Me and My Great Ideas

Back to HaydnGrey.com

Ideas are funny things. Especially comic ideas. But that’s not what I meant. All ideas are pretty interesting. The way they happen, I mean.

First there’s nothing, then in the space where there used to be nothing, there now sits an idea. It could be an abstract thought that just occurred to me, or an idea for a new story.

What makes that idea appear? It could be a number of different things. Our senses contribute a lot. Something we see, hear, read, whatever, reminds us of something else, and a connection is made. Maybe something wonderful or traumatic that happens to us makes enough of an impression that we think, “I need to write about that!” And now that we have the experience, we can write about it with authority.

Or maybe something that we experience makes us think of something completely different, or think of something in a different way. As an example, I was watching an episode of Castle a while back. In a scene after a murder, the characters were exchanging information about the victim. A very serious and sober scene, but something clicked in my head about a really awesome way this scene could be made funny.

Okay, obviously not what was called for in the show, but it found its way into my latest novel, Poked, still in progress. (You’ll just have to wait to see how that turned out.)

Speaking of ideas in writing (or other forms of artistic expression), copyright law has a limited application. According to Wikipedia:

In some cases, authors can be granted limited legal monopolies on the manner in which certain works are expressed. This is known colloquially as copyright, although the term intellectual property is used mistakenly in place of copyright. Copyright law regulating the aforementioned monopolies generally does not cover the actual ideas. The law does not bestow the legal status of property upon ideas per se. Instead, laws purport to regulate events related to the usage, copying, production, sale and other forms of exploitation of the fundamental expression of a work, that may or may not carry ideas.

This is why, for example, similar movies may be released at approximately the same time. Two examples come to mind: In September of 2006, The Illusionist was released, a movie about a Victorian-era European magician, and the jealousy and obsession of a monarch over how his trick is done. It was followed the very next month by The Prestige, a story about rival magicians in Victorian-era Europe, and one’s jealousy and obsession over how the other’s trick is done. Very similar ideas, but quite different applications.

In an even more dramatic example, in May of 1998, Deep Impact was released, a movie about a comet on a collision course with earth, and the launch of a space mission in an attempt to destroy it by planting nuclear devices inside the comet. Relatively few people remember Deep Impact, though, because it was eclipsed by Armageddon which was released in July, a movie about an asteroid on a collision course with earth, and the launch of a space mission in an attempt to destroy it by planting nuclear devices inside the asteroid.

In this example, the ideas for both movies are identical. If you read the description alone, without the title, you wouldn’t be able to determine which movie was being referenced. The idea is not covered by copyright law. The execution of it, though, in the form of a screenplay, and the movie itself, is protected.

One could easily imagine ideas being thrown around in a Hollywood studio in a pitch for a movie. If it doesn’t pan out, the pitch man could have moved on to a different studio, pitching the same idea. The idea, though, since it’s not protected by copyright, could take root in two different minds, and could end up being implemented by two different studios without any danger of infringement.

For this reason, I tend to be somewhat secretive about my ideas until I’m ready to release them. I don’t claim to be completely unique and original since, like every writer, I’m influenced to some extent by other writers and other ideas. But I like to think that my stories do display some originality of application and expression.

Incidentally, the idea for Profile actually came from the jealous suspicions of my wife at the time. I spent a fair amount of time on Facebook, and my ex who was not on Facebook saw our declining relationship and developed the idea that perhaps I was involved with somebody else, if not in person, then an emotional relationship with someone online.

She warned me that people online might not be who I think they are. Her suspicions were entirely unfounded, but I was left with the idea of a person misrepresenting himself on Facebook, suffering some consequences as a result of his actions, but eventually finding love.

And Profile was born. That idea developed into a complete story fairly easily, pouring out in a flood faster than anything I had written before.

Due to be release next month, 1684 was a very different story, literally. The idea presented itself while I was still working on Profile. But it took longer to develop and I came up against a number of blocks while working on it. And since it’s not out yet, I’m still being somewhat protective of the idea and storyline.

The current book I’m working on, Poked, began with a simple concept. But the idea seemed almost like the premise of a science fiction story, which I didn’t want it to be. So it’s taken a lot more research and finesse to make (and keep) it plausible in the real world, and the number of blocks I’ve come up against has already exceeded those in 1684, and I’m less than half done with it.

But it’s a good idea, so I’m confident it will work out.

Back to my web site

Does a Broken Home Equal Broken Kids?

Back to HaydnGrey.com

In my novel Profile (yeah, you knew I’d get back to that eventually, huh?), the idea of unhappily married people staying together for the kids is brought up. Arden, my protagonist, has the following exchange with his grown daughter:

“I didn’t want you to be raised in a broken home.”

“Well that sucks, Dad. Parents shouldn’t put that on their kids. I mean I know divorce is hard on children, but so is living in a home with unhappy parents who can’t stand each other.”

“Wouldn’t it have been harder to be shuttled back and forth between two homes?”

“I don’t know. I didn’t live through that scenario, so I couldn’t say if it would have been harder. But I remember a lot of times, sitting there at breakfast during the cold silence. I remember seeing the anger and hatred flashing back and forth between you. I remember hearing your loudly whispered arguments. And I remember how uncomfortable all of that was for me.”

“I thought we were shielding you from that.”

“You know what they say about kids being perceptive. You can’t really hide something that pervasive from them.”

His daughter, Lanelle, was a particularly bright, well-adjusted girl, who took after me – I mean him. But what does the research show for the general population in this situation?

To be honest, I didn’t really research the topic when I was writing Profile. Lanelle’s response seemed to make sense, and it worked with the story, so that’s what I went with. But now, as I research the topic for this blog, I’m finding that I must be a particularly bright, well-adjusted man, who apparently knows a great deal about psychological and emotional well-being.

Because the research overwhelmingly supports what Lanelle said. That’s not to say that a happy, balanced home life with two cooperative parents still isn’t the best atmosphere for kids. But if the parents are not getting along, perhaps the love has died, and couples counseling and other attempts to save the marriage have failed, is staying together still better for the kids?

Here are some things to think about:

In one study of over 1400 families, nearly 80% of children with divorced parents grow up to be as well-adjusted and happy as children whose families remained intact. “The other 20 percent developed some kind of psychological, emotional, or academic problem, compared to 10 percent of the non-divorced group.” (For Better or Worse: Divorce Reconsidered – E. Mavis Hetherington, Ph.D., and John Kelly)

On the website Parents.com, Jeff Palitz, MFT (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist), made the following observation:

There is no reason to believe that staying together at any cost is better for children than divorcing. In fact, when parents who are unhappy together and engage in unhealthy relationship habits stay together “for the kids” it can often do more harm than good. The behaviors you display in your home will set the stage for how your children will behave as adults. They learn what it means to be married, how to be a husband or wife and how to effectively (or ineffectively) deal with conflict in a relationship.

We’ve all heard the analogy that kids are like sponges. They absorb what they are immersed in. So when they are constantly exposed to the antagonism of their unhappy parents, or even just their coldness in the aftermath, that’s what forms a pattern in their minds. Palitz continues:

Over the course of day-in/day-out, year after year, these messages accumulate, and take root, increasing the likelihood that your kids will repeat the very same patterns they have seen in their home growing up.  The good news is that when couples do decide to get divorced and they handle their divorce in a mature and collaborative way, there is plenty of reason to believe that the children can be just fine in the long run.  In other words, it is not necessarily divorce itself that determines whether or not your kids will be ok, but rather how each adult behaves during and after the divorce.

As might be expected, there were some reports of psychological scars on children of divorce. As an example, one study followed 59 divorced families over the course of 25 years and found that the majority of children of divorce grow up with some amount of doubt about their own ability to have a long-lasting happy relationship.

That certainly doesn’t mean that it’s hopeless for them. Some form of therapy might be necessary, and certainly a supportive spouse or partner could help a lot. But it also doesn’t mean that all children of intact families grow up completely psychologically and emotionally sound. However where the children of divorce are concerned, “growing into adulthood was definitely harder for them.” (The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce – Judith Wallerstein, Ph.D.)

We all know that divorce isn’t easy on anybody involved, so this really isn’t surprising. But the amount of information I found discouraging staying together “for the kids” was fairly overwhelming.

Again, if the marriage can be saved, that would obviously be best for all involved. But if it’s beyond repair, there’s no need to “tough it out” and stay together for the kids.

Take it from me. No, I’m not a psychologist. I’m better: I’m a writer.

Back to my web site

Comfortably Dumb

Back to HaydnGrey.com

I hesitate to write this, since almost everything I do in a creative and work nature is done on a computer. But a new book makes the case that computers may be making us dumb.

Nicholas Carr, author of The Glass Cage, says that automation erodes our skills, causing what he calls “automation complacency.” With computers programmed to perform tasks with greater accuracy, and without experiencing fatigue or boredom, our own skills are gradually wasting away.

He gives the example of airline pilots. Not so very long ago, a pilot actually flew the plane. Now, for the most part, his or her job consists of looking at computer screens and entering data, while the plane is on autopilot. Yes, the pilot has to know how to manually fly the plane, but it’s no longer something that is put into practice very much. The pilot is basically a computer operator. As a result, Carr says, “it’s making them more complacent . . . they begin to tune out, they lose situational awareness and so when something goes wrong, you suddenly see people making mistakes in high-risk situations.”

Now, I haven’t read the book yet, so don’t take this as a review. But he makes a good point. (Could people with computers be the reason for the glut of (un)reality shows on TV?)

Okay, so most of us are not commercial airline pilots. But think about this on a smaller scale. Most of us have smart phones, essentially hand-held computers. How many phone numbers do you know? Your own, certainly, but how many others? We don’t have to remember phone numbers anymore. Our phone stores them for us. As long as we can at least remember the name of the person we want to talk to, our phone can connect us.

We don’t have to remember when a favorite TV show is on, or what channel it’s on. We can program our DVR to record it every time, even if the network does a sneaky day or time change on us.

We don’t have to know how to drive somewhere, because our GPS will tell us how to get there. And if, despite that, we still take a wrong turn, she will crankily tell us what to do to get back on course.

We don’t even have to ‘think on our feet’ and speak fluently, because we can send text messages that we’ve taken the time to edit and make as perfect as possible. (My ex-wives might argue that this is still something we need to be able to do. I guess they would have a point.)

All these things are wonderful. They’ve made our lives better, more comfortable, in a number of ways. And Nicholas Carr agrees. Modern technology is great. But there is a ‘dark side,’ in that we’re not engaging in hard tasks as much as we used to. And as a result, our skills atrophy from disuse.

This dumbing down of computer users could also account for the excess of stupid political memes on Facebook. (And by stupid, I mean the opposite of my own view.)

So what can we do to battle this automation complacency? How the hell would I know? I’m just someone who listens to the voices in my head and tries to transcribe them onto a blank page. And honestly, some of it may be beyond our own control anyway, as our employers move toward greater automation and less human interaction.

But at least on a personal level, maybe we can put those smart phones down occasionally and engage our mouths. Look at the person you’re with and actually talk to them. Give your fingers a rest and exercise your tongue.

I mean talk!

I don’t know if Nicholas Carr has any suggestions on that topic. Maybe I should read his book. (I wonder if I can get my computer to read it to me.)

Back to my web site

Future Crock

Back to HaydnGrey.com

I’m from the future. So are you. We all live in the future. The time that we all looked forward to with great anticipation since we were kids, and we read, with shining eyes, Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke. When we turned on Flash Gordon or The Jetsons or Back to the Future.

And it’s come on so gradually that most of us haven’t even noticed that, according to Arthur C. Clarke, we were supposed to have commercial shuttles to the moon and deep space travel thirteen years ago. But even life on earth isn’t what we expected. Do you realize that next year is the year that Marty McFly visits the future of Hill Valley, to marvel at the hover cars (and hover boards) and the interactive talking houses of 2015?

Smart phones and Google Glasses notwithstanding, the future isn’t what a lot of us expected. But even more than the flashy gadgets that the movies and futuristic reading material promised us, many of us are disappointed by the issues that still plague us on a more fundamental level.

The ongoing wars and conflicts and suicide bombings and despotic dictators have become so commonplace that we often shake our heads and sigh when we hear the reports, then go on with whatever we were doing. We think ‘that’s too bad and I’m sorry,’ but we feel helpless to change anything about it. Because there’s little that most of us can do.

But what about right here in our own area? I’m amazed at how backwards and archaic ‘the future’ is in a number of ways here in America.

A week ago, Emma Watson, Hermione from the Harry Potter movies, and now UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, delivered a speech before the United Nations. And the contents of that speech have been called all kinds of glorious adjectives, stopping just short of ‘revolutionary.’ (Maybe it has been called that and I just missed it.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not casting aspersions on her speech by any means. It was an excellent speech (and can be seen and heard here). Her words were moving and eloquent, her nervous, shaky delivery sweet and endearing.

My problem is that we live in the twenty-first century and we still have to discuss gender inequality, not to mention issues involving racial prejudice, religious intolerance, violent nationalistic fervor, political bickering, bullying, etc. Why haven’t we gotten beyond these things yet? Treating somebody differently just because of something as elemental as the arrangement of chromosomes in their cells, or genetic variations that determine the color of a person’s skin and the texture of their hair? These things should have been settled and put aside ages ago!

It’s been a century and a half since the end of the American Civil War. And yet a century after that, race was still enough of an issue that Martin Luther King’s efforts to battle racial inequality through nonviolence were noteworthy enough to win him the Nobel Peace Prize. And a half century after that, we’re still struggling with it.

And women, roughly half our population, are still being treated as if they were below-average citizens. Those who scrape and struggle to positions traditionally occupied by men still earn considerably less than the men in those corresponding positions. Women are viewed as rape bait by an astonishing number of men. And women are targets of various other kinds of violence by men.

Again, this should have been taken care of long ago!

In 1970, Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Future Shock. The title came from the psychological state that he defined as a personal perception of too much change in too short a period of time.

Well, technology has brought about a lot of change in the past decades. (Although I am still waiting for my personal robot assistant and my shuttle ride.) But some things haven’t changed nearly enough. The fact that Emma Watson even needed to deliver her speech to the United Nations, or launch the HeforShe movement, is evidence of that.

Ever since I first actually thought about it years ago, I’ve considered myself a feminist. That’s not to say that I have brought about any kind of change. I’ve actually done very little, I’m sorry to say, to improve the plight of women, aside from providing encouragement to individuals or offering my opinions in support of women and equality issues.

But now, I’ve taken a little more action. I’ve joined the movement of HeforShe, to speak up and support women’s issues. HeforShe is, according to the web site, a “solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other of humanity, for the entirety of humanity.” I was the 115,811^th man to take the commitment. (The web site said, “Help us reach number 100,000.” The fact that I was nearly 16,000 above that is encouraging!)

And I’m taking a little more action by writing this blog entry that has nothing at all to do with my book, Profile, available for Kindle, Nook or on paper, published by Idyllic Ink Publishing.

The whole idea of HeforShe is for men and boys to step up and support gender equality. According to the web site, “Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.”

Who knows? If we can eliminate some of these silly and outdated arguments that take up so much of our time and attention, maybe we can get back on track with where we should be now, in the future.

After all, I’m still waiting for my jet pack!

Back to my web site

The Selfishness of Depression

Back to HaydnGrey.com

This week’s column is taking a more serious stance. I’ll try to summon my smartassery again next week, but for this entry, I want to talk about depression. For a number of reasons.

First, it’s a subject that I’ve become familiar with first-hand, from my own experience with it, an ex-wife’s experience, and a few friends who suffered from depression, two of whom committed suicide.

Second, depression – and misunderstandings about it – were all over the web last month after Robin Williams committed suicide.

Third, depression plays a part in my upcoming novel 1684.

Two characters, in fact, suffer from depression, to varying degrees.

Hunter Sage watched impassively as the forest blurred past on both sides as he drove west on Durham Road, Highway 98 out of Raleigh, North Carolina. For a moment, he imagined the dramatic and fiery scene that might result if he quickly turned his wheel and plowed his Chevy Impala into the trees.

Hunter’s steely-grey eyes surveyed the passing forest, taking note that several of the tree trunks were plenty big enough to do the job. His gas tank was almost full. With enough speed, if he made it count, . . . .

With a sigh and a force of will, Hunter focused his attention back on the road in front of him and absently rubbed his left wrist. The raised scars often itched when he was disturbed or irritated, as he was now. He scratched the scar on his left wrist and switched to the right one as he passed a slow-moving pickup.

While this introductory scene indicates that Hunter attempted suicide in the past, and while it’s still an issue, one that presents itself from time to time, he’s managing it.

On the other hand . . .

Even though it was late afternoon, little light penetrated the blinds and curtains. Lily preferred it dark. She knew that Parker would have a problem with it, so she planned to open them before he got home. But she also knew that he was going to the bar with his crew after work, so she still had some time.

The light just felt so harsh, so unforgiving. The dark, on the other hand, was relaxing and welcoming. Lily felt as if she could breathe more easily in the dim light.

It was all in her head. She knew that. Many sessions with Jane, her therapist, had convinced her of that. But that didn’t make it feel any less real. If she went outside, which she didn’t if she could avoid it, the severe, burning sunlight pressed down on her with a physical weight. She could feel that weight lifted off of her when she came back inside.

While Lily hadn’t attempted suicide, and despite all the medications she was on, she was managing her depression a little less effectively.

Both Lily and Hunter were experiencing depression which could be traced primarily to an external stimulus. Many people, though, experience depression of a deeper, darker source. Inside themselves.

Often depression can be traced to a chemical imbalance in the brain, or other internal mechanisms which can make it more difficult for the untrained to recognize. Look at Robin Williams, for instance. One of the nicest, most kind-hearted and funniest people suffered from severe depression. But he covered it with humor, internalizing it to the extent possible, finally hanging himself.

And a few remarks about it in the following days indicated the misunderstanding that many people still have about this affliction. That he was selfish, that he took the easy way out, or the coward’s way.

The thing is, selfishness does often play into depression, but not the way these people meant it. Depression can make a person feel so sad, so pained, that those feelings are the only thing the sufferer can feel or focus on. Their self-centeredness is not something they can help.

With some, the pain or sadness is so intense that death seems like the only way to stop it. I’m certainly not condoning or promoting suicide as a viable way to end your pain. I’m simply saying that I can understand it.

I’ve suffered from depression myself, and while I’ve never been suicidal, I have been to the point of welcoming anything that would end the pain, even death. Though I have a slight tendency toward depression, my worst bouts were primarily a result of external stimuli, one of the worst being the death of my son twelve years ago.

Having been there myself, I think I have a deeper understanding of and sympathy for others who suffer from depression. Those who have never felt the interminable weight of a sadness that goes far beyond being ‘blue’ can never really understand what it’s like.

That’s why it’s still so common to hear suggestions like, “Snap out of it,” “If you don’t like feeling that way, then change it,” “Life isn’t meant to be fair,” or “Stop feeling sorry for yourself.” These remarks, and others like them, don’t help. In fact, they make the depressed person feel even worse, because they feel powerless to make the suggested changes. Professional counseling, and possibly medical treatment, are often needed to improve the situation.

If you or someone you love suffers from depression, don’t wait until it’s too late to acknowledge it. Get help. Contact your doctor, or connect with one of any number of groups and organizations in your area that can help you deal with it. Or start with some of these links.

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance

National Institute of Mental Health

National Mental Health Association

American Psychiatric Association

Back to my web site

Fifty Shades of – Did Somebody Call Me?

Back to HaydnGrey.com

By now, most, if not all, of the readers of this blog have read Profile, my novel about a smartass character who created a fake Facebook identity, and who, incidentally, is nothing at all like me. And if you haven’t read it yet, what the hell are you waiting for? (If you answered, “I’m waiting for it to come out in print,” well, good answer. It’s available now on Lulu, and will soon be available on other sites as well.)

So instead of writing about something from Profile, I decided I would write about something in 1684, my upcoming novel. Like Profile, 1684 involves two characters who meet on Facebook and fall in love. But there’s a darker story that is woven into the background, a story of a couple of women involved in the BDSM lifestyle.

A lot has been said and written about BDSM in recent years since the release of Fifty Shades of Grey. Some have protested that it does not realistically or accurately portray the BDSM lifestyle. Others love the love story related in the book. Still others, instead of weighing in on the subject matter, simply want to bash it for their perception of its literary quality (or lack thereof).

Wherever you stand in the debate, the fact remains that more attention has been directed to BDSM. Yet despite all of that attention, there are still quite a few unknowns about it.

For instance, what is it? Why would that be unknown? Perhaps because of the fringe nature of BDSM, there’s a lot of ambiguity surrounding its practices, and even the origin of the name. According to Wikipedia:

The term BDSM dates back to 1969; however, the origin of the term BDSM is unclear and is believed to have been formed either from joining the term B&D (bondage and discipline) with S&M (sadomasochism or sadism and masochism), or as a compound initialism from B&D, D&S (dominance and submission), and S&M. Regardless of its origin, BDSM is used as a catch-all phrase to include a wide range of activities, forms of interpersonal relationships, and distinct subcultures. BDSM communities generally welcome anyone with a non-normative streak who identifies with the community; this may include cross-dressers, extremebody mod enthusiasts, animal players, latex or rubber aficionados, and others.

Considering that welcoming and inclusive nature of those involved in BDSM, it may be difficult to pin down a distinct list of what is and what isn’t included. But what is certain is that numerous activities in the BDSM lifestyle involve power – the power of one participant over another. Someone putting him- or herself under the power of a dominant (or Dom/Domme) needs to know what they’re getting themselves into. So informed consent is vital.

Since many activities included in BDSM involve pain or discomfort, safe words are often used. These are prearranged words that tell the other participant that a line is about to or has been crossed, and that whatever is being done has to stop. A word of advice, though: “Please continue” might not be a good choice for a safe word.

While 1684 doesn’t delve deeply into these activities, it does follow the lives of a few people who do. And as you’ll see from this excerpt, distinctive clothing also played a part:

Mason looked at himself in the mirror. He was wearing black leather pants, criss-crossed with zippers and straps and buckles, and a jacket to match. It was Monica’s idea. She had enlisted his help tonight as they embarked on their first threesome job.

“Nice,” Monica said as she looked him up and down. “Very nice! Sexy.” She played with the buckles and the chunky zippers. The pull tabs on the zippers were two inches long and all the hardware was shiny silver. The outfit really was dripping with bits of metal. Monica was fingering all of it. Before he knew it, she pulled the one at the fly. Mason felt the pants loosen at his crotch and he jumped, startled.

“Don’t worry, babe,” she said, slapping his butt, and keeping her hand there, “you look great.”

Mason looked back at his own reflection. Focus, damn it! He took a deep breath.

“I look like Edward Scissorhands,” he replied, striving to regain the tenuous calm.

“Ha!” Monica laughed. “He looked great, too.”

Not mentioned in this teaser was the sexy outfit Monica was wearing. You’ll just have to wait for that.

Teasing and torturous anticipation are often parts of BDSM activities, too.

Back to my web site

Mid-Century Modern Design 

Back to HaydnGrey.com

Near the beginning of my novel, Profile, Arden Chase mentions that he lives in a Mid-Century Modern house of stucco and stone. Not much more is said about it, but it’s a favorite style of mine, so I figured I’d write a bit about it here.

This is my blog. I can do what I want.

The term ‘Mid-Century Modern’ was first used as early as the mid-fifties. Since then, the style has been covered by broader terms such as ‘retro,’ but Mid-Century Modern, to me anyway, conjures a very specific image. A particularly nostalgic image of my childhood.

In the sixties, I spent a lot of time at my grandparents’ house in California. I distinctly remember their kitchen table with a grey patterned laminate top, a chrome surround and legs, and with matching chairs of chrome and grey vinyl. Grey and pastel pink tile on the walls. Quaint little knick-knacks from a simpler time.

Yes, everyone talked about the good old days back then, too, but compared to now, and especially as a child, it was a much simpler time.

Mid-Century Modern refers to a style that began in a time of conflicting and contradictory feelings. After the end of World War II, there was a looking forward with bright optimism. We had come out of it, perhaps not unscathed, but with a new appreciation of the power at our disposal. It seemed that there was nothing that science couldn’t do for us. ‘Atomic’ and ‘space-age’ became the new buzzwords.

But that optimism came with a darker counterpart. Fear became a part of everyday life, fear of unspeakable death and destruction at the hands of our faraway enemy who possessed the same technologies that we had. ‘Duck and cover’ drills became something that every student became familiar with.

The Mid-Century Modern style that grew out of that time period tried to focus on the positive. Bright and pastel colors became the norm. Futuristic architecture juxtaposed with curvy, organic-shaped furniture. Bright chrome and colorful plastic was used in everything from jukeboxes in Atomic Cafes to kitchen appliances.

Repeated geometric patterns in muted tones and so-called ‘conversational’ prints became common in fabrics, wallpaper and other decorative items. Often, the images were fun, jaunty, optimistic, sometimes bold and graphic. Much of the furniture, such as that designed by Arne Jacobsen and Charles and Ray Eames, was sensuously curved, designed more for the look than for comfort, though some of it was actually more comfortable than it looked.

Light-colored woods and nubby fabrics were used in stereo consoles and TV cabinets. IKEA and Scandinavian Design, founded in 1943 and 1955 respectively, are still known for the style of furniture that began gaining in popularity back then.

Mid-Century Modern architecture varied in style, from repeated and curved lines of such buildings as the Washington Dulles International Airport main terminal and the Watergate Hotel, to the boxy, geometric, Arts and Crafts look of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater and the Weltzheimer Johnson House. While little is said about it in the story, the Wright architecture is what I pictured when writing about Arden’s house.

And no, it doesn’t really matter as far as the story goes, but as it says at the top of this page, it matters to me.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this little history lesson. I know I have. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to put on some Dave Brubeck, mix up a dry martini and relax in my underground bomb shelter suite.

Back to my web site