Reading Score, and Other Things

Last post, over a year ago, was about how to score your reading. It's kind of tongue in cheek, kind of not. Of course scoring your reading is silly, but it's also a fun way to encourage yourself to read so I did it. I finished 2017 with 505 points, rounded, not that this means anything. My goal was to read fifty books or more, but this didn't happen because around September, I think, I dedicated all normal reading time toward editing a local author's manuscript. I don't know how much that scores, but probably more than reading. Instead, I finished with thirty-four completed entries. Here's the breakdown.

Ten entries were because they were local authors. Five were for "rounding out" my literary experience, five were in preparation for a writer's conference, and five were just for fun. Other reasons for reading a book were friend recommendations, finishing a series, and research.

Favored genre is, by far, Fantasy. If we include Urban Fantasy it gets even worse. Second place is Literary, followed by Paranormal (exclusively Adria Waters, I believe), then a scattershot of books I classified in different genres for the sake of racking up points. These include memoir, humor, mystery, and dusterpunk.

I read mostly in paperback, some ebook, and one lonely hardback. It's the best compromise between portability and retention, I suppose.

I like to own my books as well. Totals are 75% owned, 12% from the library, and 12% loaned. All authors were from the U.S. that year. I'm ditching the POC thing, as I've decided that's a racist thing to do. If we're looking at diversity of background, race can be an indicator but isn't a sure bet. Assuming a person is different than me because of race, and another is the same as me for the same reason, is lending too much credit toward skin color.

Highest scoring entry: Bone Garden by Tess Gerritsen.

If I learned anything from scoring this year, it's that page count maters more than multipliers. Usually. This ranked sixth in raw page count, but it was a library paperback in a genre I hadn't read that year, so it scored more than the bigger books. I read it because she was speaking at a conference I attended later that year, and I wanted to see what she was about. She's more famous for her Rizzoli and Isles series, but I didn't want to do the series so this one worked nicely. She gets into viscera, which I enjoyed, and her medical background lends authenticity to the detail she spends on it. I was a little bothered that the leading characters are perfectly in step with modern sensibilities of morality and science, but whatever. Entertaining read, and not the most problematic I read.

Lowest: Homeschool Sex Machine by Matthew Pierce.

At a mere 84 pages, this was destined to be one of the lower scored entries, and reading it in ebook sealed it. I regret nothing, though, because reading this was genuinely one of the funniest experiences of my year.

Personal Favorite entries: Aw geeze, do I have to pick one? Blood on the Tracks by Barbara Nickless is amazing. I read it because I met her at the conference, and my friend who was in her critique group highly recommended it. She was a first time author, but Blood was already breaking out on Amazon and I found out why. It's a mystery-thriller, a genre that gets automatically dismissed by the highbrows as "commercial" and "escapist." It is commercial, but not escapist. The character development is sublime, and the language is high, high literary. It's highly recommended. I also enjoyed local author Jill Orr's The Good Byline. Also a fist time novelist, although not writer, this one is significantly lighter than Blood but highly entertaining. If there's a middle grade boy in your life, Darby Karchut's Finn Finnegan is a sure hit. Even if he doesn't read, if he does just a little he'll find this older lady understands him in a way the big five publishers and tv shows do not. My favorite, though, might have to be Matthew Pierce's JV Superstar. More hilarious than the more attractively titled Homeschool Sex Machine, longer, and speaking to me as a veteran of homeschool evangelical purity culture, it struck a personal chord the others couldn't hope to achieve.

Personally most Disliked entries: Kevin Hearn's Hounded ranks third most disliked, followed by a tossup between Heinlein's famed Stranger in a Strange Land and newcomer Luke T. Barnett's Half-Orc Redemption, ultimately for the same reason.

To be fair, Hounded was mostly a personal preference. It's an urban fantasy, and it is highly entertaining. Talking dogs are always a fun addition, the jokes fly fast, the action is heart pounding, the universe is complex and interesting. What I didn't like was that the characters were unbelievable as anything more than vehicles for young male wish fulfillment fantasies. The protagonist is grossly overpowered, and the ladies find him irresistible. So irresistible, they cannot help but throw themselves at him, even when they are goddesses and he is mortal. He kisses one and beds two, one of them shortly after he killed her husband. While it is established that this pantheon is a little more liberal with their bodies than our Catholic rooted sensibilities allow, I find it suggests the goddesses have low standards, and I feel it demeans women as well.

Though it is a beloved sci-fi classic, I have problems with Stranger. Not only does it not age well with its treatment of women and homosexuals, it's not a coherent story. It dabbles in sci-fi, thriller, political intrigue, a road trip, but it never really figures out what it is until the end, and finally makes its point. On the way, it takes several pit stops to indulge in thinly veiled author self insert rants, some of which I actually agree with and appreciate, but it doesn't integrate seamlessly with the novel. If it were a new author submitting the manuscript and not the mighty Heinlein, the editors would have hacked those out with prejudice. Since it is Heinlein, we're supposed to marvel and swoon over how intelligent and well spoken it is? Please. It's bad writing, I don't care who it is. On the other side of the fence, Half-Orc Redemption had different problems. Some of it was just rookie mistakes. A character was made to narrate the opening events, but the author forgot to give him a realistic reason to be watching. An impersonal, omniscient narrator would have been less atmospheric, but served better in this instance. Some of the material was interesting and imaginative, but a lot of it felt like a strong ripoff of Middle-Earth. However, the damning element for both these narratives, was the preachiness. Half-Orc represents a specific kind of evangelical Christianity, Stranger advocates a humanistic approach to religion, but both are insufferable in their high-handed, superior lecturing. I am not opposed to real religious commentary in my fiction, but it'd better be justified, integral, and make sense. As it was with each, the other problems of the narratives made for a poor reflection on the message.

Other Notable Entries: I read the Mistborn series by Sanderson, and it is excellent. In non-fiction, I read Years of Infamy by Michi Weglyn, a book about the internment of thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII. I also read Myron Levoy's Alan and Naomi, an excellent read and the film is almost as good. Better, in terms of the Jewish family banter. And of course, I can't get away without endorsing my favorite local authors Amanda Booloodian, for urban fantasy, Adria Waters, for YA paranormal, David P. Jacobs, for literary, and J.C. Ahren, for YA fantasy/soft sci-fi. That's the book I was editing, it's not out yet, and if I do say so it is fantastic.

Until next year!

How to Score Your Reading

Last year about this time, I read a post at BookRiot about keeping track of your reading data in a nifty spreadsheet. The author notes that some will think this tracking is a means to "make reading a competition," which she cleverly subverts by ridiculing the notion. Savvy readers can see through the subterfuge.  That's just what we say to make our friends think it isn't a competition, so they will slack off and give us an edge. Because if there's one thing we love more than literature around here, it's winning.

A moment's consideration will reveal, however, that this isn't a straightforward numbers game. It isn't enough to simply read a lot of books, after all. You have to read the correct books, the books people ought to read, as opposed to the ones you like and enjoy for their own sake. If reading for self improvement, there are plenty of listed recommendations out there, but which lists do we undertake? And what if you go off the rails and improvise a bit? We need a precise method for quantifying the excellence of a book, and how smug we are allowed to feel having read it. Therefore, I have developed a scoring system to help track not only the quantity, but the quality of your reading, moving into the new year.

The following is intended to serve strictly as a template for your own score sheet. Some readers will undoubtedly consider some criteria irrelevant, and recognize gaps in the system as well. Feel free to tailor the system to accurately reflect your personal reading values or, barring that, to justify your ill advised Grafton, Grisham, and/or Gaiman binge.
Ha Ha! Just kidding. Neil Gaiman is always a good idea.

To learn your reading score, collect the following data; number of books read in your chosen time frame, author, gender, genre, format, source, author's nationality, whiteness, and page count.

The following is a description of how to use the data to account for points, and a rationale as to how the system is designed.

NUMBER of BOOKS

If you read a book, congratulations! You get a point. Whether it's The Association of Small Bombs by Karan Mahajan or Captain America: Steve Rodgers (2016) #1 by Nick Spencer and Jesus Saiz, all literature has some value. Just, some has more than others.

AUTHOR

In our academic, pretentious opinion, the goal of reading is nothing so banal as to entertain. Rather, it is to acquire a diversity of perspective so that we can assert our superiority over other segments of society such as Rednecks, Kardashians, and People Who Do Not Listen to NPR. Therefore, add another whole point for every new author in the list. If you repeat an author, subtract 0.25 from that point for every subsequent appearance. The second book from the same author will count for 0.75, the third 0.5, and so on until the fifth book by the same author, at which point you are developing a restricted worldview, and are no longer permitted to award yourself an author point.

Note: be wary of pseudonyms.

GENDER

The world's population is approximately 50% female, but published literature is grossly over represented by males. This is especially true when viewed in historical perspective. Consequently, we have been overexposed to the male perspective (because there truly is only one male perspective). Therefore, you get no gender point if the author identifies as a cisgender male. A cis female author gets one point. Add another full point for every non traditional gender/sexual identity held by the author.

GENRE(S)

It is not only important to gather a diversity of authors, but also of genre. Some readers like to confine themselves to a certain subtype of books they enjoy, rather than challenging themselves with new styles, ideas, and boredoms. This system rewards readers for stepping out by allowing a full point for every new genre read in the allotted time frame. Since many books fall into multiple genres, be careful to account and add a point for each. For example, Joe Haldeman's The Forever War can be considered both Science Fiction and a Classic. It would be good for two additional points, provided the reader had not read from either of these genres earlier in the competition.

Exception

Any book considered "escapist" by a panel of your peers requires their genre points to be divided by half. Larry Correia's Monster Hunter International is both an urban fantasy and a thriller, but only receives one genre point due to its escapist nature.

FORMAT

Science says format matters. If you read the narrative in paper or hardback, give yourself a point. While convenient, you don't retain as much from an ebook, so that gets you a big, fat zero.

SOURCE

Source can be less of a scoring metric than a simple observation on where you get your books from. However, as an author I am particularly sensitive to the need to support the production of new literature through actual currency exchange, so award yourself a point of you own the title you just read. Add half a point for library reads, since this is supporting your civic community. You still get the other points for borrowed books, as I do appreciate the aversion of monetary risk on an unknown quantity. Even so, shame on you and me for not buying books.

Exception

If the author is dead or no longer receiving royalties, go ahead and award yourself the point anyway.

NATIONALITY

Once again, diversity of perspective is what motivates our scoring according to nationality. Add another point for every new nationality added to the list. Since we are assuming we are all reading in English, you may add yet another three points if the narrative was originally printed in a non English language. If you read two titles from Japan, as an example, the first reaps an additional four points for being a new nationality written in a foreign language. The second is not a new nationality so misses the first point, but retains the foreign language kicker. It should be noted that reading translated narratives from a diversity of nationalities is an extraordinarily efficient way to become better than your peers rack up points.

WHITENESS
As we all know, being white isn't necessarily bad per se, but since most of the literature out there has been written by white people, for diversity reasons it's just not exactly good. Thus, add another point if the author's epidermis is any color other than white.

PAGE COUNT

Page count is perhaps the most vital element of the scoring process, as it shuts down an easy exploit. One could theoretically dash through the library's entire collection of "The Babysitter's Club" paperbacks and artificially inflate their numbers, while their neighbor bravely slogs through David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest (on ebook because seriously? Who is going to lug that tome around for the better part of the three months it's going to take to read it?) and receives a fraction of the points. Page count is unfortunately a flawed solution as publishers can monkey with typeset and font size, manipulating the numbers like a college freshman taking English Comp 1, but unfortunately it's the best system we've got.

To score, place a decimal point behind the hundredth's place, and multiply the accumulated base score by that number. Thus, the 208 page The Vegetarian by Han King is multiplied by 2.08, and the 1216 page The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu gets you 12.16 times the points.

OPTIONAL ADDITIONS
For my own personal use, I like to add another variable. I believe it is important to support local authors, and review their work online in hopes that they will offer quid for my proverbial quo. Therefore, I add yet another point if I can consider the author local, or if they otherwise might notice my lips locked on their august posterior and reciprocate.

You may add or subtract criteria and scoring at your whim. Just make sure, when competing against fellow readers, that everyone's score is tallied using the same standard.

RUNNING THE TOTALS: AN EXAMPLE
My personalized scoring uses the following pattern.

The first book I read in 2016 was Demons of Cortanis by C.J. Weiland. It receives the original base point (1), and the full Author point (1), but Weiland is unfortunately male, so Demons gets no Gender points. The genre is Science Fiction which, being the first book of the year is of course new, so it gets a Genre point. I could perhaps justify it as a thriller as well and add another point, but let's keep it simple (1). I read it in paperback for the Format (1), and I bought the book for the Source point (1). Again, as the first book, the US counts as a New Nationality so we get to add (1), but Weiland is as white as a Trump rally so we get no Race points. He is, however, a Local Author so he gets an additional (1) for a total of (7). We multiply this by the 270 page count (2.7) and find this wonderful selection nets me 18.9 points.

The second book I read was Pawn by J.C. Ahern. It gets the base point (1), the full Author point (1), and since she's a she, we get a Gender point (1). We have a dual genre of YA and Fantasy, neither of which are Sci-Fi so I could add two, but it's also kind of escapist so it gets reduced back to (1). Again, I read it in an approved Format (1) and Own the title (1). However, since she is from the US like Weiland, Pawn does not net a New Nationality point and she's also white, so I am still missing the Race point. The Local Author point adds (1), also bringing the total up to (7). However, since the page count registers at a cool 396, I get to multiply by 3.96 for a total of 27.72 points.
Altogether, in 2016 I read 23 titles, scoring 323 points, rounded to the nearest whole number. That's an average of about 14 points per title. Whoo! I need to read more translated work!

I hope you can use this to help improve your own reading catalog in the future. Keep reading! Lord knows, in 2017 it'll be better than Facebook or watching the "news."

Writing is Hard, You Guys

Everybody is prone to think their own job is the toughest. IT customer service people complain about ignorant customers (is the tower plugged in?), stay at home parents talk about how they never leave 'work,' and air traffic controllers. What a bunch of whiners. In comparison, the pro novelist has it easy. Those people can hang around the house in their underwear and make crap up all day. But you guys, seriously. Writing is hard.

My reading list this year has been primarily a mix of classics and local authors. Therefore, I have been subconsciously comparing C.J. Weiland to Joe Haldeman, Adria Waters to Henry James, and Eric Praschan to... Stella Gibbons? Sylvia Plath? I don't know, that's the only thriller I've read this year. Anyway, I've been coming away from these locally produced books thinking they just aren't quite cutting it, but the comparison has been unjust. I recently finished "The Accidental Demon Slayer," which made the NYT Bestseller's list, so that I could contrast it to Amanda Booloodian's "Shattered Soul" published earlier this year. I do see why "Slayer" made the list. It's fun and has strong, distinctive voice. The same things that bothered me about "Soul," and other books I read this year, however, plague "Slayer" as well.

This has caused some self examination on my part. I think I have to accept that I am a picky reader, and an atypical one at that. The things that concern me about books don't seem to bother most people. That said, I have been way too harsh on my fellow small time authors. We've put hundreds of hours into what we do, and we're still not writing perfect stories because perfect stories are a tough thing to pull off. We have to create palpable settings, but not get bogged down in the details. Inject Truth and Meaning, without getting preachy. Make every plot point relevant, and make it long enough, but not pad for time. We can't make it too long, either. Make readers care about people who are only figments of our imaginations, by instilling them with a cogent worldview and idiosyncrasies that are not necessarily our own. We have to tell big, twisted, complicated lies, and keep our stories straight. If we don't, nobody will read our book. Then, after all that, it boils down to taste. One review of "Slayer" tore into it because it was written from First Person. Well calm down lady, most people don't think this warrants a warning label.

Moving forward, I think I'll maintain high criticism for paid work and my own work, but I'll suspend my harshest judgement for the rest. It's not like people are counting on this, anyway. All we're doing is providing a handful of people with a good time, anyway.

Conference

The local writer's community has worked really, super hard and put together a second annual writer's conference for November. I already missed the early bird price due to not being on social media and generally acting the hermit. That was my fault. I'm wondering whether I should go this year.

Morally speaking, I probably should. Support the local scene, their success is mine, etc. The more attendees, the more funds they raise, the better speakers they can recruit, the better experience they can create, the more buzz they generate, it all builds on itself. Then there's the networking. I wouldn't have published a dang thing without networking and look at me, I've published two stories. Plus there's classes, of course. I know how to write, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to think you know it all. Heck, some of the best, most succinct instruction I have ever received regarding both plot and character development, I got from that conference last year. Finally, there's the motivation. Everybody needs a good kick in the pants every once in a while, and hanging out with other writers and talking about how special we are is a great way to get that done. You get the encouragement, the inspiration, the hope, the tough love, all at a conference. I should probably go.

On the other hand, if I do go it will negate all the earnings I've made writing this year. Not because it's an expensive conference, either. On the contrary, it's the best value I've ever seen, not that I shop conferences a lot. It's in town, so I don't have to worry about lodging or anything. It's just that I haven't made much money this year. Or any year, for that matter. And I know what to write and how to write it. I have a plan. I just need to get over myself and find a way to get it done. Weekends are (sometimes) a great time to get some writing finished, and if I'm at a conference that means, by definition, that I am not writing. I probably shouldn't go.

I don't know. Maybe I'll just read some Brandon Sanderson and write some stuff about dog-people forcing young adults to fight to the virtual death in simulated combat or something.

Will Work for Free

What makes a person buy a book? Is it the plot, the genre, the brand, the advertisement? Is it the title, or the blurb?

Back in olden times, authors didn't sell books to readers. Authors sold manuscripts to publishers, who would take those stacks of awkward phrasing and stilted dialogue, edit them to their own liking, change the title, slap an unrelated illustration on the cover and flip them into bona fide, genuine, honest to God books. Publishers didn't buy manuscripts because they loved the stories. They bought them as an investment. They made the decision based on myriad criteria, including how much work it would take to make it presentable, if there was a brand to be exploited or built, and if they thought the market was looking for that kind of thing at the moment. Whether or not the novel was a good one was not part of the equation; it was whether the novel would appeal to the masses.
Consequently, writers didn't have to worry about how to sell to readers. That was the publisher's job. All they had to worry about was selling to the publisher, which has a different set of criteria.

Then the Technological Revolution hit us like a sack of mealy potatoes, and books would never be the same.

There are so many changes, good and bad, that have been wrought by the advent of self publishing but the one I want to focus on here is how readers buy books. Readers used to go to brick and mortar stores, browse the displays, pace through aisles, thumb through pages, and examine handwritten staff picks scrawled on index cards taped to the shelves. The books they used to examine were universally pre-approved and professionally edited, guaranteeing a certain degree of quality. They started with genre, scanned titles, looked at covers, read blurbs, perhaps surveyed the table of contents, read the first paragraph. Maybe the first chapter. At any time, if they lost interest they could shelve it. Nothing lost but a little time. Selecting a book was part of the rite, part of the pleasure. Now it's all searchwords and algorithms, and 'customers also enjoyed' and 'frequently purchased with.' There can be pleasure in this process as well, but it now carries more risk. You would spend fifteen dollars, but you could be assured that the writing would at the least be competent. Now you pay five, or two, or even one dollar, but the market is riddled with landmines. You never know if the self published author took the time to polish their work, hired an editor, listened to and applied constructive critique, or if this book was just their ill informed vanity project. This has made readers suspicious. They want assurance that their next reading experience will at least be bearable before they plonk down their hard earned clams. They prefer known quantities with their authors and, barring that, they want a free trial.

It's not fair to ask someone to work for free, but I'm over it. Life is not fair. I'm not in a rush to get paid anyway, so I'll go ahead and work for free. That's exactly what I am doing with this new short I am working on. It's essentially a long advertisement for the series, an extended blurb. The question is, what part of the series should I represent?
I'm already writing in first person, like the main series. I'm introducing the conceit of the sci-fi elements, inhabiting the same world, using pop/gamer culture references and using characters in the same age range. I'm foreshadowing plot points that were originally designed as standalone for the book, which is a skill I never suspected I'd use or even existed, but that's fun. What I'm worried about is if the whole thing will work because, despite our professional compatibility, J.C. Ahren and I are still different authors. We have different names and different authorial voices. Should I ghost write this, or does this not matter to readers?

What do you think?

(I inevitably have to plug something, so here it is)
In order to help you out here, I suggest looking at the Juniper Tales project. Author Aaron Michael Ritchey created a wonderful book series in the Juniper Wars series, and an incredibly rich universe for the series to inhabit. Then he invited other authors to play in his sandbox. There are currently four short stories only obliquely related to the main plot, all featuring different characters, all written by different authors, but all in the same Dusterpunk universe. They are available for free in pdf. here. Do these make you want to check out the series, or at least make you feel like you can make an informed decision to not check it out?

"Magpies" Released!

Here's a free story. It's about a girl and her dad, and there's a steam powered truck and some prairie dogs and an adjustable wrench or something. While you're there, you have access to three other stories, also available for the low, low price of free. Also taking place in the same steam driven universe. One has sky pirates, one has explosions and Richard Nixon, and the other has missiles and stuff.
If you find yourself intrigued or even possibly captivated by the setting in which these stories take place, there is this full length novel about machine guns, grenade launchers, and a post apocalyptic cattle drive in a world almost devoid of men, and this second, excellent followup, so you can be assured this is an actual legit series that will keep releasing novels on a regular schedule instead of getting sidetracked with TV shows, UNLIKE your favorite epic fantasy series. You're welcome.

I've done a lot of writing and complaining about other people's fiction, so that first one, "Magpies," is my offering. It's entirely self contained, so you don't have to read anything else to 'get' the story, and once again, it is free. Did I mention that it won't cost you anything but time? Wouldn't you rather spend your time reading escapist fantasy fiction than some guy talking about himself?

No?

Fine. "Magpies" is more accessible than my currently only other offering, "Fool's Game" (a short sidequel to "Pawn"), and I also think it will be more successful, in terms of reader enjoyment. That's because it's more formulaic. The protagonist in "Magpies" is a typical teenage girl thrown in an atypical situation. She has a little attitude in the beginning, but you learn that it's kind of justified. I tried to make sure the reader wants a happy ending for her.
This was accomplished through a few tricks I picked up at last writer's conference, right here in my hometown. The fabulous Angie Fox, author of the Accidental Demon Slayer series, laid out how to do a great character and plot arc with easy simplicity.
For character, find out what your protagonist wants at the beginning, more than anything in the world, and offer it to them at the end. This ensures two things. First, in the beginning when your characters are most fuzzy in your mind, you have to figure out what motivates them and show it. This helps to shape them, and it's more efficient than just starting to write ad figuring it out along the way. Second, it gives you a chance to ensure that their desires change over the course of the narrative. There are so many wonderful endings you can give with this choice, nearly all of them solidifying character arc.
For plot, figure out the worst thing that could possibly happen to your character, the thing they fear most, and make them face it in the climax. Strip their beauty, strip their power, kill their loved ones or let them be betrayed. Discover the deep, existential dread lurking in the darkest recesses of their soul, and force the reality of it on them. Again, what happens next is rife with possibilities, but there are few ways to get it wrong.
I did these two things, and made the protagonist a teenage girl, similar to the protagonist from the main series and tadaa! Successful story. The only question is the execution. A little canned? Maaaaaybe, but we like canned. Just ask Hormel Foods Corporation.

In contrast, "Fool's Game" is not canned, and not as impactful. I've talked about this before, but I had significantly less freedom to craft a narrative. I also had to use a protagonist that is not only inhuman, he's a despicable entity. I had to make the reader believe he's smart, even though he's ultimately outwitted. His motivations are cloaked. His deepest fear is confronted, but it's not clear what that is, and we don't get to see what he does with it. Despite all this, I think it works. But of course I would think that. I wrote it.

Both "Pawn" and "Fool's Game" are free with Amazon's Kindle Unlimited program, so there you go. Or, if you feel like supporting our creative efforts in hopes that we produce more, that option is available as well.

When I Grow Up I Want To Be A...

We have more than one book lying around that encourages my kids to ponder their future vocation. Doctor, race car driver, generic 'scientist,' and on. They all focus on what you want to do with your life, and never include the soul killing details. When we grow up, we find it isn't so simple as "do what you want to do." There are so many factors at play, conflicting with what we want.

Take the classic option of fireman. I'm sorry, fireperson. Fire people are the most beloved of public servants. Politicians want to tax you to oblivion and strip your civil liberties, the police are only interested in writing traffic tickets, arresting you for public intoxication and being generally racist, but fire people? They just want to put out your fire, and who doesn't love that? They get to ride giant red trucks and everyone has to get out of their way because, you see, there is a fire. They get to haul hoses, whack down doors, use the awesome Halligan tool and be BDH's*, all while wearing a bitchin' pair of pants. If that's what being a fire person is all about, where do I sign? But, and there's always several buts, there's more to the story than the good stuff. They have a risky job and terrible hours, and oh yes, the compensation is abysmal. This means nobody wants to marry a fireman. But if the calendars are to be believed, plenty of women want to sleep with a fireman, and that counts for something. Right? You guys?
Or, let's look at another popular option; astronaut. Sounds great, right? Be one of the few people to actually see the world from space. Play zero gravity tennis, eat freeze dried turkey, say "countdown to launch" without irony, and have you seen those pants? How does one become an astronaut, anyway?
Turns out, becoming an astronaut is like joining the Rockettes, if Radio City were more interested in how you rocked your math thesis more than your pair of five inch heels. If you happen to have the right combination of favorable genetics, acumen and work ethic to make you into a perfect candidate, there's still a long list of other perfect candidates in front of you. Not happening.
 How about archaeologist? But when you learn that archaeology is less about bullwhips and melting Nazi faces, and more about grant writing and scraping potsherds with a toothbrush, it kind of loses some appeal. And oh yeah, the long, expensive education for a less than glamorous paycheck. You still get a neat pair of pants, though. Cargo pockets.
 It turns out career 'choice' is awkward compromise of ability, location, compensation, aptitude, and convenience. Otherwise, I assume we'd all be Batman and none of us would be insurance salesmen. I mean insurance salespeople.

Even when we are lucky enough to find a vocation that we are good at, pays well enough, is available in the area we want to live, and doesn't have so much competition in it that work is unavailable, there's still the question of whether you like it. I tried respiratory care, as an example. It made all kinds of sense. Anywhere there's a hospital, there's work. It only requires a BS. The pay is not amazing, but good enough. I was even decent at the actual work, but some aspects of getting the degree itself drove me insane.
Instead, I found myself with the aptitude and enjoyment of writing. Fiction, mostly. This is great, because you can do it anywhere, although coffee shops seem to be the preferred location. Extra points if it's NOT a Starbucks, but a locally owned joint. The problem is the sometimes stiff, but mostly overwhelming competition, and the pay. There isn't any.

To make matters worse, I keep blogging instead of working.

I don't even know where I am going with this, other than to say that that "be what you want to be!" line is a dirty, stinking lie. At least for me, the thing I want to be doesn't exist in reality.