A couple of weeks ago, I informed readers of my interest in writing a novel. I solicited reader input, and appreciate greatly the response thus far. This is an important fictional work in progress.
Since that time, inspiration has struck me once again. I now have another proposed chapter to add to my novel. I must repeat that any resemblance to real world events is purely coincidental. The basic outline is as follows:
In response to the great disturbance over the monitoring and investigation of minority officers, two white officers are indicted. The reason for one of these indictments is that a certain minority officer, whom we shall call Stormin', had been blocked from participating in a certain investigation involving another minority officer. The implication was that he should have been permitted to participate.
Years later, a gritty incident occurs. During a party at which alcohol consumption was excessive, a minority officer assaults a couple of females. This happens at a private club for police. One of the women assaulted is his live-in girlfriend, so the incident should be properly characterized as domestic violence. His commanding officer, another minority officer who happened to be part of the EEOC complaint against the city, is rumored to have been at the club that night.
The officer who committed the assault was also part of the EEOC complaint.
But anyway, it is Stormin' who is dispatched to respond to the situation. The responsible commanding officer who is on duty at that time, also a minority group member, is reasonably well known to the public. He had been a key player in the police department controversy; and was one of the main architects of the plan to protect black officers from the consequences associated with wrongdoing. An incident this sensitive ordinarily would have been brought to his attention as the commanding officer on duty.
And it turns out the officer who assaulted the two females, including his live-in girlfriend, is not criminally charged at the level he could have been. He certainly does not go to jail. He is suspended by the police department; but based on past experience, it is felt he might very well retain his job because his due process rights are to be protected.
The local business establishment had expressed concern in a highly public way-- before the City Council-- regarding the allegedly inappropriate monitoring of minority officers and community members. But it turns out the same business establishment is found to be giving great sums of money to the PAC. The respective heads of local government, who are part of the PAC, pledge to adopt the business establishment's plans for the region.
But the key "local business establishment" giving all this money to the PAC, in reality, turns out to be a consortium of foundations established by the wealthy.
Again, folks, this is a fictional tale. And I expect that in upcoming months and years, I will have additional chapters to add as new bursts of inspiration strike me. My imagination is exceedingly fertile; so this promises to be a great book. Stay tuned.
I like the idea of your novel but think you should work on using ..shall I say... a story that is based on real life? What you are writing does not seem real and you may lose the reader quickly. I would like to see you use more realistic material is what I am trying to say. The cops would not protect and serve the abusive officer. Joe, That is just crazy!
Posted by: Ben Holder | January 26, 2009 at 11:13 PM
I know, Ben. But sometimes the creative writer has to introduce bizarre story lines in order to grab the reader willing to plunk $15 or so down for a book.
Writing fiction is new for me, but I think I have an intuitive feel for what the market out there wants.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 26, 2009 at 11:22 PM
"In response to the great disturbance over the monitoring and investigation of minority officers, two white officers are indicted."
you establish the race of the white officers in your first sentence, but you use the term "minority" six times before you identify the race of the minority officers as "black." in this context, does "minority" primarily refer to race (i.e., black) or to access to power (i.e., the lack of it)?
Posted by: cara michele | January 26, 2009 at 11:36 PM
At this particular point in the novel, Michele, I leave that question open to the interpretation of the reader.
But in fact, the novel demonstrates that they do not, by any means, lack access to power-- not in this particular city. In fact they have ample access to power in the book, even to the extent that matters get handled in a bizarre way.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 27, 2009 at 06:32 AM
"But in fact, the novel demonstrates that they do not, by any means, lack access to power-- not in this particular city."
yeah, the access to power is being made clear, so i think that's why the use of "minority" kind of seemed discordant there, at least to me. "minority" conveys more than race, it also speaks to the assumed lack of political capital, and you seemed to be indicating just the opposite there. perhaps you're using the term somewhat ironically.
Posted by: cara michele | January 27, 2009 at 07:27 AM
Joe, I suppose to address this matter properly, you change your novel to say "majority officers, not "minority" officers. This would be more in context as Michele so correctly states.
Posted by: Stormy, not Stormin' | January 27, 2009 at 09:35 AM
actually, i was thinking that if joe wasn't referring to the group's lack of political capital, since he is asserting that they have it and are wielding it, and is instead primarily referring to race when he uses the term "minority," that it would be more clear (at least to me) to use the term "black" or "african-american." just my two cents. :)
Posted by: cara michele | January 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Joe,
I think Cara Michele is just trying to stir up trouble here. She wants to see if she can paint you as the next "racist" in town.
Watch out for her.
Posted by: Geez People | January 27, 2009 at 11:25 AM
"I think Cara Michele is just trying to stir up trouble here. She wants to see if she can paint you as the next "racist" in town."
Nuh-uh
Posted by: good bye kitty | January 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM
hahahahahaha! thanks, ______.
gp, what he said.
Posted by: cm | January 27, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Joe you just better stick to the word "minority" regardless of what anyone says or how confusing it is. I always try to be plain speaking and use the word Black when I am speaking of a person of that race. Just as I use the word White when speaking of the other race. I got called a racist in no uncertain terms today and I wasn't even telling a story. I was telling the truth.
You just don't know who you will offend here in Greensboro. BB
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | January 27, 2009 at 06:19 PM
Brenda, I think that you can safely say that Barack Obama is an African-American, with one parent being an American and one being a Kenyan. It is questionable whether you can safely call him black, as he is equally white, so African-American would be the safest.
Posted by: Stormy | January 27, 2009 at 07:37 PM
brenda, you are so not a racist. i don't think joe is either. (if i did, i wouldn't read or comment on his blog, or link to it from mine.) i do think a lot about how we use words that can be perceived in markedly different ways by different people, and i try to avoid terms that can have multiple meanings that might be misconstrued or that might change the context of a message, depending on how they're interpreted by the receiver. i tend to be a "say what you mean" kind of person. i guess my intention in questioning joe's word choice was to provoke some thought about how we use racially-loaded language. and obviously, it's still hard to have those conversations in a blog thread without being misunderstood by or offending some folks. sorry if i started a brouhaha.
Posted by: cara michele | January 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
The words "black" and "white" are not proper nouns. Assuming your cultural inclinations to be superior and scolding the behaviors of those of a different race when they do not conform to your preferences is racist.
Posted by: Roch101 | January 28, 2009 at 08:18 AM
"The words "black" and "white" are not proper nouns. Assuming your cultural inclinations to be superior and scolding the behaviors of those of a different race when they do not conform to your preferences is racist."
What would we EVER do without the morality and ethics imposed by the politically correct?
People like Roch will always be around to rescue us from ourselves, and give us the proper lessons on how to think, act, talk, and write, thank God!
Posted by: bubba | January 28, 2009 at 09:11 AM
Well, Bubba, a glance at the 2000 U.S. Census Report reporting on Population by Race, it allocates population as follows: White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and some other Race. So, it appears that our own federal government is either properly using Black and White as proper nouns or they are being superior and scolding toward the behaviors of those of a different race when they do not conform to their preference (or being just racist). Which is it?
It is true that if we use "black or white" in the middle of a sentence, it is a common noun, so to use proper English, we need to capitalize the words as "Blacks or Whites" in order to make them proper nouns and satisfy some people's need for correct use of the English language.
Got it?
Posted by: Stormy | January 28, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Yeah, and they capitalize "Some Other Race." Any of you numskulls ever hear of a dictionary?
Posted by: Roch101 | January 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Actually,
It's listed as: "Some other race" …………………………………………………………………………….
So, either of us had it quite right. Is this the best you can do? You got any other nits you want to pick? Get a life, man.
Posted by: Stormy | January 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I know the rules of grammar (it's "neither" not "either"), word definitions and facts are nits to you. Get a brain, man.
Posted by: Roch101 | January 28, 2009 at 01:28 PM
"Got it?"
Unfortunately, we always get you and your well documented anal retentiveness, little buddy.
Anything else of no consequence or merit you feel the need to add?
Posted by: Bubba | January 28, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Oh, that's good, Roch. Great put-down, but you still don't have a life.
Posted by: Stormy | January 28, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Bubba,
Actually, I did not intend to address that "Got it" comment toward you. I know that you get it, but some of our friends do not. I was actually refuting our friend's earlier comment, trying to accuse everyone here of being a racist because they used the term "blacks", even though I showed that the federal government uses that term.
I have also noticed that he has tried to change the subject, as usual.
Posted by: Stormy | January 28, 2009 at 04:29 PM
I got on a rant and took it home to my own blog where I explain why I use Black and White and a whole lot more. Thank you all for keeping Roch occupied however. He needs a good little tussle every now and then to give him a bit of exercise. After all reading Ed Cones blog as a steady diet is apt to atrophy anyone's brain after awhile. BB
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | January 28, 2009 at 06:01 PM
"Actually, I did not intend to address that "Got it" comment toward you."
And of course, my comment was addressed to him, in language I reserve for him and his Usual Suspect partners in slime.
"I have also noticed that he has tried to change the subject, as usual."
Imagine that!
Posted by: Bubba | January 28, 2009 at 07:11 PM