Ask an Author

If you've ever wanted to watch/hear me ramble about writing, here's your chance:

Radio Show Today

If you're so inclined, I'm going to be the guest on Red River's What's Write For Me with Dellani Oakes as host. The show is at 1:00 p.m. Pacific, 4:00 p.m. Eastern. Listen here. (And it should also be archived here after the fact.) Hope you'll tune in!

"Tea Time" on Red River Radio

Mark your calendars! On December 12, I'll be part of the "Tea Time" crowd on Red River Radio! Come listen to me and my fellow authors yak about writing. Well, probably about writing. Maybe also about other things. We're an easily distracted lot.

Link to the show is here. Starts at 1:00 pm PST, 4:00 pm EST. Hope you'll tune in!

Politics in Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Whether you write these genres or just love to read them, what role does politics play in science fiction and fantasy worlds? I participated in an online panel to discuss just that. Who does it well? Who does it less than well? (The Star Wars prequels, anyone?) Is it always necessary to have politics in a sci-fi or fantasy book? Find out what I and other SFF writers have to say about it, and feel free to let me know your thoughts on it, too.

Television: Westworld, "The Original" & "Chestnut"

Remember the Yul Brynner movie? Me neither, but that probably doesn't matter much.

I realize I'm behind on this show. I find that, whenever I'm thinking about watching it, I don't really want to. What does that say about me and/or Westworld? That we're not made for each other, I suppose.

I went through my Michael Crichton phase in middle and high school. Very fun, easy reads. And what I like about his work is what I also like about Westworld—the philosophy, the story. The characters are only so-so, but the acting is very good, and the production values are amazing. So why am I not compelled—dare I say I'm "reluctant"—to watch it?

The sex and violence. And before you call me a prude, it's not that I'm made uncomfortable by it, it's that I find it wildly gratuitous and unnecessary to what otherwise is a really interesting story. To me the sex and violence in this show is lowest common denominator programming. It's the bread and circuses of television. And television is spectacle, after all, so maybe deep down I really need to be reading a book rather than watching a TV show.

For the five people out there who don't know what this show is about, I'll give you the short version. The titular Westworld is a sort of theme park in which guests (who pay a lot to go there) get to go live a Wild West adventure. These guests can slake their desires for sex and violence (!) without consequence because all the "hosts" in the park are programmed entities that can be raped, killed, whatever, and then refurbished.

While I can really enjoy the idea of such an immersive experience, I also have to wonder at the kinds of people this park draws. Sadists. Psychopaths. And that does seem to be the underlying suggestion. When one also considers that these guests must have a lot of money, we're led to conclude that rich people are fucked up.

But that's assuming you put that much thought into the show. You could watch Westworld on the level of just watching, or you can watch it and really think about it. Your choice. I'm a thinker.

I also have to wonder why Michael Crichton hated amusement parks so much. Did he have a bad experience at Disneyland as a kid or something?

In Jurassic Park we have John Hammond. In Westworld it's Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins). In JP we discover Dr. Wu might have designs beyond his station; in Westworld it's Bernard Lowe (Jeffrey Wright). Note that this is only what I've gleaned from the first two episodes. Namely, there are a lot of politics involved in creating and maintaining a sophisticated amusement park.

I have an idea that Ed Harris' Man in Black is actually one of the hosts, and that when he says he's "not going back" he means cold storage or whatever. But I'm probably getting ahead of myself. After all, that wouldn't explain why he's unable to be harmed by other hosts. In any case, don't spoil it for me. I'll manage to wade through the episodes eventually. Or maybe I should just find copies of the scripts. As lovely as this show is, its attempts to shock and titillate me are actually big turn-offs.

Reminder

You will be able to see me—in person—this coming weekend. I'll be on panels talking about villains and character-themed stories. I'll be dressed up in a Regency gown at the Dreamweaver's Ball. I'll be decked out red-carpet style for the RONE Awards. And I'll have an author table in the signing room. This doesn't happen often, so if you have a chance to come down, please do!

If you're very, very lucky you'll get to meet these guys too:

They're semi-retired but will be traveling with me. Should be fun!

Books: Deadly Alliance by Kathleen Rowland

Check out this romantic suspense novel by fellow Tirgearr author Kathleen Rowland!

Finbar Donahue, former Army Ranger, walked on the wild side in Iraq, but now he lives in the shadows. After his evasive partner, Les, was shot in a random drive-by, Finn discovers cash is siphoned monthly. He fights to keep his investment company afloat. When the late partner’s girlfriend, Amy Kintyre, applies for his bookkeeping job, Finn suspects she knows about his company drain and hires her.

Amy needs a nine-to-five with free evenings and weekends to get her fashion design business back on track. She unearths Les’ s secret bank account and alerts Finn. Freezing of the money laundering account sets off havoc within an Irish gang. Amy witnesses a gang fight between a brutal ISIS fundraising organization and the Irish. Desperate to escape a stalker’s crosshairs, she seeks refuge with Finn. As danger heats up, sparks fly hotter.  

---

Chapter One

“You know I love your sportswear designs, right?”

“I’m glad you do.” Amy Kintyre sat opposite a buyer, none other than Kira Radner, at a coffee shop in Lake Arrowhead, California. This sudden opportunity to re-launch her sportswear designs gave rise to the jitters, and Amy clutched her hands under the table.

Kira pressed her face forward, Amy’s sketches drawn on figures in action poses. With the portfolio spread between them, she flipped it sideways to examine the fabric swatches stapled along the sidebar. Their earthy tones blended with the marred wooden table.

Amy stilled the chatty urge.

“You know your presentation is in two weeks.” Kira was giving her the green light with Recreational Sportswear, Incorporated.

“I appreciate this, Kira.” To get her business back on track, she needed blocks of time to sew mockups. Amy inhaled the spicy aroma of the raw cedar wood. The under-construction décor of wide, timber planks on the walls made her think of her new self. Crazy how thirty felt like seventeen when embracing life and freeing her artistic side.

“Then I beg you,” Kira said, “please, please, please have your product samples ready. Deadline is the first Monday of November.”

“Got it.” Fear over the tight time frame tasted sour in her throat, but this break called like no other. 

Kira leaned forward. “Impressive functionality with the shorts. Who would have thought this pocket holds a Swiss Army Knife!” The buyer’s fingertips traced the pick-stitch hem, made with thread matching the fabric, appearing invisible. “Nice detail.”

Amy’s only mock-up kept their face-to-face meeting running like the hum of the fluorescent lights above.

“Oooo,” Kira said and raised both her eyebrows. “Classic nostalgia with a twist. A pocket knife for hikers!”

“Useful, I think.” The bright light flickered over associates who’d worked together in the past, but Amy didn’t share the difficulty of making the deadline. Her breathing shortened, and panic carved a hole in her chest.

“Gotta bounce,” Kira said. “Get to work.”

“I will.” She pulled out a notebook and jotted down a to-do list ending with the file with various size patterns. After a half-hour of regrouping and rethinking, she stopped tapping her pen. Kira Radner took a chance on her, but to turn this chance into a reality, she needed evenings and weekends to make the deadline.

Last Sunday while pouring over Craigslist classifieds, she’d zeroed in on Finbar Donahue’s bookkeeping ad. After her inquiry, his head accountant sent her a message. She still favored the toe she stubbed after her in-box pinged.

Thanks to what happened, the call from Kira, she needed Finn’s job. Her mind raced to her third interview for his nine-to-five. Tomorrow morning, if all went well, she’d land the regular-hours job, tailor made for her time frame. She ran a hand through her hair, picturing the arrogant know-it-all with a never-ending string of women hanging on his arm.

Handsome wasn’t the word to describe Finn, her late, ex-boyfriend’s partner. She’d been around Finbar Donahue enough to know he looked at his world as if he were the Almighty himself. The former Army Ranger made her way too nervous. She tensed up to such an extent, her voice broke. 

Romance wasn’t part of this equation. Her dream to launch herself, stitch by stitch, came down to landing the job. On a mission, her goal was simple. She closed her eyes and prayed tomorrow she’d nail it.

---

Buy It: www.tirpub.com/DeadlyAlliance

How about romantic travel to Lake Arrowhead, California, where Deadly Alliance takes place? Fall colors mix with evergreens around this pristine mountain lake. Bring a picnic basket and rent a pontoon!

Book Buyers Best finalist Kathleen Rowland is devoted to giving her readers fast-paced, high-stakes suspense with a sizzling love story sure to melt their hearts. Lily’s Pad and the Intervenus Series: A Brand New Address and Betrayal at Crater’s Edge are sweet. Deadly Alliance and her work-in-progress, Unholy Alliance, are contracted with Tirgearr Publishing and written for adults.

Kathleen used to write computer programs but now writes novels. She grew up in Iowa where she caught lightning bugs, ran barefoot, and raced her sailboat on Lake Okoboji. Now she wears flip-flops and sails with her husband, Gerry, on Newport Harbor but wishes there were lightning bugs in California.

Kathleen exists happily with her witty CPA husband, Gerry, in their 70’s poolside retreat in Southern California where she adores time spent with visiting grandchildren, dogs, one bunny, and noisy neighbors. While proud of their five children who’ve flown the coop, she appreciates the luxury of time to write. If you’d enjoy news, sign up for Kathleen’s newsletter at http://www.kathleenrowland.com/

Find Kathleen online at these sites as well: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/786656.Kathleen_Rowland http://www.amazon.com/Kathleen-Rowland/e/B007RYMF7S/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1450835163&sr=1-2-ent
https://twitter.com/rowlandkathleen
https://kathleenrowland.wordpress.com/
http://www.kathleenrowland.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/kathleen.rowland.50

Top 10 Favorite Authors?

I was asked to list mine, and why. While I hesitate to say "favorite," I did list ten authors I really enjoy and admire. Here's the list. Who's on yours?

And while you're there, you can enter to win a $25 Amazon gift card!

Books: Day for Night by Stacey Bryan

Okay, so I haven't read it. But I did interview the author! Please read all about her and her book (described as "urban paranormal comedy") here.

Movies: Love & Friendship

Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Chloë Sevigny, Xavier Samuel
Directed By: Whit Stillman
Written By: Whit Stillman, from the novella Lady Susan by Jane Austen
Amazon Studios, 2016
PG; 92 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

Because, honestly, I do love Jane Austen. So I was probably going to love this movie no matter what.

I haven't read Lady Susan, a sad omission on my part. But that made it all the more fun to watch this film and have no expectations aside from wanting to see some costumes and hear some witty period banter. Both of which Love & Friendship delivers.

The story is relatively simple. Lady Susan is a widow who must remove herself from the home of friends after she is accused of, let's say "unladylike conduct" with a married gentleman. She goes to her late husband's brother to stay with his family and has designs on one Mr. Reginald DeCourcy though his family does not approve. When Lady Susan's own daughter Frederica is shipped home from her boarding school wires become all the more crossed. Lady Susan wants Frederica to marry the addlepated Mr. Martin but Frederica resists.

I cannot do it justice. The whole of it has a lot of moving pieces and there are so many characters they are introduced, wink-like, with title cards. But it all adds to the fun, and the wit is definitely there. Beckinsale does remarkably well as Lady Susan, and Tom Bennett is a highlight as the the lackwit Mr. Martin.

Certainly it's worth finding a local arthouse and seeing this surrounded by others who will comprehend and laugh at all the jokes. But even if you can't find it playing near you, I'm sure Amazon will have it streaming before long. If you enjoy Austen and her ilk, and if you have no trouble keeping up with some rapid dialogue, this one is for you.

I'm also in the paper

You can read the article here.

Podcasts: Dead Authors

So this is a podcast in which H.G. Wells (portrayed by comedian Paul F. Tompkins) travels through time and interviews other famous, and famously dead, authors (portrayed by other comedians). As with anything funny, it's largely subjective and some are simply better than others. But I can at least vouch for the Tennessee Williams episode and the Mark Twain one. I tried J.R.R. Tolkien but was less amused by that one.

There are 50 episodes, so I'm skipping around and finding ones I like. The podcasts are recorded in front of a live audience, and for the benefit of 826LA, which offers tutoring and writing programs. So you can feel good while laughing 'til you cry. (Which I literally just did while listening to Mark Twain talk about Shakespeare.)

DON'T rely on these podcasts for factual information! It's clear some light research is done ahead of time, but the rest is pure improve. To complain that something isn't right or true is to take the fun out of it. So if that kind of thing bothers you, this podcast isn't for you.

Go here for a look at all the episodes.

Tooting My Horn

Fiona Mcvie interviewed me about my forthcoming novel! Read it here!

Books: Us by David Nicholls

I really loved One Day (the book, not the film), and this was a good book, too, but I didn't enjoy it as much. And maybe that's because of the whole raised expectations thing where, after one really good book, you anticipate the next one being as good or better. But I think, for me, this was more that One Day, despite its tear-inducing ending, was hopeful in tone and this one is rather hopeless.

Douglas Petersen is on the brink of losing his wife of nearly 25 years. His 17-year-old son Albie hates him. It's not a promising start, and watching Douglas struggle to hold on to everything—everyone—he has is somewhat painful. As Albie graduates from school, Douglas plans a Grand Tour and envisions how much fun they will have as a family, how this trip will bring them together. But of course it goes all wrong.

Meanwhile, the story of the disastrous holiday is interwoven with the tale of Douglas and Connie's past: how they met, moved in together, married. All the footprints that lead to the current day and age. The resulting tapestry makes Douglas's fantasy of setting things right all the sadder as it is made patently clear that he and Connie are something of a mismatch. From the start, the relationship bears the ticking of a countdown clock.

There are, of course, some truly outrageous moments, but nothing I found particularly funny. Just gradations of sad and depressing, really. Shades of ridiculous and pitiable.

But Nicholls draws characters marvelously well. They are well-rounded, fully formed people. One easily sees oneself, or people one knows, in the outlines of Douglas, Connie, Albie, Kat, Freja. This is Nicholls' true talent.

Well, and he's a fine storyteller. This is a good book. Just not a very upbeat one.

Ursula K Le Guin v Amazon

Cross posted from PepperWords.

A Facebook post sent me to this essay by Ursula K Le Guin about how Amazon promotes a disposable culture.

The argument goes more or less like this: Amazon [and other publishers] are now solely interested in the next big best seller. They don't care if the books themselves are any good; they only care whether the books will sell. It's a lowest common denominator kind of market, really. Le Guin likens it to fast food and sweets. People love the taste, and these things are cheap besides, but are these aren't the makings of a good diet.

She's got a point. And I think there are a number of cultural problems in the same vein, but that's another discussion altogether.

Really, churning out only what people "want" to read leads to a homogenous literary culture, and one that, again, is high in calories and low in mental nutrition. There's a place for those kinds of books, of course, but we need a diversified "diet." We need literature, a wide variety of it. Instead, what we get these days are basically different toppings but it's all pizza underneath.

Meanwhile, as far as Le Guin's essay goes, I'm mostly surprised at how many of the commenters (a) profess to love Ms. Le Guin then (b) go on to tell her she's wrong.

A lot of the commenters admit to being self-published through Amazon, so one might cite bias. They argue, not entirely incorrectly, that Amazon allows more voices versus fewer because it gives everyone a voice (via self-publishing). So maybe it's the traditional publishers that are serving up such poor menus. After all, these are the ones who want only more of the same stuff because it's that "same stuff" that sells. (And based on my experience in trying to sell a very different kind of book, I'd say there's merit to that argument; I've been told flat out my manuscript is "great" and "well written" but, the agents say, "I can't sell it.")

Still, Le Guin's essay appears to largely target marketing. Yes, Amazon allows anyone and everyone to publish his or her masterpiece, but it does little to nothing to promote good literature. Because in the end it is a commercial company mostly interested in its bottom line. And this is true of all other publishers as well. In this day and age, none of them want to take risks on something new or different, on an unknown author. They swear up and down they LOVE debut authors, but really, they only love the ones they believe can be the next big hit. Not even a modest hit. Not a steady seller. No, this is: go big or go home.

But again, I think cultural issues are to blame for most of this. The root is in what is being demanded by readers. Most readers seem to want . . . Well, whatever is selling these days. The market doesn't leave room for narrow channels, those few readers who like a very small and specific genre. While television has increasingly gone narrower and narrower as channels split so that there's something for everyone (history buffs, people who like cars, cooking, soap operas, etc), publishing has gone the other way. We have fewer "channels" and those channels (publishers) are inclined only to choose "shows" (books) that appeal to wide audiences. Because that's how they make money: selling books. They aren't in it for the art. [I've had this same discussion re the tidal wave of blockbuster movies and the hope that eventually we'll all be sick of them and clamor for something else. But as long as we keep going to see those movies, and as long as those movies keep making billions of dollars, that's what studios will make.]

Ms. Le Guin can bemoan the lack of audience for better books—if more people were demanding them, maybe they would get published. She can equally bemoan that publishers and big corporations like Amazon won't publish and promote better, smaller books—if they did, maybe those books and authors would develop bigger platforms. But no one is willing to put in the time and effort, or wait that long for results. As she points out, it's all about get the book up the charts then toss it aside and make space for the next big thing. Books, ahem, no longer has as much of a shelf life.

And neither, it seems, do actors or musicians . . . Again, I would argue that our pop and celebrity culture chews up and spits out much faster than ever before. We are voracious but nothing sticks to our ribs. Sure, Amazon and publishers contribute to this because it's good for their businesses—to say they should change "for the good of the people and the sake of our culture" is like asking a hungry bear not to eat a fish because "that isn't nice to the fish"—and they will continue in this way until our demands change. But will that ever happen? Until we rally at large for lasting works of art (be it in words, music, or movie form), why should they give us any such thing?

David Sedaris - Six to Eight Black Men

The former bishop of Turkey will be stopping by tonight . . .

Movies: Saving Mr. Banks

I don't know anything about P.L. Travers outside what Wikipedia has to say. And I don't know anything about Mary Poppins except what I've seen in the Disney film (the book was, alas, not part of my childhood . . . or adulthood, for that matter). So I have no way of knowing how accurate Saving Mr. Banks is in terms of whether Travers was really so difficult and how she received Disney's movie version of her book. I suspect, perhaps, not very.

That she'd cried at the premiere—I'd heard that before. But were they tears of anger? Or, as Saving Mr. Banks suggests, was she moved by the movie?

I can't say Saving Mr. Banks entertained me much. And it was a sadder story than I had expected, what with all the flashbacks to Travers' childhood and the death of her father. I was confused a bit by her not wanting such fanciful elements in the movie, since her father was portrayed as having great imagination. If she wanted to honor her father, would she not want to include such flights of fancy? But then again, that imagination was part of what hindered her father and kept getting him fired, so . . . Maybe she felt if he'd been more realistic and so forth, he'd have done better and lived longer. (But then he'd have been a different person, wouldn't he? Not the same father she'd adored.)

Well, at least the movie gave me that much to consider. But now what I really want to know is the truth of the matter. I may, after I finish reading this Cary Grant biography, have to read more about Travers. I may even read Mary Poppins.

It must be the height of self-satisfaction on the part of the Disney corporation, though, to put forth the notion that they (Disney himself, along with his employees) got through to Travers and touched her heart in some way. Not only that, but that they spurred her to write more books! It was all them! Disney was as good as a therapist! Even the chauffeur helped!

Again, I really don't know how accurate any of it is. But the victors write the history books, right? And produce the movies, too.

Books: Correspondence: An Adventure in Letters by N. John Hall

I've written a couple times about how I struggled a bit with this book. It had been well reviewed and came highly recommended, and I'll grant that it was unique and cute. The major barrier, for me, was the character Larry, who I found a tad obnoxious.

Let me first explain the book. It is epistolary in nature, which I guess is meant to be clever in a way since it is a bunch of letters about a bunch of letters. This Larry character writes to Christie's in London regarding some old letters from Victorian authors that he found in his great-great-grandfather's belongings. A man at Christie's named Stephen responds and the two strike up a—aha!—correspondence that discusses these letters from Dickens, Trollope, Thackeray, and the like.

Larry writes the bulk of the letters. Or maybe he writes just as many but his are much longer. And while Hall definitely gives Larry a distinct voice, I can't say I much liked him. He wasn't unkind or anything—he was, in fact almost too personable—but I found him grating. While Stephen urged Larry to please send the letters to Christie's for review, Larry insisted on making personal transcriptions and so on and so forth . . . And then he decided he needed to read some of these Victorian novels . . . And take a class on them . . . So that he was e-mailing Stephen all about the books and the class, and everything sort of got bogged down because Stephen really had little to say in return. I think if Stephen had better held up his end of this "conversation," the book might have been more interesting and it would have cut Larry's overpowering of the narrative.

I had thought when I started reading that at some point we'd get to the Victorian letters, but aside from some transcriptions Larry sends to Stephen via e-mail, we never see/read them. In retrospect, I suppose it would be a bit much to write faux letters from all these famous authors. But it meant I really was stuck with Larry throughout the book when I had expected at some point to be free of him.

And then the ending felt oddly rushed. Though it was satisfactory.

I didn't much like the typeface the book was set in, either. It's a lovely typeface, really, just not ideal for so much text. But that's just personal preference. (And then again, I did work in publishing, do have a degree in publishing, and did take book design. So it's also an informed opinion.) The size of the typeface made it seem like they were working to make the book long enough. That is, the print was set pretty large. It was kind of strange.

But I don't mean to harp or nitpick. I really don't. If anything, I can say I haven't read anything quite like Correspondence, at least not recently. Epistolary novels are not that common any more. And they are kind of fun. At least I can say this book was a different kind of experience from the norm.

A Lesson in Kindness

I think George Saunders is right. Or, at least, I hope he is. I've noticed I'm becoming kinder as I get older, though some of that is through direct effort. My mother used to say I was mean. I always thought I was simply forthright. But really, there are ways to be truthful and kind. It took me a while to learn that, and to learn to think before simply blurting out my opinion. Though of course sometimes I still blurt.

People are sometimes concerned when I'm quiet, too. But I'm trying to cultivate the habit of not speaking unless I'm sure. Or, I suppose, except when I need to ask a question. Problem is, I also tend to grow quiet when I'm upset. So sometimes people aren't sure whether I'm thinking or angry (or maybe both).

But anyway, Saunders is at least right in the fact that kindness lingers long in memory. One always remembers when others are kind. And I've found I'm happiest when I'm kind to others. Though that's selfishness, really—to be kind to others because it makes me feel good. "Its own reward," as they say. Well, that's the reward: It makes one feel good to know one's been kind.

Television: Sleepy Hollow, "For the Triumph of Evil"

How many dream sequences can a show really be expected to have? I just fear this—the dreams and visions—is going to get very old very fast on this show.

People with white eyes (and emptied eyes) are also pretty cliché.

After Abbie has a dream of Crane with the white eyes and someone (-thing) with sand spilling from his (its) eyes, a Dr. Vega from the institution where Abbie's sister Jenny is held is found on the ledge of a building . . . with white eyes that, after she jumps, turn to sand.

(Jenny is Patient #49. Quick, someone theorize on the significance of this number!)

Jenny refuses to speak to Abbie but agrees to speak to Crane.

We get the backstory of the fight between Abbie and Jenny, stemming from when they were young and Abbie refused to admit having seen anything strange in the woods when Jenny reported it. We get briefly introduced to Abbie's ex-boyfriend Morales. And we learn the guy with the eyes of sand is, oddly enough, called the Sandman. "He's coming for you next," says the affected Mr. Gillespie to Abbie. "Next time you fall asleep, you're dead." (Then he kills himself.)

Oh, and Crane tries [a generic, production-approved version of] Red Bull. Has he tried soda yet?

So far, three episodes in, Sleepy Hollow has been relatively rote in its monster-of-the-week structure. Headless Horseman, resurrected witch, Sandman. The show gives the appearance of building a mythology, but really all we're seeing are . . . "monsters from the pit"?

This particular monster, Sandman, necessitates help from the native Mohawks. Crane is astounded—and peeved—that so few of the tribe remain. They find one. A car salesman. Since the Sandman targets people who "turn a blind eye" on others who need help, the salesman is prompted to aid Abbie lest Sandman come for him next for having refused her.

The episode devolves into a pseudo-Neil Gaiman thingy where Abbie and Crane drink a special tea that allows them to enter what amounts to The Dreaming, the Mohawk tribesman having told them they must face Sandman on his own territory. Of course this Sandman is pale and skinny but bald as opposed to having the crazy hair Gaiman's Morpheus is famous for. But hey! Blank black eyes! (Except when sand is falling out of them.)

Anyway, in the old "truth shall set you free" way of things, by telling the truth in the dream, Abbie is able to defeat the Sandman. Somehow it's a letdown. It's almost too easy.

Still: "No more scorpions. Ever."

And Abbie and Crane get an X-Files type basement room to work in.

And Jenny has escaped the institution.

So while the monster angles have been less than thrilling, the character interactions continue to be entertaining. With Jenny in the mix, and a little more of Captain Irving (I hope), there's still enough to keep me interested, even when the A plot is weak. So I'll keep watching. For now.