But in all seriousness, until I figure out just where this blog (and my life?) is headed, I’ll have to leave you all in suspense.

Best of luck until next time,

Caleigh

I had hoped for LASIK originally — it boasts a much faster recovery time — but the docs said my corneas were too thin to be safe for LASIK. Also, in the end PRK surgery normally results in a more stable eye due to the lack of a flap in the cornea.

Today marks the eighth day after the surgery.

The surgery: Friday, August 19th, at around 2:00pm

I was, frankly, petrified. The mild sedative didn’t seem to do much for my nerves and although I managed to put on a good face before the actual surgery, I was definitely not prepared for the surgery itself. Since my pre-PRK eyes had wildly different prescriptions, my right eye suffered through thirty-two seconds under the laser while my left eye enjoyed a comparably blissful fourteen. Really, not so bad and completely, utterly painless — but the wild colours and scary black hole in the middle of my vision were enough to send me blubbering to my mother afterwards. (The other two women getting the procedure were much more stoic than me. I’m a crier.)

Right after the surgery

My vision was great! I couldn’t believe it. It felt a little weird, somehow, but definitely much more clarity than I used to have. I was extremely sensitive to bright light but fortunately the clinic gave me totally rad galactic sunglasses to sport for the next couple days while I recovered.

After the anesthetic wore off … (Approximately thirty minutes later.)

At this point, my eyes were sore and I was being liberal with my eye drops. The rule was no television, reading or computer for at least seventy-two hours after the surgery, so not only was I in pain, but I was also bored stiffless — until I opened up my Audible, that is! I listened to a couple different Audiobooks — Path of Daggers by Robert Jordan (book 8 of The Wheel of Time), The Magician King by Lev Grossman, and a hilarious hour of David Sedaris Live at Carnegie Hall — fantastic!

All in all, the pain really wasn’t that bad. I used my various eye drops diligently, kept my eyes closed most of the time and never took off the sunglasses. Plus my vision was still actually pretty good!

The trouble begins

Trouble #1: I woke up in the middle of the night after my surgery in EXCRUCIATING pain. I felt a serious burning sensation in first my right eye, then my left. I had my ‘night mask’ on, so couldn’t apply any drops — though I’m not sure I could have opened my eyes to administer the drops even if I weren’t wearing the goggles. The pain was slightly less so long as I kept the eyes closed. I have no idea how long the pain lasted, but I do know that eventually it did subside and I fell back asleep. In the morning it was just a nasty nightmare. Apart from a slight replay of pain on the second night, I haven’t experienced anything like it since.

Trouble #2: Yikes! My vision had disappeared overnight. It was difficult to see much of anything. My doctor prepared me for this fact but still, it was a bit of a bummer after seeing so clearly right after the surgery. Luckily, each one of my follow-up appointments — one a day! — confirmed that I was on the mend.

I spent the weekend alone in a small, dark room, listening — and falling asleep — to the audiobooks on my computer.

Three days after the surgery

The bandage contact lenses, inserted right after the surgery, were finally removed on Monday. Well, one of the contact lenses, anyway. One of my damned eyes was healing much faster than the other. At this point my eyes didn’t feel quite as ‘weird’ as they had on the weekend, but they were certainly still very blurry, and in fact my vision wavered considerably from morning to night.

The next day, Tuesday, meant the removal of the contact lens in my right eye. At this point my left eye had recovered quite a bit and I could see again respectably. Not as well as with my glasses, of course, but still — pretty good. My right eye was a mess.

On Wednesday, my left eye improved further, and in the morning, anyway, seemed pretty close to perfect. Of course by evening my left eye had gone to hell again and my right eye, surprisingly, was catching up! So confusing. The doctor said this was mainly due to severe dryness — a very common side-effect after the surgery — but that if I kept up with hourly lubricating eye drops, I should have very clear vision in a couple of weeks.

Thursday revealed my left eye to once again be excellent and my right eye pretty darn good, too. Yippee! Strangely, though, I was still having difficulty reading things close-up, particularly my computer screen. Sure, I could see it — but it was definitely much blurrier than with glasses, even though my long-distance vision now is, from what I can tell, up to what I used to have (in the mornings at least — like I said, it gets worse as the day wears on).

Yesterday: One week later

I went to the doctor for my “tenth day check-up” (really seventh day, but I’m moving to BC tomorrow) and told her about my concerns. We checked it out and it turns out that both of my eyes are now very slightly over-corrected. “Better to be over-corrected than under-corrected!” she said cheerfully. Since I forgot to ask, I’m not sure whether to expect this to resolve as my eyes continue to heal, or whether I’ll just have to a) buy reading glasses or b) get used to the blur. She did mention that my over-correction is so slight that it may be difficult to find reading glasses at this level, and that most people simply deal with it. I’m just used to the crystal clarity of my glasses and contacts of old.

I’m not too concerned about this, except that I’m starting graduate school in a few days and can expect to do a ton of reading once that starts — more than I would be normally, that’s for sure. I don’t want to suffer headaches or a slower reading speed because I can’t see the text as well as I used to. I think, in the end, I’ll probably pick up some reading glasses to help — but I can only hope for now that my eyes will improve with a little more time. Something to ask the doctor next time I see her, I suppose.

Final thoughts?

So far, despite my trouble reading, I’m glad I got the surgery. I’ve always hated the look of glasses on me and contact lenses were a big pain in the rear end. I’m also happy that, since I underwent PRK so young, I’ll get to enjoy this great vision for a long, long time before my vision begins to deteriorate from age — and hey, since my eyes are over-corrected, I’m only going to deteriorate into *perfection*! Ha! So long as I can get a pair of reading glasses, I think I’m in good shape.

If you’re thinking about PRK eye surgery, feel free to give me an email if you’ve got any other questions about my experience. I’m not a doctor at all, but I can still tell you about what happened to me and how I felt.

More updates to come as the situation develops…

Luckily I found inspiration yesterday in a really fascinating blog post by Ana Mardoll on what she calls “the curse of the smart girl.” I recommend you read the article — and the comments — but the gist of it is that Mardoll argues that the Smart Girl, so common to today’s fiction, isn’t a strong female character but is actually a narrative prop. The Smart Girl allows the author to stick in plot exposition and “becomes the narrative voice that is so hard to achieve in a first-person novel,” writes Mardoll. The Smart Girl allows the main, plucky hero — Mardoll uses Percy Jackson as her example — to remain ignorant, just like the book’s audience, so that the audience can continue to relate to the hero. The Smart Girl never rescues anyone except the hero, but the hero’s continued existence is never in any doubt anyway since the book is in first-person. “The Smart Girl,” Ana Mardoll concludes, “is smart so that she can be bested by the brave and plucky hero.”

Seriously, just go read the blog yourself. Particularly the last paragraph or two. I just got a shiver re-reading it.

In a lot of ways I think Ana Mardoll is right. From my personal experience, I think there is a surprising proliferation of Smart Girls in fiction, and perhaps not as many female plucky heroes (and far, far fewer Smart Boys). This might just be due to the fact that I’m reading the wrong books, and if you have any recommendations of Smart Boys and plucky female heroes, let me know! I also think Mardoll is right to determine that this Smart Girl/plucky boy hero trope is so ubiquitous that many people don’t even recognize it’s a trope any more; we just assume Smart Girl means strong female character, so who cares if the main character who does all the badassery is actually male? Who cares that the Smart Girl is, in many ways, just a narrative tool?

So, all of that sounds like accurate analysis to me.

But …

I did have some questions after these paragraphs:

The Smart Girl is smart so that she can be bested by the brave and plucky Hero. She has a high Int score and can provide necessary plot exposition, but every other stat is ultimately her dump stat. She isn’t as strong as the hero and will frequently bring a knife or a bow to what is clearly a sword fight, as we see in the many, many battles where Percy’s sword is the one weapon that dishes out serious harm to the monsters they face. She isn’t as fast as the hero, and can’t take as many hits as he can — expect to see her flung across the room and knocked unconscious at least once per book while the hero can take similar hits and keep going by the Power of Pluckiness. She’s not as charismatic as the hero — a point that will be explicitly called out in text when someone wonders why Ignorant McKnowsnothing is the leader instead of the Smart Girl; the handwave will be that he alone has a hero’s heart and the masses will follow only him because of it. And though she is smarter than the hero, she will never be wiser than him; her “book smarts” will leave her cold and unable to follow her heart and make the right choice that the Hero will know instinctively to make.

When the book is over and the Hero has won, the future is bleak for the Smart Girl. Now that she is no longer needed as a plot exposition device, she will be downgraded to a trophy for the Hero. At best, she will be allowed to use her smarts to help the new world order; she will be an adviser, a vizier, a source to be listened to when convenient and ignored when not. At worst, she will be nothing more than the Wise Wife, useful only for soulful pillow talk where she soothes her kingly husband after a long day and provides lovely heirs that are smart and male — the best of both their parents’ attributes, of course.

[Bold is mine.]

After some thought, I figured out my problem. I just don’t believe that there’s anything actually problematic or secondary with being a) weak in battle; b) not charismatic; c) becoming an adviser or vizier or a stay-at-home spouse, which are, actually, extremely important roles in any organization. I don’t believe that any of those qualities prevent a person from being heroic, and, in fact, I think all three qualities can contribute to a person’s (character’s?) heroism.

Why do we automatically associate heroism with strength and power and willfulness and leadership(/bossiness)? I acknowledge that there’s a problem that the majority of female characters are of the same, particular “Smart Girl” type, but I also think there’s a problem that the majority of male characters are pigeon-holed into the same, particular “Plucky Hero” type.

I suppose what I want to do here is reframe the problem. This isn’t a problem of female characters being depicted as unheroic Smart Girls and later becoming viziers/advisers/stay-at-home moms. This is a problem of a lack of alternative heroic personalities in fiction, female or male. Why can’t intelligence, peace-keeping and a supportive or care-taking personality be heroic? Why do we assume strength in battle and a forceful personality(/pluckiness) are the most important qualities in a hero? Can someone be equally heroic without those qualities?

I’d like to read about quiet heroes, lonely heroes, heroes who believe in compromise, non-violent and pacifist heroes, care-taker heroes, physically weak heroes, cautious heroes, female heroes* and male heroes. I do realize that there are already many books that feature unconventional heroes — but in my experience the norm does still lean towards strength, charisma, power, etc. I’m not sure that norm is a good thing. Our world needs all sorts of people, and if all we had were people who liked to lead and fight, we would never get anything done. (Trust me. I’ve been on a team like that before!)

Anyway, I don’t want to detract from Ana Mardoll’s post too much. I think it’s a great read and definitely food for thought. I also acknowledge that there is a problem when characters are made to act in certain ways and become certain things (the Wise Wife) based solely on their gender. However, I think the solution is not just limited to creating more plucky, aggressive female heroes, even if the hero’s name is Katniss. We also need to envision a world where heroism is recognized in a wider variety of personality traits and positions.

But what do you think?

* Yes, I realize that normally one would write “heroine” instead of “female hero.” But just like the words “authoress” and “heiress” and even “actress” occasionally bug me, sometimes I get a little bothered by “heroine,” too. This is my blog, so deal with it

Why not? I’m not entirely sure. I’ve always thought I preferred novels — more in-depth, immersive, something to really get lost in. I’ve always preferred movies to television, too. But then I saw Songs of Love & Death and, more importantly, its impressive contributor list: Neil Gaiman, Jacqueline Carey, Robin Hobb, Peter S. Beagle, Tanith Lee, and a host of others I hadn’t read but had heard great things of. So, how could I resist?

I’m about a third of the way through the book, which means I’ve read five and a bit short stories: “Love Hurts” by Jim Butcher, “The Marrying Maid” by Jo Beverley, “Rooftops” by Carrie Vaughn, “Hurt Me” by M. L. N. Hanover, “Demon Lover” by Cecelia Holland, and just getting through “The Wayfarer’s Advice” by Melinda M. Snodgrass.

Thoughts so far?

Wicked.

I’m a total anthology convert now. I haven’t enjoyed every story in Songs of Love & Death — discovering a particular dislike for “The Marrying Maid,” actually — but it’s actually really refreshing to skip from world to world, character to character, and sampling a whole range of writing styles and topics in the span of a few hundred pages. I already know for sure that I’m going to hunt down The Dresden Files (finally) and also anything by M. L. N. Hanover, and I haven’t even reached the authors I’m most excited for yet (namely Neil Gaiman … *fangirl dance*).

Anyway. I just thought I’d write a blog to show others out there that anthologies are really awesome and worth trying out, particularly if you’re looking for some new talent to read. Thanks to the melodramatic title and the editorial namedropping (George R. R. Martin, what) for convincing me to pick up a new sort of book!

Kindles make it easy for me to be an introvert even on camping trips. Summer 2010.

To people who don’t know me very well, I think the notion that I’m an introvert might come as a surprise. In moderate doses, I can be as sociable and outgoing as any extrovert. But a long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between introverts and extroverts in a clear and simple way: extroverts gain their energy from being with people; introverts gain energy from being alone. I’m definitely the latter. Parties and large groups of people, while fun, inevitably leave me exhausted at the end of the night. Afterwards I need to recharge my battery by going for a solitary walk outside or snuggling with the dog and a good book or movie.

But book publishing is a social endeavour. Your days are filled with meetings, collaboration, phone calls, and, later that night, book launches and parties. How can an introvert survive in a world full of, well, people all the time?

I decided at the beginning of university that my introversion wouldn’t stop me from making friends and participating in activities and clubs that interested me, and since then I’ve picked up a lot of tricks to help me cope. I’ll share a couple with you, and maybe you can leave a comment to share some with me, too.

1. Don’t treat your introversion as something to “cope with.”

Yup, I made mistake #1 just in the last paragraph. Although a lot of businesses place an emphasis on extroversion — or, more broadly, “people skills” — I’ve found that my introverted tendencies benefit me just as much in the workplace, and in social situations, as other people’s extroverted tendencies benefit them. Introverts aren’t socially inept. We’ve got people skills. We just use them in a different way.

Extroverts light up the room and can quickly meet everyone present and make a good impression. That’s a great skill to have — but you know what’s another great skill? Listening to others, asking questions, and making a few deep, meaningful connections instead of many shallower connections. And guess what: listening, asking questions, and bonding well with a few people are things that introverts excel at. Those skills have come in very handy for me over the years, and although sometimes I wish that I could go-go-go like some extroverts I know, I’m also aware that my introverted skills have given me tons of opportunities for learning and meaningful friendship (and networking). It’s not a matter of which ‘type’ is better; it’s just a matter of exploiting your strengths and recognizing your limitations.

2. Treat socializing as part of your job.

Sure, you’ve been hired to edit books or help with marketing campaigns. But in a more general sense, you’ve also been hired to contribute positively to the company — and that means contributing positively to relationships, too. You’re not just there to do your job; you’re also there to work constructively with other people and, if all goes well, befriend them!

Depending on your level of introversion, this can be more or less difficult. I can manage a good ten to twelve hours of hardcore socializing and people time at once (so long as I know I can crash a bit at the end), but for others, being consistently open to chatting and meeting up with co-workers can be stressful.

The trick here is to know your limits and work within them. Don’t push yourself! But do make an effort to smile, say hello, and ask how someone is doing — every time you see them. You don’t have to eat lunch with other people every single day. But you should make an effort to follow up on other people’s lives — out of a genuine interest in them as friends and people, not just as career stepping stones. This might be uncomfortable at first, but as you develop those relationships, asking how they’re doing and what they’re up to will feel more and more natural.

3. Arrive early or volunteer.

When you’re getting ready to attend a large event outside of your comfort zone, take the time to find out if there are any volunteer or support opportunities that you can help out with. I even do this at gatherings with friends and family: helping with the dishes or cooking, etc. It gives me something to do other than socialize, and for me, at least, helping people always eases my mind at social events where I don’t know anyone. It’s also a great opportunity to befriend the other volunteers.

If there are no volunteer opportunities, then my next trick is to arrive earlier rather than later. That way, I have some excellent one-on-one time with other people as they enter the event. I feel more “in control” of what’s going on, and it’s a great chance to learn people’s names before the event turns into a crowd.

4. As much as possible, treat your home like a sanctuary.

After work or a big social event, it’s important to find a place where you can retreat and recuperate. In university, living in a large household, my bedroom ended up becoming my sanctuary. I kept it peaceful — candles, music, soft things and favourite books — and I allowed myself to be there in solitude, without interruption, until I felt like being with people again. If you have a family or small children, it might be harder to make your entire house into a personal sanctuary, so the notion of treating one room as wholly yours — the bathroom, maybe, or your bedroom — is really helpful. If you force yourself to act outside of your normal personality for too long, you will likely get cranky — so be kind to yourself at the end of the day. I also find that it helps me during the course of the day to remember that when I go home, I have a lovely kitchen and armchair waiting for me!

These tips have kept me happy, sane and sociable for the past five years. What about you? How do you keep your energy level  charged up? What tricks do you use while networking?

And for those of you who are interested in other articles …

• Q&A With Devora Zack: The networking perks of being an introvert on SmartBlog on Leadership.
• Why Introverts Can Make the Best Leaders on Forbes.
• How to Manage an Extrovert … When You’re an Introvert on Business Week. (This article goes for any interaction with highly extroverted people — not just if you’re their leader.)

Note the powdered icing sugar mini-donuts and the package of Werther’s Original. Yes, folks, this will be a fantastic weekend in good old Caledon East.

Not long ago we were spectators, passive consumers of mass media. Now, on YouTube and blogs and Facebook and Twitter, we are media. And while we watch more television than ever before, how we watch it is changing in ways we have barely slowed down to register. No longer content in our traditional role as couch potatoes, we approach television shows, movies, even advertising as invitations to participate—as experiences to immerse ourselves in at will. In THE ART OF IMMERSION, longtime Wired contributing editor Frank Rose talks to the people who are reshaping media for a two-way world—people like Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse (Lost), James Cameron (Avatar), Will Wright (The Sims), and dozens of others whose ideas are changing how we play, how we communicate, how we think.

I picked up The Art of Immersion out of personal interest and out of some vague, low-lying desire for this kind of immersive storytelling in my own life. (Embarrassing fact: Much of my life has been spent playing The Sims, one of Rose’s favourite examples.) The book fails to cover much in the way of novels, instead choosing to focus more on worlds that begin on the screen: Star Wars, Avatar, The Sims, FarmVille, among many others. Of course all of these worlds begin with text in the form of scripts, and, in some cases, these worlds sprout their own novels and comic books later on — but I’m still excited to find a book that deals with text-based stories and how even that’s becoming more participatory (e.g. online role-playing games and collaborative world-building).

The Art of Immersion is an excellent introduction to the topic of transmedia and immersive story-telling. There were a lot of examples that I was unfamiliar with, either because they occurred slightly before my time or — in the case of an online game for The Office — because I was too busy watching and re-watching the show to play! Rose hesitated to get very critical of the failed stories, games and marketing campaigns, instead often calling them simply “ahead of their time.” But for a newbie to the field, just hearing the basic gist behind some of the top thinkers and story-tellers of the day was a real treat.

The really good stuff, though, only came out at the end when Rose delves into the psychology behind gaming and stories. He could have easily expanded those few chapters into an entirely different book, and I would love to read it. Again, however, his hesitation to criticize and his unquestioning love of the subject leads to a couple of missed opportunities.

In one case, Rose describes Skunk Works’ Gunslinger: a holodeck game set in the Wild West of the 1880s. It’s “essentially a stage set,” complete with three life-size projections of characters: burly bartender, cowering bar help and the nastiest, fastest gunslinger in the West glowering in the corner. Players were sent in to interact with these screen characters, and ultimately told to bring out the gunslinger under arrest. Well, turns out 40% of the players chose to shoot on sight (prompting the gunslinger to inevitably win the draw contest and kill the player in the first few minutes of the game), and several declined to fight at all. Rose shows this example in just a couple paragraphs, and ends it with a quotation from Kim LeMasters, the creative director: “How do you get a human being to behave the way you wish them to behave? In a normal story, I have complete control over all characters. In this story, I have control of only three characters. The other character has a human brain.”

So the issue becomes one of control, reflecting back on an earlier chapter of authorship. But I have some more questions: Is there a certain point where people don’t want to be immersed any more? Can games and stories become too immersive, and when will game producers, story-tellers etc. face that backlash? Will the typical superheroes at the heart of videogames have to change at a certain ‘immersion threshold’ and players start acting more, well, like themselves (regular human beings: cowardly, selfish, clueless)? Rose only barely touches the surface of these questions in the last chapter, but to me these are some of the most interesting questions to ask.

What would have made this book really great, for me, would have been a list of recommended reading at the end. Rose provides the introduction; I wish he also gave a guide for more in-depth work to really chew on. The one must-read I’ve come away with is Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins — but I’ll wait for a few more weeks before starting that one. I need time to digest! The Art of Immersion has only whetted my appetite and after Rose’s breezy style, I think I can handle some more density (and substance).

Hounded

Read more at The Ranting Dragon.

1. Harpies.

From Wikipedia:

In Greek mythology, a harpy (“snatcher”, from Latin: harpeia, originating in Greek: ἅρπυια, harpūia) was one of the winged spirits best known for constantly stealing all food from Phineas.

Their appearance? Hideous bird-women characterized by their cruelty and aggression to, well, just about everybody. Honestly this sounds like the perfect match for a vampire like Edward. The harpy would get a tasty little morsel for brunch and Edward would be put out of his misery forever. Oh wait, maybe this is just my fantasy about Edward …

2. Chupacabras. 

The chupacabras is “a legendary cryptid rumored to inhabit parts of the Americas” (Wikipedia). It’s a relatively recent legend; the first eye-witness account dates only from 1995. The gist of it is that the chupacabras likes to suck farm animal blood and it creeps around in the night killing livestock. Awesome, right? Pretty close to vampires? Maybe it happens to be jaw-droppingly gorgeous, too?

Maybe not. Turns out that many of the supposed sightings of this animal were almost certainly of coyotes with severe mange (no, that link is not safe for work. Also the pictures are gross).

3. Banshees.

Beautiful, screaming Irishwomen who only appear (and scream) to announce the upcoming death of someone in the household. Actually, some people say that banshees sing to warn of the death — but I prefer the screaming idea. Banshees wouldn’t be so bad in a romance, actually, except that it’d put a real cramper on your novel’s suspense: soon as the lady love shows up, you know that the hero has to die. Hrrmm.

I wanted this to be a list of five, but I can’t think of any more direly inappropriate supernatural creatures for the Next Big Romance. Do you have any ideas?

I spent Canada Day with old friends in Ottawa, but now that I’m back in good old Caledon, it’s time to get back to work. Or, more accurately, it’s time to apply for work. I’ve no intention of giving up the publishing dream even for a year while I finish my Masters, so I hope to land some sort of employment — unpaid, part-time, whatever! — to keep me happy while I study.

It’s also time for me to get back to reviewing for The Ranting Dragon. Actually, I’ve had reviews of mine rolled out on that site the entire time I’ve been MIA, but it’s been a long, long while since I’ve written anything new. I’m excited to get back into it! As it is, I pretty much hoovered Kevin Hearne’s Hounded in one day (just a few more pages to savour before bed tonight), and then I also have The Killing Way by Tony Hays and The Rats and the Ruling Sea by Robert V S Redick, too. I also have a few books left on my Kindle, but for now I am relishing the feel of paper again.

Am I glad to be home? I’m ecstatic. Nothing’s changed at all, except that my dog’s gotten a little hard of hearing. I still haven’t wrapped my head around the fact that I survived a year in France and, even crazier, I’ve got another faraway adventure in British Columbia looming on the horizon. Why can’t I just stay put for once? It’d be so much easier (and cheaper). For a self-declared nester, I sure have itchy feet …

But I’ll worry about that tomorrow. For now, I’ve got my Heineken and my poor old deaf retriever, and I am fully prepared to spend the rest of today curled up on a couch with a book. Just like an ex-prodigal bookworm should.