Once upon a time: How important is that first line?

Good afternoon!

Monday, September 17, 2018 at Martha Merrell's Books and Toys in Historic Downtown Waukesha, WI., at 6:30, Chapter One will be conducting its first ever in person meeting for writers of all levels.

The topic?

How important is that first line?

My goal with this group is to wake the author in anyone who ever thought they had a story to tell.  We'll start at the beginning...which would be the first line.

The first line of any story is vital.  Gone are the days when, as my mother, who served as a school librarian for many years, you had to give a book 30 pages to really get into it.  Readers don't have that kind of patience anymore (if we ever did!) and writers shouldn't make their readers wait 30 pages for something interesting.

The first line is the first impression an author makes.

As authors, you may not have control over the cover. You may not have control over the blurb on the back cover.  You may not even have control over the pen name.  (Some publishers have been known to assign pen names.)  What you do have control over, however, is that first line.  That line is all yours.

There are many opening lines we all know:

Once Upon a Time

It was a Dark and Stormy Night.

The Night was Humid  (My personal favorite)  

Unfortunately,  while those are fun...and funny...unless you are writing an actual fairy tale or writing your story atop a dog house, you can't use them.

There's actually an award called the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest that hands out awards to the WORST opening line of the year.  Check out the website, the 2018 winner is AWESOME in it's badness.

A number of things can contribute to a bad opening line:  It's too long; it generates zero excitement; it's lazy ("It was a dark and stormy night") or it simply makes no sense.

As a writer, you know that your writing is an extension of you.  Writing is every bit as personal as any other form of arm.  If the writing isn't personal, believe me, the reader will know it.  And if you, the author doesn't feel it, neither will the reader.  That's not to say that we must "write what we know."  (A topic I'll deal with at a later time.)  Writing isn't about our own absolute life experiences. If that were true, there would be no science fiction, very little romance, no historical fiction, and oh yeah, probably no fiction at all.  Writing is about telling a story that you know.  It's about creating characters and a world that you see as clearly as you see your own hand in front of your face.  Writing is...it should be...you.

As with anything in writing, what works and what doesn't is subjective to many things, including the ever-changing whims of society.  A good line 10 years ago is no good now.  

How can you know for sure if your first line works?

There is no hard and fast rule.  You will know it when you know it.  If you're not sure, talk to a trusted friend, a critique partner, a teacher, run it by them.  Try to avoid going up to strangers on the street, however. Believe me, you don't get great feedback that way.  LOL

So let's put this into a social construct we all understand:

Think of a book as an introduction of yourself to a stranger. The cover is your name tag.  The body of the book is the conversation you have with that stranger so they can get to know you.  Which means the opening line of that book is your handshake.  You want a strong, firm handshake. You do NOT want some soft, creepy, dead fish handshake.

We will talk more about this on Monday for those of you who are in the SE Wisconsin area and can make it to Martha Merrell's Books and Toys at 6:30. For those of you who cannot, if you have questions, please contact me through our face book page.  You can also hit me, Sarah the Author, up at my face book page. 

Meanwhile, spend some time online looking for bad first lines, see if you can improve on them, or get a real feel for what's no good, and what works. 

OUR FIRST IN PERSON MEETING IS COMING UP!

Hello Friends!

While Chapter One, the blog, is a worldwide place of information, education, and support for all writers at all stages of their careers, we are also a physical group that has a home and we are going to be starting meetings in Waukesha, WI in September!

This is a very exciting step for Chapter One, and for me, Sarah the Author.  I've never lead a group before!  But I feel that all of the experience and knowledge I've gained in the last decade of writing and publishing is something I now need to share.  I didn't just KNOW what I know. I gathered everything I know about writing and publishing from other authors and other groups. It's time to pay it forward.

If you are in the SE Wisconsin area, I hope you will think about checking us out. All of the information you'll need is below.  We are so grateful to Norm and the gang at Martha Merrell's Books and Toys for giving Chapter One a physical home!

I would explain basic anatomy to you, gentlemen...but we're in church.

Good afternoon everyone!

I know...it's Monday. What am I doing blogging?

Well, I'm sort of avoiding actual writing.  I'm stuck on my 4th and final Nora Hill novel. Not stuck so much as I don't want to do what I have to do to move the story along.  When you read it, you'll understand.

Anyway, yesterday I went to church at my home church, which I haven't done much this summer because we've been out of town (don't tell anyone! LOL).  So of course after services there was a certain amount of catching up we (and by we I mean Hubby who is far more social than I am) needed to do.

After several minutes of chit chat with friends I caught up to Hubby who was talking about cars with two gents who happen to be brothers. Let's call them Joe and Marvin.  They know who they are.

So Hubby, Joe, and Marvin are standing in sort of a circle and talking and it's quite clear to me, and to Hubby, that Joe and Marvin, being brothers, have certain similarities in their manners.  Case in point, the two of them cross their arms the same way when they are talking.

Like this but with more chins.

Now, I don't cross my arms often for three reasons:  1) as a fluffy girl, it's not all the comfortable crossing my arms over my upper body because, well, my arms didn't get longer as I got wider, so it's not a comfortable reach. 2) if I cross my arms under my upper body (read here, in the wedge between my girls and my gut) I look like I'm resting my arms on a pregnant belly.  Not a good look.  3) When
I cross my arms ever, my upper arms widen out and I look like an East German swimmer from the 70's.  REALLY not a good look.

So I generally stand with my arms at my side or I move them around if I happen to be talking.

So we're standing in a small circle, the brothers, Hubby, and I.  Hubby points out that the brothers cross their arms the same way.  He tries to imitate them, which he does well. I focus on how they position their hands when they cross their arms. 

I should take a moment note that "catching up" for men and women is really different. Whereas I was checking in on how the kids were, how's the job, how's every one's health, Hubby was discussing car repair and how people cross their arms.

One could point out that I, in turn, then took said conversation about the crossed arms and turned it into a blog, but one would have to be patient until I get to the point of the blog to understand why I'm writing about this at all.

So let's get to the point.

So anyway, I'm looking at how Joe and Marvin position their hands. And I attempt it, but, because of the reasons I mentioned before, I'm not able to copy them.

This is where it gets blog-able.

Jesus knows blog-able when He sees it.

Hubby looks at me, then looks at the brothers, then looks at me again. He says something to the effect of, "Well if you do this," whereupon he tries to push my arms into position the way Joe and Marvin have their arms. That would be pretty much across their chests.  

That so does not work for me.  Because, see...the aforementioned female stuff.  Which I point out by saying, "That does not work FOR ME."  I'd go into more detail, but we are in the HOUSE OF THE LORD.  (We were in the church entry way which still counts as God's House.  I checked.)

They got the point.  Of course they did.  But that didn't detract from the moment when three men over the height of six feet stared downward at my...upper Victoria's Secret area. IN CHURCH. (Kind of.)

That's when I turned and walked away. Hubby said, "Well, on that note," which is sort of our funny way of leaving an awkward conversation, he followed me.  I gave him three steps before I said, "That's blog-able."

We saw Joe later, and Hubby warned him about the blog.  Joe protested asking what he could have POSSIBLY DONE to deserve being put in the blog.

Don't worry, Marvin and Joe's wives will explain it to them. If not, someone at church will.  I won't have to say one more word about it.

And that, my friends, is how blogs work.

It's about the reader. Or at least, it should be.

Good afternoon!

Once again, I'm going to rant for a bit about self-publishing versus traditional publishing, and this time I'm going to focus on the whole point of the writing world:

The readers.

I've spent the last four summers selling my books at local farmers' markets. That might seem odd...okay, it is odd...but when you're self published, you do all your own marketing and for me, renting a booth at a farmers' market makes sense. That's where the people are.  (And I've found that people who like locally grown produce also enjoy locally written fiction. Just saying...)

In those four summers (and in the subsequent book clubs, church groups, youth groups, and craft fairs I've booked off of the Farmers' Markets) I've come to realize a very important point:  Readers read books.

Duh.

Readers enjoy characters. Readers wait impatiently for the next novel involving a character (Yes, I stood in line for the newest Harry Potter novel...for my kids...right...the kids...).  My husband loves, loves, loves all the Harry Bosch novels.  We're probably getting Amazon Prime just so he can watch the novels be turned into TV.

Readers enjoy authors. My book shelf is loaded with Joyce Carol Oates. I'm waiting for something, anything, from Billie Letts. If I see that Adriana Trigianni has a new book, or Phillipa Gregory is out with a new book you can bet it's in my Amazon cart that same day.(Yes, I shop for books on Amazon.  I'll address that issue in a later blog. Let's field one rant at a time.) My dad likes Janet Oke, as did my grandmother. 

Readers enjoy time periods.  I'm drawn to novels set around the American Civil War or World War II.  Lately, I've been looking for World War I material.  I know a whole group of readers who zero in on the Tudor period.  Others prefer to read about a time in the distant future.

Readers enjoy genres. My father reads all things political. I'm not sure why...those books just make him angry, but there you have it.  I have a friend who will read any and all biographies.  I know someone who will read anything and everything regarding horror based. My daughter likes books written by comedians.

What's missing from that list?  What don't readers care about?

Readers don't care about publishers.

Here's reality:  Traditional publishers make publishing about them:  What, in their mind, sells.  That's why we had a wave of vampire books coming out after Twilight was published. Publishers said, "Hey, Vampires sell.  Let's publish."  Well, vampires got tired pretty quickly. That didn't stop publishing companies from dumping more vampires on us, though.  And, in a market already glutted with books and with publishers busy publishing vampires...what didn't break above the waters?

Indie thinkers.  Original voices. Compelling books that are entertaining even if they aren't on trend at the moment.

This is why we self publish.  We authors, we are storytellers.  We tell stories.  We need to get our stories to the audience, to the reader. But, if left to traditional publishing, anything that doesn't instantly scream "BEST SELLER" to some low level manuscript reader will never swim through the slush.  It gets dumped. And it gets dumped, hard, with a two line email...or no response at all to the author.

Readers want good stories.  Those "scandal of the moment" books will always be around, as will autobiographies of celebrities (the more readable ones are actually written by a ghost writer). But when a reader picks up a book, the first thing on his or her mind is to read something that is going to grab their interest.  And guess what?  The publisher imprint on the spine of the book is the LAST THING a reader cares about.

Sincere forever, writers write. It's what we do.  Storytellers find an audience and tell stories.  And now, thanks to the tools available to us, we as authors can go forth and get our stories out there

without the aid (or obstruction) of traditional publishing houses.

Because, in the end, it's about entertaining the reader. It's about informing the reader. It's about connecting with the reader.

At least, it should be.

One Author's Response to Anthony Bourdain's Death.

Good morning.

I know I've been MIA from this blog for some time. But today I'm beyond sad and felt the need to share with my fellow readers and writers.

Anthony Bourdain was found dead of an apparent suicide in his hotel room in France this morning.

On the heels of that and the apparent suicide earlier this week of fashion icon Kate Spade, a companion headline ran on the news outlets today:

"US suicide rates up 25% since 1999."

1-800-273-8255 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

The loss of Bourdain is significant for me.  I've been a fan for years, watching his shows "No Reservations" and "Parts Unknown" and reveling in the episodes of "Top Chef" where he was a judge.  My husband and I have enjoyed reading his books. He wrote not  only cookbooks and detailed travelogues, but he delved deeply and well into the world of fiction.  In short, this loss is personal for me.

But it's more than that.  At 61, (A young age by this era's reckoning) and on top of his profession, how does this happen?

As a person who suffers from depression, and the mother of two adults who have mental illnesses, I think I have some perspective on this.  Mental illness in the US, and possibly other countries, but I can only speak for mine, is still looked upon as something less than a medical epidemic.  If a person has cancer or a broken bone, people talk about it, they pray for the person suffering, and the person is offered every assistance possible so that they can recover.

But mental illness is still something that's only whispered about, as if it's a shortcoming, or a crime.  While more and more celebrities and sports figures are coming forward and talking about their own struggles, there are millions in this country who suffer in silence, without proper support or medication.

I believe it starts with the US work culture.  I have worked many different jobs in different industries over my life and I have yet, in more than 30 years of employment, to work for a company who understood that "mental health days" are a real need for those with mental illness. If I had the flu, or needed physical medical care, my employers were supportive and wished me a quick recovery. But, learning through many conversations with management, I understood that any days taken because I was "blue" or couldn't get out of my bed would be counted against me and would be a black mark on my annual reviews. I was written up by one employer for missing a day of work after I'd spent the night in the ER with one of my children after they attempted suicide.  If I had to leave work an hour early to take another child, a minor at the time, to a Psych appointment, which they could not attend without  parent, my employer complained that I was shirking my duty. 

The message so many employers send to their employees is that if you miss work and it's not due to a physical illness, then you may as well not bother working at the job.  This keeps many people who are mentally ill from realizing their full potential. Many stay in jobs that are less strict about schedules, such as food service and low level unskilled jobs because even if they are fired for attendance problems, they can jump into another similar job quickly. The problem there is that they never rise much above the poverty line, the struggle to survive is continuous, and the depression increases.

US medicine is also a problem.  Mental health treatment and meds are EXPENSIVE.  Without insurance, it is impossible to get treatment for a mental illness.  But health insurance coverage is expensive and sometimes won't cover mental health issues.  Also, if the employer doesn't offer it, those who suffer from mental illness have to find their own health care, which is more expensive.

Those who are open about their illness are looked on as unstable, a liability to work.  Some are even in a strange gray area, listed as having a disability by the government, but not allotted the social

programs and support that physically disabled people are.

Here's the thing:  There is no cure for mental illness. There is treatment, but even with treatment there are going to be good days and bad days. That's just a fact. 

My grandmother was schizophrenic in an era when people simply did not admit to having "emotional issues."  Because of that she went untreated until she was well beyond middle age.  My childhood is littered with stories of her illness affecting the family negatively.  It was something that wasn't explained until I was in my 20's, so as a child I didn't understand my grandmother and I feared her because she accused me of some terrible things.  Had I know it was because she had an illness, I might have been able to relate to her better instead of resenting her.

I'm sharing this with you because I believe it's time for us to all wake up and understand that mental illness is just that: AN ILLNESS.  It is a disease that affects the sufferer their entire lives.  Rather than shunning the ill or hiding them away, we should find a way to open society up and find a place in the light for the mentally ill. 

Meanwhile, what can we, as authors, do?

We can give the world more light.  We can speak out about our own mental illnesses, if we have one, and we can support those who suffer.  We in the creative community probably have more contact with the mentally ill than any other industry simply because the creative community doesn't have set hours or rules and tends to be more inclusive.  We need to step up and speak out, we need to wake up other industries to the fact that the mentally ill have so much to offer and should be looked upon, not as a liability or as a lazy person, but as a person who is every bit as hardworking, loyal and diligent, but who has a disease and will need time for appointments and sick days. 

We as authors can, and should, create characters who suffer from mental illness but are able to function in our world. It is our responsibility to wipe the stigma of mental illness away, We need to erase misunderstanding and fear by giving readers characters who are vibrant and relevant, but who just happen to have a mental illness.  We need to create characters who are heroes and heroines who may also have an illness, but who are not defined by it.

Anthony Bourdain had everything and still felt the darkness, the hopelessness. 

Since 1999. suicide rates in 49 states have gone up by double digits, some states as high as 40%.

Mental illness does not care about age, gender, wealth, education level. It strikes where it strikes and until we as a society look at it as a medical condition rather than a weakness, it's going to continue to take our loved ones from us.

RIP, Tony.  I pray you've found peace at last.  And I pray your death will not be in vain, that we can rise up and end the stigma. 



1-800-273-8255 
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Holding out for the (Anti) Hero.

Good morning everyone!

So last night Hubby and I were binge-watching a Showtime TV series on Netflix and I realized something fairly disturbing about our favorite series:  The heroes are actually the villains.

Going all the way back to my childhood I've loved a good hero.  It started with Randy Mantooth, TV's "Johnny Gage" on "Emergency!"  Now, Johnny was hardly perfect...and had 1970's television been a touch more graphic it's doubtful my parents would have allowed me to watch a show featuring a fireman who had a bed in the back of his personal vehicle.  That said, Johnny Gage was my first love, and my first hero.

Over the years I've come to realize I have a type:  Tall, dark, and heroic with just a touch of bad boy.  Tom Selleck, Mark Harmon, Scott Bakula were all my dreamboats through the 80's and into the 90's (and oh yes, I'm all over Mark Harmon and Scott Bakula on their NCIS shows on Tuesday...it's the highlight of my week).  All of this culminated with the ultimate hero (with just a touch of bad boy) David James Elliott as Harmon Rabb on JAG.

With the exception of NCIS, however, I I realize that the "hero ideal" is sort of...non existent in TV today.  Instead, we've replaced the slightly bad boy HERO with a completely decent BAD GUY.

Not sure what I'm talking about? Okay, let's look at just a couple of the biggest TV shows in the last decade:

Don Draper.  Tall, dark, handsome, rich.  Completely amoral.  Smoker-drinker-womanizer-complete jackwagon at work.  Oh, and let's not forget the whole stolen identity thing.

Walter White:  Family man. Endearing father.  Faithful husband.  Dedicated High school teacher.  Meth kingpin and murderer.

Dexter Morgan:  Mild mannered blood expert.  Family guy.  Devoted brother.  Crime fighter.  Serial killer.

Marty Byrde:  Husband, father, all around good guy played by the ultimate all around good guy, Jason Bateman.  Oh, but Marty is a mob money launderer who also, if memory serves, stole a strip club.









These are the TV shows I can't put down. These are the heroes, if you can call them that, that I'm cheering for.  Yes, I wanted Walter White to make the "good meth" and I'm cheering for Dexter to slaughter people because he only kills the really deserving.  And I want Marty to succeed in laundering all the money he's hidden in the walls of the resort he also sort of stole.  And as for Don Draper, well, yes, he must drink all the Scotch and sleep with all the women so he can be brilliant and save the ad campaign.  

Sing it, Bonnie.

What has happened to our heroes?  When did we decide evil criminals were the guys we were going to cheer for?  Does the right motivation truly cover a multitude of sins?  It must, because I fill my TV time with hours up hours of just this kind of material.  

It can't just be about the lead being good looking.  I mean...let's face it, Bob Odenkirk is many things, but good looking he is not. Yet, when I sit down to watch "Better Call Saul" or "Breaking Bad" I'm truly cheering for this sleezeball lawyer to win at all costs.  (The same goes for Brian Cranston of "Breaking Bad".)  The key is that they are compelling and sincere, even at their worst. 

It doesn't hurt the antihero movement if the guy in question is good looking. I mean, Jon Hamm (Mad Men), yes please!  (Although if my husband started acting like Don Draper, I'd show him the door.  So I guess money and ridiculous good looks do count.  I'm not proud that I'm admitting that.  But I know I'm not alone.)


Where are the good guys?  Where is the balance to all of the dark-souled evil we see in so many male characters now?  Where is the 

Oh, wait...maybe we just don't want them....

Are we simply getting what we deserve?  Have we gravitated toward the "bad boy" side of heroes so far that we've lost the "hero" and just gotten the "bad boy?"




I would love to see another pure hero type all around good guy back on TV.  A nice guy who is just out to "put right what once went wrong."  You know, someone I could sort of fall in love with without feeling dirty.

(This one's currently fighting crime in New Orleans on Tuesday nights.)






Maybe I'll mount some kind of protest, you know, demand that TV bring back a true "knight in shining armor" kind of guy.  Demand that we walk away from hot criminal and celebrate the "good guys" who are truly "good."


Wait, what's that?

TABOO season 2 is coming out soon?  

Never mind...

A Writer's Take on the Winter Olympics

Hello everyone!

It's been almost a month since the Winter Games ended.  I can't believe how time flies when you're still catching up on 72 hours of non stop curling coverage on your DVR, but maybe that's just me.

It's no secret that I'm a huge Olympics fan, especially when it comes to winter stuff.  Maybe it's because I don't like being outside in the winter and this is a great reason to stay inside for 17 days.  Maybe it's because I can swim and run (sort of) but I will never, ever be able to ski or skate or...what ever it is those snowboarder do, and I love watching it.

Or maybe it's because every single event in the Winter Olympics involves an element of death.  With the possible exception of curling (my favorite of all the sports) go ahead and name one winter sport where DEATH is not a possible outcome.

You can't.

So after hunkering down for some hardcore TV watching I've come up with a few points I'd like to make about the coverage of the 2018 games in Pyeonchang, South Korea.

Counting down from 5.

5)  Pyeonchang is hard to spell, but worth it.

I'll be honest, outside of a paper I did in high school about the Korean War (Mostly because I wanted an excuse to watch "MASH" I know relatively little about South Korea.  These Olympics were an eyeopener for me.  Their culture is beautiful, historical, and very advanced.  The US could learn a thing or two about niceness, too, from what I hear.

Bigger point in how great Pyeonchang was as a host:  While generally the Opening Ceremonies for the Olympics are awesome, the Closing Ceremonies typically are dull and over long.  Not so in Pyeonchang! The South Koreans took this last opportunity, after showing the world a thriving, joyful country, to remind us one more time that they are pretty great.  The Closing was every bit as much fun as the Opening.  Made me wish we could have the Olympics there every four years.

4)  How NBC dropped the ball

NBC has several television networks it controls and in past years Olympic coverage has been endless and massive.  This time around the coverage was...underwhelming. Maybe it's because there are fewer events in Winter than in Summer Games.  I don't know. But opening up my DVR and finding that NBCSN and NBC simply duplicated each others' daytime coverage was annoying.  

Also, let's talk announcers and color analysts.  NBC dropped the ball BIG time by hiring Olympic skier Bode Miller to do the color for the Alpine events.  Of all the events in the Winter Olympics, downhill skiing is the fastest, the most dangerous, and therefore the most awesome to watch.  Not this time around. Bode Miller, with his endless monotone droning about technical stuff and pointless anecdotes that went nowhere managed to suck all the excitement right out of the events to the point where I skipped it.  You know what I watched?  Cross country skiing!  That's right...I watched hours of coverage of people basically walking on skiis.  Why?  Because Chad Salmela LOST HIS MIND while calling every single event. Sure, Jessie Diggins of the US got a gold in cross country skiing, something that's NEVER happened. And it was a thrilling finish.  But Salmela managed to call up that same level of enthusiasm for every event he called.  (And there were a lot of them.) Oh, and he managed to NOT offend married people.  (Thank you, again, Bode.)

While we're talking about announcers, why did NBC try to hide Scott Hamilton and Taneth Belbin White on the sidelines (And on that ridiculous fake ice rink outside the broadcast center)?  I get it, Tara and Johnny are the cool kids and the Olympics probably wanted to skew a little younger and a lot whackier (that HAIR!) to draw in a younger crowd for figure skating.  I get it.  But they still let Andrea Joyce run around with her goofy interviews while two American treasures of the sport had to pretend to demonstrate skating moves on what looked like a cardboard floor.  You're telling me there wasn't room for everyone in figure skating?

3)  How NBC picked up the ball and scored.

First of all, a network dedicated every day to curling coverage. WIN.  My DVR is still full of these lovely encapsulated matches and I will be able to watch them over the coming months and fully absorb the sport.

Second: Mike Tirico.  So much better than Bob "I got a gross eye infection in Sochi" Costas.  Tirico is the Olympics wrangler for this era.  Jim McKay was the gold standard, but Mike is following closely with his eternal cheerfulness and his clear diction.  The man is gold.

Third: Hockey coverage.  The NHL did not send players to the Olympics this time around, and that's fine for me. I think highly paid professionals don't NEED a gold medal.  But having many of the NHL cover guys from NBCSN do the coverage was a good idea. No stammering over names or struggling with the rules. And who can forget Jeremy Roenick's reaction at the end of the women's gold medal game?  Awesome.)

2) Yes, they are our representatives...but they are also kids...so...

Honestly I think we expect a lot of Olympians, and that's fine, but we have to remember that in many cases these are very young people. And I do mean very young.  Chloe Kim and Red Gerard, both gold medalists, are both 17.  You know what I was doing at 17?  I wasn't representing the USA on the biggest world stage in sport, that's for certain.  So yes, Chloe Kim tweeted a bunch of random things about food while she was competing and yes, Red Gerard let some colorful language fly when he realized he'd won the gold medal.  But on the medal stand, they stood up, they focused, they looked respectful and no one can fault any gold medalist for not singing along in that moment. I mean, it's a nice thought that all of our gold medal winners sing our national anthem, but unless you're Whitney Houston, you probably can't sing it well (I'm looking at you, Fergie) and maybe you should just focus on looking respectful rather than showing the world your singing face when you try to hit that note "land of the FREE."

Watching the youth of the world, especially the US, I noticed something I haven't noted in the Olympics before: and openess between competitors.  The world of sport is much smaller these days with world cup events in every sport happening all year round.  It used to be that the Olympics were pretty much the only time you saw some of these sports being done, but that's not the case now.  Now the competitors know each other well.  There's no mystery to the Russians...well, maybe there's a little mystery yet, I mean, most of them did get banned, and hey, I saw "Icharus."

My point here is, these are first and foremost real people. The buttoned up, expressionless East Germans and Soviets of my childhood no longer exist.  And as long as they don't create some international incident (Ahem, Ryan Lochte) let's not sweat the other stuff.  Let NBC figure out how to beep someone on live TV when they win the gold medal.  I like my Olympians to be real.

1)  Flag, race, color, language does not matter.

I found myself fully engaged in events where the US wasn't even a blip on the screen.  The Olympics have always given us a window into the lives of people in other nations, and that was true this time around.  I was fully invested in the story of the Jamaican bobsled team that lost their sled to their coach.  I was fully invested in the Nigerian bobsled team, the first African country to have a bobsled team.  (12 Athletes from 8 African countries participated this time around.)  And who didn't love the story of Tito Tuafatofua, the shirtless Tongan from the 2016 Rio games who again showed up to the Opening Ceremonies, again shirtless, this time as a Winter Olympian.  He participated in Cross Country skiing, and he finished 114 out of 119. Not bad for a guy who didn't start skiing on snow until 12 weeks before the games.  

There were cross county matches won by men and women from other countries with names I don't remember and probably couldn't pronounce, but in the moment of the Olympics I was their biggest fan.

Did you know that in curling the word "HARD", whether screamed by a tiny Korean lady nicknamed Pancake or a healthy sized girl from Wisconsin, sounds EXACTLY the same?

As a writer, I got wrapped up in a dozen different stories from these Games.  I laughed, I cried, I cringed. I didn't love all the sports (Can we skip long track speed skating and just give all the medals to the Dutch?  And also, "Big Air" was a little underwhelming since it came AFTER all the other snowboarding stuff.)  But I loved so many of them  (snow-cross and ski-cross...quite possibly the most hilarious thing I've ever seen on television.) and now that they're over I feel a void.

Eventually the Winter Games will be a distant memory. They already are for some people. And in another year we'll ramp up for the Summer Games which will fill our senses in 2020.  But it's going to be another four years before I get to hear Chad Salmela scream out Jessie Diggins' name or...see this...

Although, maybe, if we're really good and eat our vegetables, he'll come back for the Summer Games.

One can only hope.

So well done, South Korea, I give you an A++.  NBC, you get a B.  You've got some work to do. Maybe just let the South Koreans have the Winter Games every time?