writing

How to Do an Info Dump

/ JD Byrne / Leave a comment

A few weeks ago my wife and I watched Casablanca. I’d seen in long ago, way before I was really into movies (contrary to what my wife thinks, we’d never seen it together) and it seemed like something worth revisiting.

It’s as good as advertised, a rare example of a film of that vintage that’s not just great in the context of its times but has aged very well.

Something really struck me about one of the early scenes. A lot of the action in Casablanca takes place at Rick’s, the club run by Humphrey Bogart’s character. Our introductory scene to that place is one of the long shots (like the famous Copacabana entrance shot in Goodfellas) that lets us get the scope and feel of the place, all the while dropping in on various conversations as the cameras pass by (and getting a song from Sam).

Two of those conversations are a great example of how to get a viewer necessary information about the world we’re in without being too heavy handed about it. The movie is set in the early part of the Second World War and the city of Casablanca itself is a kind of waypoint for refugees fleeing the conflict, somewhat under Nazi control but not entirely (or at least they want it to look that way). That people are desperate is part of the fabric of the film.

In the first conversation, a well-dressed but clearly distressed woman is negotiation the sale of some diamond jewelry to a buyer. He offers her “two thousand four hundred” francs (presumably) for it, because the market is saturated with diamonds right now (presumably sold in similar circumstances). The woman clearly thinks this is too little, but as viewers we don’t really know if she’s right. After all, the piece she’s selling might have great sentimental value but be fairly common (of even a fraud). That bit of conversation leaves us hanging somewhat, partly because the camera has other places it needs to be. There’s no time for context.

We shortly get the context, anyway. The camera pans across another conversation, lingering just long enough for us to overhear a man negotiating with a smuggler to get him out of the city. The price? 15,000 francs – “in cash,” he says, more than once. Instantly we know that the woman with the jewelry is probably getting screwed on the price, but she has to sell because she’s raising money to get out of town. It’s a perverse example of supply and demand, played out over the course of a minute or so. “Info dumps” are sometimes relegated to the concerns of fantasy and sci-fi writers, but the truth is that all fiction requires the kind of world building that can lead to info dumps. Casablanca has a great example, right up front, of how to do that quickly, efficiently, and without bogging down the important part – getting to Bogey!

I Guess We Need to Talk About AI

/ JD Byrne / 3 Comments

Over the last year or so it’s been harder and harder to avoid thinking about how artificial intelligence – “AI” – might impact the various aspects of my life. Not for nothing but there’s certainly a future where some variant of AI does most, if not all, of my lawyering job, so that’s been on my mind. More personally, how AI is going effect what people write and read, and the kind of music they make and listen to, is also something that is hard to keep off the brain. Now something’s popped up that really makes it impossible for me to avoid it.

Regular readers know that I’ve participated in National Novel Writing Month – NaNoWriMo – off and on for years. The idea is that you take the month of November, write about 1700 words a day, and by the end you have around 50,000 words, one threshold (at least) for a full-length novel. NaNoWriMo helped me develop the discipline to sit down and do that kind of long-form writing and several of my books started out as NaNoWriMo projects.

NaNoWriMo hasn’t had the best couple of years. Back in 2022 the organization paired up with an company called Inkitt that is, to put it mildly, a little suspicious. Then last year there were revelations that a child sex predator had been able to use the NaNoWriMo forums to seek out victims, leading to changes in how the site operated.

And now NaNoWriMo has waded into the debate on AI, doing so for apparently the most base of reasons – they have a new sponsor, ProWritingAid, which bills itself as an “AI-Powered Writing Assistant.” According to this (very positive) review, it’s more of an editing/feedback tool than the generative AI like ChatGPT we’ve come to think of as “AI,” so it doesn’t look like the kind of thing that is going to write a book for you, but help you do the actual work.

Which just makes NaNoWriMo’s recent declaration all the stranger. Last year and entry appeared in the site’s FAQ to answer the question “Am I allowed to use AI?” The answer makes perfect sense -there’s nothing to keep you from using AI during NaNoWriMo, but using something like ChatGPT “to write your entire novel would defeat the purpose of the challenge, though.” So far so good.

Then, more recently, another entry appeared asking “What is NaNoWriMo’s position on Artificial Intelligence (AI)?”. Initial squishiness about neither supporting nor condemning “any specific approach to writing,” gives way to a rejection of the “categorical” condemnation of AI, as such is classist, ablelist, and ignores “general access issues” (whatever that means).

Huh?

Depending on the definition of “AI” there certainly are technologies that could assist writers with various disabilities get their work written. Speech-to-text software involves some form of AI, broadly defined. Spell checkers are a friend to everyone. But is that really what they’re talking about? I doubt it, since those technologies have been around for years and nobody batted an eye. This can only be in reaction to thoughts on generative AI, right?

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll quote some of Chuck Wendig’s post on this, with the charming title of “NaNoWriMo Shits the Bed on Artificial Intelligence”:

The privileged viewpoint is the viewpoint in favor of generative AI. The intrusion of generative artificial intelligence into art and writing suits one group and one group only: the fucking tech companies that invented this pernicious, insidious shit. They very much want you to relinquish your power in creating art and telling stories to them and their software, none of which are essential or even useful in the process of telling stories or making art but that they really, really want you to believe are essential. It’s a lie, a scam, a con. Generative AI empowers not the artist, not the writer, but the tech industry.

It goes on like that (it’s good rant) and I can’t say I disagree. At best, generative AI could be a benefit to consumers of content by providing them more of it at less cost, and perhaps tailored to their particular preferences. But for the creators there is absolutely nothing in generative AI for them. Being creative is about personal expression. Why have a machine write the story you want to tell? Tell it yourself!

That said, there are two things that have, up to this point, kept me from fully joining the anti-AI crusade.

First, there’s more than a whiff of moral panic about generative AI, in the sense that it reminds me of similar complaints about other artistic technological breakthroughs. Session musicians were up in arms that the Mellotron would put the out of business, but it turns out the a Mellotron doesn’t sound like live instruments played by human beings – it sounds (gloriously) like a Mellotron. Same with something like AutoTune, which may be used to “fix” a human vocalist, but has transformed more into an instrument/intentional effect with its own sound and characteristics. Will we look at generative AI that way in ten or twenty years? I’m not saying we will, but I’m not saying we won’t, either.

Second, most seem to agree that using generative AI is a cheat if used to “write” “your” book – how is it any different than hiring a ghost writer to do it? Honestly, putting to one side concerns about how AI engines are trained (a big aside, I’ll admit), isn’t hiring someone to write a book you put your name on just as bad as putting your name on something generated by a computer? Yes, it’s better in some spiritual sense ultimately for the content to be generated by a human rather than a computer, but it’s still not your story, is it?

Those are questions that will be worked out over the coming years. Right now, in 2024, however, it should be enough for an organization devoted to writing to say “generative AI is not welcome here,” while making room for the use of AI-adjacent technologies that help people tell their own stories. That NaNoWriMo can’t make that fairly simple declaration is, for me, enough to no longer be a participant, at least in any official way.

Thank you, NaNoWriMo, for how you helped jump start my life as a writer. I’ve got it from here.

The Triplets of Tennerton – Out Now!

/ JD Byrne / 2 Comments

Today’s the day! The Triplets of Tennerton, the long-awaited sequel to Moore Hollow, is here!

You can get paperback and Kindle versions at Amazon and other eBook formats as well (eBook version only 99 cents for a limited time). If you’re in my neck of the woods and want to shop local, the paperback (along with the revised Moore Hollow, featuring new cover art) will be available at Plot Twist Books in South Charleston and Cicada Books & Coffee in Huntington.

Tell your friends! Tell your enemies, too, if they happen to be readers! If you like Triplets please write a review at your venue of choice. Even if you don’t like it, write one anyway, I won’t mind.

Welcome back to the life of Ben Potter and the weirdness that dwells in this part of the world. Welcome to Paranormal Appalachia.

The Triplets of Tennerton – The Inspiration

/ JD Byrne / 1 Comment

One of the things that made me think sequels to Moore Hollow might work is that West Virginia has a pretty rich collection of folklore, cryptids, and other oddities to keep Ben and crew busy for many books to come. Leave it to me, then, to take inspiration for The Triplets of Tennerton not from Mothman or the Flatwoods Monster (although he kind of makes an appearance), but from a house fire that happened in 1945.

George Sodder and his wife Jennie lived in Fayetteville along with their nine (!) children. On the night of December 24, 1945, the house burned down. Both parents and four of the children made it out alive. Five other children, however, were presumed dead – presumed because their bodies have never been found. But for that last detail the whole tragedy might have vanished into the ether of memory and history, but the circumstances of the fire and the lack of remains have made it a unsolved mystery of long standing.

The primary thing that stuck with me from a storytelling standpoint is that George, Jennie, and the rest of the family continued to believe that the missing children actually survived the fire. The lack of remains was part of that belief, as there had been a similar fire in the region shortly before where remains of those who didn’t get out were found. More than that, there were reported sightings of the kids in Charleston not too long after. Over the years, there were more reports, from as far away as Missouri and Texas, but none of them ever panned out. George even tracked down a man alleged to be one of his missing sons, but the man denied it.

The circumstances of the fire were suspicious, too. The family received an odd phone call about 12:30 in the morning. A half-hour later, Jennie awoke when she heard something hit the roof with a bang. A half hour later they smelled smoke. Once the fire was underway, George tried to climb up to the second floor to rescue the children trapped there, but a ladder they routinely used around the property was misplaced. George couldn’t start either of his trucks to move next to the house to use them to climb. There’s much more, but that gives you a sense of it.

And that’s before you get to a possible motive that involves the Sicilian mob and George’s vocal hatred of Benito Mussolini (George was born in Sardinia and came to the United States at age 13).

As so often happens with real-life inspirations for fiction, reality (such as we know of it) is really just a jumping off point. What grabbed me about the Sodder story was the lack of remains at the scene of the fire and the family’s unwavering belief that those children had survived. The Triplets of Tennerton  is not the story of the Sodder family. Sid Grimaldi isn’t George Sodder and what happened to Sid’s children is vastly different from what most likely happened to George’s. Nor was Sid’s family united in their belief, as the Sodders were. This is definitely “inspired by” territory, not “based on.”

If you want to know more about the mystery of the Sodder family, I recommend this three part podcast from Unexplained Mysteries. There’s also a good write up here from Smithsonian Magazine.

The Triplets of Tennerton – coming May 29

Pre-order now for Kindle and other eBook formats.

The Triplets of Tennerton – The Interview

/ JD Byrne / 1 Comment

In which I steal a bit from John Scalzi and sit down and talk with a probing interviewer – myself! – about my new book.

So you wrote a sequel to Moore Hollow?

Yes, it’s called The Triplets of Tennerton and it’ll be released on May 29.

What a sec – wasn’t Moore Hollow a standalone novel?

When it came out back in 2015, yes, that was the plan. Since its release, however, I had several people ask about writing a sequel. I didn’t really plan to do one, but I came across a real-life inspiration that made realize I could tell some more stories set in that world.

Good grief, you’re not doing another trilogy, are you?

No, not this time. This series is going to be open ended, with each book basically being a standalone adventure. Characters and references will build from book to book, but there won’t be one overarching story that’s driving to a particular conclusion. You can pick up any book in the series and enjoy it without knowing what came before.

So it’s just going to end one day?

That’s possible. I do have a pretty good idea of a story to tell to “end” it, but I’ll jump off that bridge when I come to it.

What’s the setup for this new series? How does it tie into Moore Hollow?

Ben Potter, the main character, has decided to relocate permanently from London to West Virginia. He’s bought a home in Sutton and set up a website called Paranormal Appalachia, where he’ll investigate various local beasties, legends, and other strange goings on.

Hold up – isn’t Paranormal Appalachia the name of this series?

Indeed! It’s what Frank Zappa called “conceptual continuity.”

There are bizarre musical references in this one, aren’t there?

A couple. Ben’s very much like me with regard to his taste in music.

No wonder he’s single.

Anyway, think of Moore Hollow as the movie that set up this world and Triplets (and later stories) as the TV series spun off from it.

In what way?

In the sense that there are several new characters in Triplets that will have a recurring role throughout the rest of the stories.

Such as?

The main one is a local lawyer, Grace, who actually comes out of my first successful NaNoWriMo novel (that nonetheless will never see the light of day). She was an Assistant Federal Public Defender who got a case that dipped into UFOs and whatnot and has developed a reputation for dealing with “weird” cases and clients.

I’m guessing that Ben gets wrapped up in one of those weird cases?

Yup. A old guy named Sid Grimaldi is charged with burning down his home decades before, resulting in the deaths of his infant triplet daughters. Grace takes the case and hires Ben to do some of her investigating.

Naturally, Sid didn’t do it.

That’s what he says, but there’s more.

Oh?

Sid says he knows his girls are still alive, that they didn’t die in that fire.

That sounds impossible.

Did I mention that Ben investigated paranormal and other weird things? Impossible is just the start of it.

Was there an inspiration for that case?

Yes, I’ll be talking about it more in a couple of weeks.

What else is there to look forward to in the coming month?

In addition to a post about the inspiration for this story there will be a couple of excerpts. Then it’ll be release day!

I guess that means it’s time for details.

Right. The new book is called The Triplets of Tennerton and it’s coming out May 29.

The original Moore Hollow has also been revamped to make it part of the Paranormal Appalachia franchise. Get yours now so you’ll be ready for Triplets when it lands on May 29.

Programming Note

/ JD Byrne / Leave a comment

I’ve been delinquent with the blog posts the past couple of weeks. Partly that was due to some business travel related to my day job, but more so it was due to having a few different irons in the fire I thought I’d tell you about.

First, you’ll recall my newest project, that I started during NaNoWriMo last year. As I said in December, although I’d “won” by hitting the 50,000-word target for the month, the first draft wasn’t finished. It wound up not actually getting finished, for a couple of reasons. One of them was that a second main character kind of appeared in my brain and inserted herself into the story in a way that shifted things a bit and made finishing the originally conceived first draft kind of pointless. Long story short, I’m now working on the second version of that first draft, polishing and adapting what’s already been done and weaving in my new character. I’m really excited to see how it comes together.

Second, you’ll also recall that I have a sequel to Moore Hollow in the works. I’m also doing the final prep on that to get it ready for release this summer. Part of that includes rebranding Moore Hollow as the first book in a new series, Paranormal Appalachia. Part of that is a new cover. I don’t want to share it, yet, but here’s some idea of the imagery in it:

The new book finally has a title, The Triplets of Tennerton. More details in the coming months!

So, for the next few weeks, I’m going to buckle down and work on that stuff. Back here in May, I imagine. Until then . . .

Returning to the End of the World (and the Story)

/ JD Byrne / Leave a comment

Last year I wrote some about how the ending of Paul Tremblay’s The Cabin at the End of the World, which I had just read, had been changed in pretty big ways for the film adaptation, Knock at the Cabin, directed by M. Night Shyamalan. At the time I hadn’t seen the movie for myself, and now that I have I wanted to circle back on the matter.

To recap (in spoiler-filled fashion), the book and movie are both about a family – two dads and their young daughter – who are beset in the titular cabin by a group of people who claim that the apocalypse is imminent and the only way to stop it is for one of the family members to kill another (suicide won’t work). The family refuses the bargain and the tension creeps up as it appears that, just maybe, the end of the world is nigh.

As I said last year:

Here’s where things part ways, significantly, between book and movie. In the book there is a struggle over a gun that leaves the little girl dead. Eventually the dads escape (all the intruders die) and they confront the question of sacrificing one of themselves just in case the world is really ending (one is now more of a believer than the other). Ultimately they decide not to, essentially concluding that any kind of God that would require such a thing isn’t worth obeying, and they walk off into a brewing storm that may or may not just be a storm. In the movie, by contrast, the girl is not shot and one of the dads decides to sacrifice himself to save the world on her behalf. The girl and her remaining father leave and find evidence that the sacrifice really is stopping the world from ending.

In that earlier post I was focused on the question of which ending was better described as a “happy” ending – the one where characters refuse to play the game of an abusive deity or the one where they sacrifice for the greater good. Both are a choice and neither is wrong in any kind of a normative sense – one will work better for some, the other for others. Nonetheless why the choice was made is kind of fascinating.

Having seen the movie I did my usual post-viewing due diligence (reading reviews and such) and came across this article which goes into why the ending for the movie was changed:

Steve Desmond and Michael Sherman, who wrote the screenplay with Shyamalan, agreed the book’s original, grim ending had to be changed for film.

“We adapted it slightly different than the book, and then [Shyamalan] had a whole new vision for what the ending could be,” Desmond and Sherman told Variety at the “Knock at the Cabin” premiere. “The book is the book, and the movie is the movie, and we think they both were exceptional mediums. This is a big, wide release movie that is meant for a very large audience. There are some decisions that the book made that were pretty dark and may have been a little too much for a broader audience. That was a decision that [Shyamalan] immediately recognized. It’s a great ending now.”

Now, without a doubt, more people saw Knock at the Cabin than read The Cabin at the End of the World. That’s true of any book turned into a movie or TV show (alas). Is that a good reason to change an ending? It feels kind of chickenshit to me to decide the masses can’t handle the ambiguity of the original and decide to spoon feed them a “happier” ending. It’s one thing to imagine that you’re just improving on it from an artistic standpoint (Shyamalan, at least, appears to lean more this way in terms of his outlook on the world), but to admit to dumbing it down feels cheap.

It should be clear by now that I prefer the book’s ending. The entire story, for me, is all about ambiguity: Is what these people are saying about the world ending real? Is it a hoax? Are they honest, but mentally ill, believers? It also gets at an issue that’s frequently lost in popular discussion about the existence of one god or the other – that even if some being like that exists it might not be worthy of worship or obeisance. The book leaves you much more to chew on than the movie does. I may be in the minority, but that’s OK.

Endings are hard. They’re harder still if you’re engaging in some kind of triangulation in an attempt to find the “right” ending for a particular audience, be it broad or narrow casted. Find the ending you think works best for the story. If it puts off some people, well, that sucks. You can’t please all the people all the time – and most of the time it’s a folly to even try.

New Story, New Music – and Come See Me!

/ JD Byrne / 1 Comment

A couple pieces of “new” to let you know about.

New Story & New Event!

First, I’m very happy to have a story in the debut volume of Old Bones, the new annual literary journal of Henlo Press.

The story is called “To the Sound of Birds.” It’s about a guy setting up to sell used pulp paperbacks at a swap meet in a high school parking lot when he starts to hear odd noises from the mountain across the highway. Naturally he investigates and discovers something beyond his wildest imagination.

For what it’s worth the inspiration for the story was just that – the high school parking lot where my local SCCA chapter used to autocross was across the highway from a pretty sizeable mountain and, one day, I heard something weird from over there. Didn’t check it out, though, so I suppose we’ll have to let my imagination run wild, right?

You can get a physical copy of Old Bones by clicking here or a Kindle version here.

Or, if you want not just a physical copy but a signed copy, you can come see me! On February 25 I’ll be at Henlo’s first Writers’ Block event at the community center in Barboursville, WV. Things kick off at noon and readings by some of the authors start about 12:45 – maybe you’ll get a chance to hear a chapter from my forthcoming Moore Hollow sequel. It all leads up to the launch of 304 Monsters by Stephen Bias, which looks pretty cool if you’re into the weird West Virginia thing (and who isn’t?). I’ll also have all my other books there, too, if you need to stock up.

New Music!

It’s been a couple of years since I put any new music up, but I’m finally getting around to finishing some of the bits and pieces that have piled up since. The genesis of this one actually dates back to the year of the plague, but I didn’t start to really develop it until recently. It’s called “Chihuahua Junk Pixies.” I don’t remember specifically where the name came from, but I’m sure it had something to do with these two:

It’s bouncy and fun, at least in parts, and, if I may say so, kind of catchy. Enjoy!

It’s All Right, They Have a Warrant (and Fangs)

/ JD Byrne / 1 Comment

I’ve seen a question posed in various places on social media the past few weeks:

I thought if anyone is qualified to answer this question it might just be the guy who is both a public defender and a writer of fantasy (with horror overtones in spots). So, what of it – can that vampire cop enter your house against your will?

Let’s start with the assumption that we’re talking about an American vampire cop here, so they’d have to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. It also requires a warrant to execute a search of a home. An arrest warrant will also allow police to enter a home, if they have the necessary suspicion that the person named in the warrant lives there.

A search warrant has to be based on probable cause that evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched. It’s not a particularly high standard, not even up to the level of “preponderance of the evidence” used in civil proceedings (essentially 51% certainty) and a far cry from the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard needed to convict someone of a crime. Warrants must be particular as to the things to be seized and the places to be searched. That’s supposed to prevent exploratory rummaging of the kind that occurred under “general” warrants in the pre-Revolutionary era. The application of all this in particular cases is tricky and what keeps me employed, but the basic concepts are easy to grasp.

Perhaps not quite so much for vampires, since their lore varies from telling to telling of particular stories. Nonetheless, there does seem to be a consensus that vampires require permission before they can enter a home. According to this article it dates back to at least the 17th Century and a Greek theologian who stated that a way to be safe from vampires was to stay at home, as they couldn’t enter without being invited. But why? One explanation is that the rule “reflects the idea that evil, represented by vampires, can’t harm you unless you allow it to. It’s a choice, an act of free will.” Tough shit if you get taken in by a slick talking blood sucker then!

With that said, let’s set the scene – Detective Angel and Lieutenant Louis show up at your home. As vampires they cannot come in uninvited. Fun fact – as cops, they can’t either! Except, of course, they have a search warrant, which they do (it allows them to search for any and all implements relating to killing the undead). Does the warrant let them in even if you don’t invite them?

The basic answer, I think, is “no.” The law is the law, but the rule that vampires can only enter with an invitation operates more like a law of nature. Police could no more get a warrant to stop the tides or keep the sun from rising than they could to allow a vampire entrance to a home without an invitation. Nor are warrants commands to someone to allow police into your home – they are permission for the police to enter using any means necessary, hence SWAT teams and knocking down doors in the middle of the night.

But the basic answer is not the only answer. For one thing, if we’re assuming a world with vampires – vampires who are police, no less – then presumably the law has made some accommodation for this. Can a court, as part of issuing a search warrant, compel a homeowner to give permission for the vampire police to enter? I don’t see why not. Courts frequently order people to do things they otherwise don’t want to do, including things like provide blood samples and fingerprints. This doesn’t feel any different and doesn’t lean into that kind of acquiescence that might trigger Fifth Amendment self-incrimination concerns (like giving up the password to your phone).

For another, who gets to give consent to enter and how much consent is enough? Many years ago the Supreme Court decided a case where police showed up to a home in response to a domestic dispute. They asked for permission to search the home – the husband denied it, the wife consented. Police searched the home and found drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the search was invalid because so long as one person present when the request for consent was made objected to the search, it didn’t matter what anybody else said. In such situations, police had to go get a warrant.

So what if, when our vampire police walk up with their warrant, you’re willing to invite them in but your significant other who also lives there is not? Does the Supreme Court’s rule for the Fourth Amendment carry over to vampire invitations? Or is it a one-person-to-a-home situation? I’m leaning towards the latter, since, as I understand it, once a vampire is invited into a home it is forever invited, implying that consensus among the occupants isn’t necessary.

What makes the question fun to ponder is the clash of what seems like two absolutes – a warrant permits entry versus a vampire’s need to be invited. But that rests on the presumption that the law wouldn’t evolve to account for the fact that (a) vampires were real and (b) they worked in law enforcement. The Founders didn’t imagine automobiles, but the Supreme Court figured out how the Fourth Amendment interacted with them. Same with cell phones. I have no doubt that a legal system that’s been in a constant state of evolution since at least the Magna Carta would figure out how to deal with vampire detectives.

But until then? Ask to see the warrant, then keep your mouth shut, unless you’re asking for your lawyer.