yes there's always an exception) to this rule is when the state or country is possessive.  example: "Salt Lake City, Utah's weather is crazy."  There is no comma after "Utah" because it's possessive.  Addressing a person by name is a parenthetical element, so long as the name is that of a person actually being spoken to. example: Parenthetical: "Tom, would you like to read the next page?" Not parenthetical: "I would like to hear Tom read the next page."  Interrupting elements, afterthoughts, transitional expressions and independent comments (however, therefore, on the other hand, obviously, in my opinion, of course), descriptive expressions, dates, and names are all set off with commas under this rule.  I make more mistakes with this rule than any other grammatical rule because there are exceptions to almost every aspect of it. I've read through seventeen different sources to compile this information, and I'm still a little confused.  Basically, when you have  a doubt, use a comma or rephrase the sentence.  
4. Introductory Elements.  This sounds like it should be under the rule of parenthetical elements, but in many cases the sentence changes completely without the use of the introductory element, so it gets its own rule.  example: "Fighting two monsters at once, he suddenly realized he was in trouble."  You could drop the introductory phrase "Fighting two monsters at once," but then you wouldn't know why he suddenly realized he was in trouble.  Of course writers have taken to leave out commas if it is a brief introductory phrase. example: "Yesterday afternoon we sat around all day."  Many will write the sentence like this, but it is always correct to use the comma after "afternoon".  "When in doubt, put it in."
5. Coordinate adjectives.  There are two rules to determine if the adjectives are coordinate adjectives; If you can put an and or but between the adjectives, and if you can reverse the two adjectives then they are coordinate adjectives, and you would use a comma.  example:  "The tall, mysterious woman stayed away from the crowd."  You could say, "The tall and mysterious woman..." or "The mysterious, tall woman...", and it would flow either way just as easily as with the commas.  On the other hand, some adjectives aren't Coordinate adjectives.  example:  "Allen owns several blue wool sweaters."  Both "blue" and "wool" are adjectives, but you can't reverse them, nor put an and between them.  "Allen owns several blue and wool sweaters."  "Allen owns several wool blue sweaters."  This rule seems easy, but some adjectives are tricky, so make sure to use both methods to determine if they are coordinate adjectives.
6. Quoted Elements.  I guess the biggest issue here would be to determine what the actual sentence is.  I know it sounds silly, but a lot of people have problems with this.  example: "'Run away, fast,' Tom yelled."  "Run away fast" could be a stand alone sentence, and "Tom yelled" could, too, but they are one sentence.  That is but the easiest aspect of the rule.  When quoting in literature, most authors know to put a comma between the quote and the attributing phrase.  It becomes more difficult when you write like I've been writing, taking sections of quoted material and infusing them into a sentence.  In these cases, do not use commas to set off quoted elements introduced by the word that, or quoted elements that are embedded in a larger structure.  I have probably made this mistake in this very lesson of comma use.  Luckily, we don't quote often when writing novels, so good luck college kids, scientist, journal writers, and others who quote a lot.  You can find a good resource here.
7. Expressing Contrast.  This is a rule that just is...  It makes sense to me, but I suppose others could have trouble with it.  Put a comma between contrasting phrases.  example:  "The world will end in fire, not ice." 
8. Avoid confusion and say what you mean.  There are several funny examples online about the absence of a comma changing the meaning of a sentence to say something funny.  I'll try to keep it serious here.  example:  "Outside the house looked horrible." vs "Outside, the house looked horrible."  One is saying that outside looked horrible from the inside of the house, the other is saying that from the outside, the house looked horrible.  Use a comma to say what you mean and avoid confusion.
9. Never use only one comma between a subject and its verb.  This is a famous rule of punctuation, but I'd bet we all violate it through ignorance or on accident now and again. example: "Believing completely and positively in oneself is essential for success."  I want to put a comma after "oneself," don't you?  We pause there when we speak, so it seems natural to put a comma there, but it breaks the rule.  
10. Proofing.  You will write things that make sense in your head.  Read them out loud and see if there are pauses.  I use too many commas, but reading something out loud helps me.  

Good luck, and safe punctuating!

NaNoWriMo

     This year I'm participating in the NaNoWriMo (Nation Novel Writing Month).  It's basically a marathon for writers.  It starts November 1st and goes until November 30th.  Writers from around the country (and world) with different backgrounds, writing skills, and genres all attempt to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days!  That equates to about 1,667 words a day, or roughly 4 1/2 pages a day!  Now, to any of you writers out there, that might not seem like a lot, but you have to remember that that is every day for 30 days.  When you're in the zone, and have a great idea to write about, you can pump that out easily.  During NaNoWriMo, there is no room for writer's block, nor plot disharmony, nor any other delays.  Granted, a lot of writers plan their novels out for months in advance, but I didn't have that luxury.  I actually just learned about NaNoWriMo about halfway through October, so I haven't had a ton of prep time.  And I've decided to write something outside of my normal genre because it's an idea I've been playing around with, and I don't think that I'll ever write it if I don't do it fast and furious like in NaNoWriMo.

   

     The genre I decided to do was Historical Fiction.  It's not usually my style because I read and write to escape reality.  In this case, however, I think it's appropriate because it is a work of satire.  It's called Karl Adolf Schuhmacher.  It's about the son of Adolf Hitler and his secret american mistress.  Karl is spirited away from Germany as the allied troops roll in.  He grows up in South America, under the pretense of being an American citizen who's mother was trying to flee the German Internment camps of the U.S.

     When Karl returns to the U.S. he is mentored by Nazis who survived the war.  They fabricate a Jewish heritage for the boy, and groom him to become president of the United States.  He gets in to all of the right schools, even though he doesn't stand out academically.  Most of his college class mates don't recognize him when he runs for president.  There is a debate about whether or not he is a natural born citizen.  His constituents shame the American people for questioning his birth by calling them racist against the Jewish race, but Karl stays above it all and lets his constituents do the dirty work.  Being the first Jewish president causes a sensation around Karl, and earns him a lot of votes...

     If all of this doesn't sound familiar to you, you won't get the satire.  The bottom line is that I wanted to use modern political issues, and apply them to history to see the different outcome for today's world.

     When setting up my NaNoWriMo account, I had to write an excerpt, and I thought I'd share that with you.  This is just the opening scene of the story.

     Fredda trembled in the dark corner of the bomb shelter as the earth shook all around her.  She desperately tried to hush her crying baby.  Dirt and sand rained down from the ceiling each time a bomb made contact with the ground.  Berlin was falling to ruin. 

     Her precious baby wailed in terror. 

     “Shh, mine darling.  Shush, mine little Karl,” she begged. 

     The baby cried, just the same.  Fredda was certain the allied forces would hear her young son, and raid her bunker at any moment.  She couldn’t lose her son.  She couldn’t lose the Fuhrer’s son.  The Fuhrer’s family was known.  They must die in this battle, but his bloodline must live. 

     Karl must live.

     "Shush, mine precious child.  Shhh.”

     A deafening explosion tore through the shelter wall at the far side of the bunker.  The flash from the explosion blinded young Fredda.  Suddenly, the world was ringing.  Fredda couldn’t stand.  She couldn’t sit up.  She couldn’t stop the world from spinning.  She clutched her baby tightly as the world spun into blackness.

     You can track my progress on my NaNoWriMo page under the name Apocalyptist 

     I'd like to hear any feedback you have to offer.

Terry Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule"

     The first book in Terry Goodkind's series, The Sword of Truth, is Wizard's First Rule.  I highly recommend this book to anyone who loves epic fantasy.  I have yet to find an author who can develop a character the way Mr. Goodkind does.  Each of his characters is a person.  They seem real.  They have real emotions.  They have real shortcomings.  They experience real love and real pain.  Goodkind brings you into the story through his characters, and then all you can do is hang on for the ride.

     Having said that, the book, and series as a whole, has some gratuitous parts.  Gratuitous may be too harsh a word because the scenes aren't written for the sole purpose of promoting sex and violence, and aren't necessarily uncalled for.  Every fantasy book (at least all of the ones I've read) have violent battles, wars, or skirmishes.  Some have sexual references.  The difference would be that Mr. Goodkind exemplifies the horrific reality of evil men and women who combine sex and violence to force victims into submission.  He uses these things to show the true character of an evil man, and later the true character of an evil army.  He does not go into detail of any specific acts, except to say that a man raped a woman, or an army rapes and pillages, and then he focuses on the horrible aftermath of those crimes.  The main character is captured at a certain point, and trained like a dog.  The experience has a definite BDSM feel to it, as it is a woman who tortures and rapes him.  Some people may cringe through these parts of the story, so reader beware.  But I can assure you, they mold the hero into who he is, and play an essential part later on in the series.  These scenes do not last long, and are not explicit.  Mr. Goodkind leaves your mind to fill in the horrific details.

     Ok, now that I've given you a warning, we can move on to the wonderful story that unfolds in The Sword of Truth.  Richard, the protagonist, is a simple woods guild.  He lives in a simple  part of the world called Westland with good, honest people.  There is nothing magical in Westland, nothing fantastical or varied from the real world we live in.  Goodkind instantly brings you to a simpler time of peace.  Richard's father is murdered in a grotesque manner, which leads him to investigate.  While tracking in the forest, he sees a beautiful woman being chased by four men.  He decides to help her, and that decision is a catalyst to destroy his innocent, simple life.  The woman is, Kahlan, the Mother Confessor.  What a confessor is, is a major part of the mystery behind the green-eyed beauty, so I won't spoil the story for you by explaining her title.

     Kahlan has come from a magical land beyond a barrier of death to seek an old wizard's help.  I know what you're thinking, "Isn't that the plot for Magic Kingdom for Sale - Sold by Terry Brooks?" The answer is a resounding, "No".  I can't go into all the differences because it would be a complete spoiler for the book.  Just know that Goodkind is unique in his storytelling and plot.  The world is all one, it has just been separated so that those who hate magic can live away from it.  At any rate, Kahlan's world has been invaded by Darken Rahl, the antagonist.  She needs the help of the old wizard to save her world from being enslaved by the indisputably evil tyrant, who is Darken Rahl.

     I know it sounds like I've given away the whole plot... that was just an explanation of the first couple of chapters, and I do not do it justice because Mr. Goodkind is a wordsmith.  The story is exciting, full of action, and exemplifies true love.  As I mentioned before, his characters are rich and real.  The emotions are real.  This is no fairy tale where love is easy, and at first sight.  There is struggle, heartache, fear, happiness, and an exhilarating feeling of accomplishment as you struggle with Kahlan and Richard through the story.  

     My favorite part of every one of Goodkinds novels is the end.  Even having read the books several times, it always feels like there won't be enough time to wrap up the story.  You get to the last few chapters of the book and think, "There's no way he can resolve all of this in these few pages!"  Goodkind is a wizard of words, and always ties his stories up in a way that makes you feel complete and content.  

     I recommend Wizard's First Rule to anyone who likes fantasy, but also to those who don't.  Some people have a stigma about fantasy because they find it cheesy.  There is nothing cheesy about Goodkind's work.  Yes, there is magic, but that is not the focus of the book.  It focuses on human struggle, and human emotion.  You almost feel like you are not reading a fantasy novel at all.  Whenever magic is mentioned, it is not a cure-all force, but intellectualized as a tool to be used just like a hammer or a screwdriver.  And it is mentioned in passing, as if it were normal, instead of being exalted as some fantastical force. 

I give this book 

The Legend of the Seeker

I have to start off by saying that I L O V E  Terry Goodkind.  I own all of his books, and I've read the "Sword of Truth" series at least 6-7 times.  That's no small task considering the shortest book is like 730 pages (if you don't count "Debt of Bones"), and there are 11 books just in the first series.  Having said that, I was really disappointed by this T.V. adaptation.  I will probably review every one of Goodkind's books, so I won't go into them too much in this review other than to state that the series was awful about following the story line of the books.

If you have not read the books, you may love this series.  It has a very Xena-esque feel to it.  There is a fight scene in every episode, and super-silly sound effects for the punches, falls, and other combat sounds.  Bridget Regan makes a beautiful Kahlan, and is probably the most believable character in the series.  Craig Horner is a bit small in stature to be the Richard described in the books, but his action sequences are decent. Tabrett Bethall is a stunning woman, and matches the description of a flawlessly beautiful Cara, except, for some strange reason, they decided to have her cut her hair instead of having it in the long braid of a Mord Sith.

In "The Sword of Truth" series, Richard (the main character) is a simple woods guide that gets pulled into an epic adventure when Kahlan (the love interest) comes looking for a great wizard to free her people from and invading hoard of D'harans.  I don't want to give away too much of the book in a movie review, so we will keep it as simple as that.  The series doesn't seem to follow this line of reasoning very well.  The general idea is there, but the way Goodkind sets up the plot is completely lost in the series.  It seemed to me that the writers were in such a hurry to get to the action, that they forgot to build a story.

There are more inconsistencies as the series progresses.  They kill of major characters, like Nicci, and latter resurrect them as if that were normal.  Most the characters do not match the descriptions of book.  They downplay major characters from the book series, and up-play characters who play a smaller part, namely Darken Rahl played by Craig Parker.  I loved Parker's performance, but one of the most distinguishable traits of Darken Rahl is his long blonde hair.  A little dye, or a wig would have made all the difference.

Many times, it felt as if the writers of the show did not read the books.  They would do something which totally undermined the book series, and then it seemed as though the read the next book or chapter then tried to fix their errors in the show.  If they were going to follow the books, they should have followed the books.  If they wanted to spin off and do something different, but with the base characters and plot, they should have done so.  The mistakes, then trying to make up for the mistakes, are what killed the series.  There is such a following for Mr. Goodkind's work that people petitioned (and won) to get the series back on air for another season.  But ultimately, the series flopped because of the inconsistencies.

In short, If you want to see some stunningly beautiful actresses, and cheesy action sequences, this series is awesome.  If you are expecting it to deliver the incomprehensible genius of Mr. Goodkind's writing, lower your expectations.  It is entertaining, but pales in comparison to the wealth of character development Mr. Goodkind lays out in ink.

I give it.