Doctor Who: The Complete 5th Series (Review)

Yes, at long last, I'm ready to tell you what I think of Doctor Who: Series 5.

First of all, I have been a Doctor Who fan for all of my life. I remember watching the original series on PBS every Saturday afternoon/evening when I was growing up. I suppose it is one of the reasons I became a writer of Science Fiction in particular. The fantastic idea of time travel and outer space adventures was ingrained into me from birth.

I purchased the 5th Series on DVD when it came out last November. I was understandably curious to see in what direction the series would be going, with a new head writer and a new Doctor. I had some concerns, as change can sometimes be disastrous for a popular television series, and Doctor Who was already dropped in the late 80's after popularity dwindled (John Nathan Turner did pretty much kill the show toward the end there). The wrong stories and the wrong actors could send Doctor Who back into hiatus, and I wondered if this would be the case.

What a relief it was to watch the first few episodes. My fears were quickly quelled, as the stories turned out to be better than ever before. I have to say, this is quite literally Doctor Who at its best, and Matt Smith's portrayal of the Doctor may just be my new favorite! I've been a long-time William Hartnell (1st Doctor) fan, and he'll always be held in high esteem, but Smith is just too good, and he has the advantage of modern production dollars to make his portrayal come off even better.

As I mentioned, the stories this year were exceptional, some of the best Doctor Who has ever had. They had more of a Sci-Fi feel to them, where previous years seemed to put greater emphasis on Horror. Of course, there are always both elements in any Doctor Who story, but things certainly seemed more "fantastic" in Series 5, which is a big plus in my book.

The only thing I wasn't completely sold on was the new Tardis console. I think they went a little too far with it, made it a bit too wacky. Other than that, it was a pretty perfect season. I even liked the Dalek episode that a lot of people have criticized.

Another thing I loved about Series 5 is that it turned Doctor Who into a truly family friendly show again. Call me old-fashioned, but I found the previous years of the new show to be a little too sexualized at times for young children (I'd rather not have my 4 year old watch Captain Jack hitting on every man, woman, and alien he sees, thank you). The 5th Series has virtually no sexuality in it, which brings it back to the kind of show it was originally designed to be.

With great production values, intelligent stories, and great acting, I am giving this one a full 5-star rating. This is Doctor Who at its best!  (Yes, I said that previously, but you can't say it enough!)

If you've never seen the show before, this is a great DVD set to pick up. You can watch these episodes and fully enjoy them without a working knowledge of the greater universe. There are a few old themes and foes that pop up, but you don't need an extensive background in the series to understand what's going on.

Tag-Mania: Week Two

It has been 1 week since I asked for people to start tagging The Guns of Mars. I'd like to express my sincere gratitude to the handful of people who stepped up and helped out with this little experiment. You are the greatest!


Now, we have yet to see any results from tagging, likely because not many people did it. I know, some of you may not have Amazon accounts, and it must be a major imposition on those of you who do have accounts to log in and check a little box. I'm sorry if I've asked too much.

Hoping that this can still work, I would like to renew my request, and ask those of you who have Amazon.com accounts to help out. Please, log in to Amazon, and then check the tags on The Guns of Mars tags page. Doing this could help draw positive attention to the book, and help other readers to find it in listings. In theory, this could boost sales, but I need more people to join Tag-Mania to discover how much of an aid this might provide.

Let's get things rolling this week, and make some progress with the tags. Join in the fun, and let's see what happens!

Minstrel Mondays: "With You"

Keeping with the new "themed" scheduling for the blog, for the foreseeable future we will have "Minstrel Mondays." I used to write a lot of poetry in my youth, as well as some song lyrics. I'm really quite adept at stringing lyrics together, though I never pursued a career in music (perhaps I should have). Either way, I have a ton of artistic stuff gathering dust, so I'm going to brush it off and put it on display.

Let's kick this theme day off with a little song I wrote back in 2001.

I look at the Earth,
I see what it's worth.
I look at the sky,
and I so want to fly with you.
With you.


Time goes by so slow every day,
but when it's time to go I so want to stay with you.
With you.


And life, it never seemed to go my way,
until I found you.
And time, it only seemed to flow away,
until you flowed to me.


Stay with me,
on an evening so glorious that we can see,
what's meant to be.
And even if things don't always seem to go our way,
we'll have to say,
that it's just a way to keep us from going astray.


Sometimes we'll have to play
the world's entangled mindgames.
Play those games with me,
and I promise life will be all it was meant to be,
for you and me.
It always will be,
hopefully.
As long as I'm always with you.
With you.


Never should I have to say I need you,
'cause I know you will always be there
at my side.
And we don't ever have to do what the silly fools say.
The pains of life are always to be locked away
with love.


Be with me.
Always dreaming for tomorrow's dream.
I never want to be without you.
I hope you'll stay this time,
and it'll never end so long as we are always one.


With you, life could be simpler.
With you, all things would fall into place.
It's true. All I'm ever meant to be;
With you.

Yes, it's a silly love song. Hey, they worked for Paul McCartney, right?

So, there you have it; a little taste of frivolity thrown together in the name of artistic expression. If for some strange reason anyone ever wants to use this or other lyrics I've written, I'd be willing to let them go cheap (as long as I get a byline).

I hope you've enjoyed the first Minstrel Monday post, and that you'll stop by again next Monday for our second whimsical installment.

The Kirtons of Kentucky

For the foreseeable future, I will be using Sundays to post different stories pertaining to my genealogical research. Some will be interesting vignettes that I've picked up along the way (and continue to accumulate), while others will simply explore the different branches of the tree that I'm uncovering, which may help others find their own ancestors at some point.

To kick off our first "Family Sunday," I'd like to relate what I've discovered about a piece of my mother's heritage, specifically, her paternal line.

The earliest "Kirton" I have been able to trace is Richard Kirton who was apparently born around 1830 in England. He married Ellen Hyler sometime around 1854 and the two of them were living in Kenton County Kentucky before their first child was born. They had two sons, Nelson W. (b. June 4, 1857) and Sidney (b. Feb 2, 1859).

Sidney married Anna Slocumb (b. 1854) on August 1, 1877 in Hamilton County, Ohio. They had two daughters (Roberta & Irene), who may have never left home. As late as the 1920 census, they were both still single and living with mom and dad in Covington, Kentucky. Roberta was about 40 by then, and Irene was around 36. Perhaps they started families late in life? That's one thing I'd like to find out.

Meanwhile, Nelson Kirton married Carrie Drusilla Wallwork (b. 1855) on June 6, 1877 in Covington, Kentucky. They also had at least 2 sons, Newton Charles (b. March 15, 1878) and Sidney (b. Feb 1880).

This younger Sidney Kirton married Edith Estell on July 28, 1900. I have not been able to find out how long they were married, or if they had any children. I do know that Sidney died single in 1932. According to his death certificate, he had been working as a butler in Columbus, Ohio.

Newton, on the other hand, married Caroline Elizabeth Horner on July 21, 1896 in Hamilton County Ohio. They had 3 sons; Julius John (my great-grandfather, b. March 15, 1897) and the twins, Robert Nelson & Alfred Sidney (b. June 6, 1901). Newton died of a stroke on December 2, 1918 in West Virginia. His widow, Caroline, got remarried to Thomas Jefferson Butcher on September 5, 1919, in Newport, Kentucky, and they were still together for the 1930 Census.

Robert Nelson Kirton married Vera Gates on September 5, 1919 in Newport, Kentucky. -Updated- However, by 1935, Robert was apparently married to Oma Eunice Rhodes. I have not learned if Robert had children with either wife. He died on April 16, 1953, in Cleveland, Ohio.

Alfred Sidney Kirton married Virgeline Martin before 1930. I haven't discovered if they had any children, but I found that "Virgeline Kirton" of Kenton, Kentucky lived until March 12, 1988 (info courtesy of the US Social Security Death Index).


Julius Kirton & Mary Nelson
on their wedding day, 1917



Julius John Kirton married Mary Alice Nelson in 1917. They had two children; John Julius (my grandfather, b. February 4, 1918) and Mary Alice (b. May 7, 1920). Julius died on November 23, 1959 in Stamford Connecticut, while his wife lived to a ripe old age of 81 (passing away on September 28, 1974 in Florida).

Mary Alice Kirton married Carl Pennington.

John Julius Kirton married Mary Nadine Forthman (who always went by Nadine). They had three children, Clifton, Diana (my mother), and Stephen. John Julius died in April 1967 of an apparent stroke (though my mother always said it was a heart attack). Sadly, his children have also passed on in recent years.

For those of you who haven't fallen asleep, I hope you have found something of value in this recitation of my discoveries. These findings are by no means comprehensive, and there is still much to uncover, but I'm making progress. There is only so much I can do on my own, so if anyone has any additional information at their disposal I would be pleased to see it.

The Power of Short Fiction

Short stories can contribute a lot to a writer's success. Back in the early days of Science Fiction, pulp magazines were the lifeblood of such famous authors as Heinlein and Asimov. Today, most of those big periodicals are long gone, yet releasing short works is still a valuable part of marketing and promotion. Therefore, many up-and-coming writers are still building their careers on their smaller works.

A lot of writers have a knack for cranking out little bits and pieces, and find putting together a full-length novel to be a challenge. I, however, have found it to be the other way around, as I am more adept at crafting a long, complicated tale with various sub-plots and side stories. Many a time I have sat down to write a "short" story and ended up with the first chapter of another book.

Jack London ran into this same dilemma, when he began writing a short story that ballooned into "Call of the Wild," so it's nothing new. It is a natural inclination for a writer to expound upon his ideas, and tell "the rest of the story." It is sometimes hard to sum things up in only a few thousand words.

Readers, however, are not always looking for a lengthy read, and in this era of mass media and instant gratification, more and more people are looking for quick fiction, something they can digest in one brief sitting. You'd think this would create a greater demand for short fiction, but there is still limited space on a magazine's pages, even if it's printed online. Therefore, the markets can still be tough to crack.

I have had limited success with marketing short fiction, though I have managed to get a few stories into print anthologies during the last year (Patented DNA and Haunted: An Anthology of the Supernatural just to name a couple). I haven't seriously tackled the short fiction market as I most likely should have, and I hope to remedy that in the near future. Once I've completed the Fantasy Western I'm writing, I will begin work on a series of short pieces, specifically designed for various online zines. Whether they'll find much success is never certain, but if I bombard the marketplace with enough quality work, somebody somewhere will bite.

Blog Improvements

As you may have noticed, I am now blogging daily, placing something online for my friends and fans to follow regularly. I hope to keep this up, and post something new and of interest each day, though I may miss one once in a while. For the meantime, be assured I'll be here, so drop by often.


To help improve the blogging experience and encourage more participation from my loyal readers, I am making some little changes along the way. The latest changes are to the comments system. I have made two significant augmentations to this feature.

The first positive change I've made regards those pesky little "word confirmation" boxes that always pop up when you're trying to post a comment. They always irritate me whenever I run into them, so they have been removed from my blog. You may now post without having a stupid blurry word to copy over and over again. Liberation!

The second change allows "Anonymous" comments from those who don't have an account with Google, Livejournal, Wordpress, etc.... I know there are quite a few of you out there who are reading this but don't have a blog account, so now you may leave comments just the same. However, for this feature to work effectively, I have enabled "comment moderation," so I will have to approve your comment before it is publicly displayed. This is to prevent disruptive trolls from posting hateful garbage or links to porn sites on the blog—believe me, it happens when you let anyone post comments anonymously, damn spammers!

So, now you may all participate on my blog if you so desire. In the coming weeks, I'll have plenty of fascinating comments to make on a number of topics, so return, and invite your friends. You never know what might pique their interest.

Dare The Citizens Create A New Tax Order?

I started to prepare my taxes yesterday. Yes, I do it myself. No professionally-paid third-party preparer for me. There are many reasons why I prefer to do my own taxes, though for the most part it's because I don't make that much, so I cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars to have somebody else crunch the numbers. Also, since I don't make much, it's not extremely complicated, and I did work as the accountant for my late-uncle's last Chiropractic business back in 1998, so I am a qualified (if not certified) accountant.

Doing my taxes always brings up some interesting ideas, the sort of concepts people are executed for espousing in other countries. By this, I mean thoughts of the relative unfairness of the tax system, and how much the government is bleeding from us all. As a self-employed laborer, I get to see every last cent the Feds suck out of me each year, and as I was filling out my 1040 this year, I came to a funny revelation. Why should I have to do this? No, I'm not saying we shouldn't pay taxes, and the government doesn't provide legitimate services with that money (in addition to a lot of other things). However, why are we forced to waste our valuable time (or pay someone else for their time) to figure out what we owe the government?

Think of it; who else in the world would tell you "hey, you owe us money," and then make you fill out the bill. Then, if they suspect you may not have filled out the bill to their satisfaction, they then send goons to your house and threaten to steal whatever you own if you don't cough up the difference.

Imagine going into a grocery store and placing items in your cart. When you get to the register, the guy or girl at the register hands you a book and tells you to calculate how much you have to pay. After spending hours standing in line holding a 5-pound book, you calculate the base cost of the merchandise, add 22.2589% for the owner's mark-up, deduct 1.773666% because you have a child, then tack on an added 15.259% for social security "savings," and then you come to the value of your purchases. Confused yet?

Better yet, later in the day the grocery store goes over your calculations and they discover that you made an accounting error.  You actually owe them an additional 25 cents! They send over a pair of "agents" that threaten to freeze your assets and confiscate your home if you don't cough up $2.00 immediately (.25 for the actual amount owed, +1.75 for interest and fines for making the error).

Do you think that people would stand for such behavior? I don't think so, and this comparison is not much of a stretch. It is applying government standards to a private business. The fact that it might seem absurd should make you realize how truly outrageous our current system of taxation is.

When someone gives you a bill, it is incumbent upon them, not you, to calculate the charges. How is it logical or fair that we are forced to expend our time and/or money to figure out how much we need to give the IRS? That should be their job! If they're going to make us calculate our own taxes, or pay someone to calculate them for us, they should be paying for it! Additionally, if they audit someone, and the investigation turns up nothing, the citizen should be financially compensated for the time and effort they were forced to expend to prove their innocence.

Here's where things get a little tricky. How can the Federal Government possibly afford to cover such a venture? How could their tax agents calculate hundreds of millions of tax returns each year? The simple answer is they can't. Not with the corrupt, convoluted, and unfair tax system they have spent the last hundred years formulating. In order make things reasonable, we'd have to totally rework the tax structure.

The way the IRS system works today, it's more like the Mafia. "Pay up, or we'll break your legs, foget abawt it!" That analogy probably isn't fair to the Mafia, but you get the point, and it's perfectly valid. The IRS rules through terror, and it's time we made things more accountable to the people.

There are plenty of "popular" propositions to simplify the tax system.  Flat taxes, national sales taxes, and a whole lot of good ideas that are generally ignored.  Leaving the nuts and bolts of the taxation amounts to another day and another blog, I'd like to explore a different concept that I haven't heard anyone suggest before.

Under this new system, each State would be assessed an overall tax burden, based on population, land mass, and the gross income of the populace. Depending on how large a state is and how much money its people make will determine how much they need to contribute to keep the Federal Government running. This will also give the States a larger stake in Federal spending, as the more the Federal Government spends, the more the States would have to provide. States would therefore put higher pressures on Washington to spend more responsibly.

Each State would be free to determine how they collect the needed money to pay the Federal Government every year. Most likely, they would raise income taxes for this purpose (in addition to whatever they're collecting already). Therefore, we would be shifting the tax system from one big centralized bureaucracy in Washington into 50 smaller, more local, accountable tax agencies. This way, citizens would not be paying income taxes to the Federal government. They would be paying their State (which is really a more Constitutional form of taxation) and the State would then pay a "membership fee" for being in the Union.

How could we do this? Would we need a Constitutional Amendment to alter the current tax system in such a drastic manner? Well, I suppose so, though the 16th Amendment, which gave the Federal Government the authority to tax incomes, was never legally ratified in the first place. After a few State Legislatures approved the Amendment, Woodrow Wilson's administration just said, "Meh, close enough," and deemed it passed, but they never got ¾ of State Legislatures to legally ratify the Amendment (which is required under Article V of the Constitution). This has been a bone of contention with Constitutionalists for over 90 years, though there's really nothing anyone can do about it now. The system is in place, however it was imposed, and now to change it we would require a new Amendment.

Would enacting this new system be hard to do? Of course it would, but isn't it necessary? I dare say something will have to be done eventually. The current system is growing untenable, and when things become too burdensome to tolerate, the people will look to create a new tax order, one that will be both fair and just for all citizens. Whether this radical proposal I have just suggested will be used or not is anyone's guess, but I doubt the present system will still be in use when I am an old man. Change is coming, and we must be prepared to shape it positively, or face the unpleasant consequences.

Hand to Mouth Disease

It is no big secret that I am fat. I've been overweight to one degree or another since I was six years old, and it's something I have never really tackled seriously. When I was growing up, my mother would let me stuff myself with whatever food I wanted, so I had little incentive to control my eating habits.

I could decry the psychological causes of my obesity. "Oh, my parents were alcoholics who didn't treat me right. The kids in school tormented me and made me depressed. I didn't get all the toys I wanted as a child. Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa!" No, I don't put a lot of blame on others (not even the nasty little bastards in grade school). It doesn't matter what the original excuses were. The only thing that matters is what I do now and in the future.

Martin T. Ingham, Age 16.
What a fat pig!!!

In the past, my weight was a worse problem than it is today. When I was 16, I bloated up to a grotesque 300 pounds (We're talking Fred J. Dukes fat)! Shortly thereafter, I started a work regimen that helped cut my weight down somewhat, though I have never been a comfortable weight.

Despite being fat, I am in relatively good health. This is due partially because of good genetics, and because I am required to physically work much of the time in order to make a living. Even though I'm fat, I do burn a lot of the crud out of my system on a regular basis, but it gets replenished. The weight isn't an issue of being sedentary, but of eating to excess.

When it comes down to it, I like to eat. I always have, and it is the only real vice I have. While others might find cigarettes or booze to be their weakness, food is mine. Especially candy. Oh, the sweet, sweet sugar! I need my refined, granular white, man! I'm Jonesin'! Gimme, gimme gimme! Where was I? Oh, yes, I'm a lard-ass!

Yes, to be perfectly blunt, I have "Hand-to-Mouth Disease," the illness of putting food in my mouth compulsively. I'm not the first man to be cursed with this ailment. John Candy, Drew Carey, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Kennedy, John Goodman, Chris Farley, Meat Loaf; they're just a few famous people who have suffered from this accursed affliction. Looks like I'm in both good and bad company (I'll leave you to be the judge of who's who in that regard).

I've come to the point in my life, however, where the weight can no longer be tolerated. I'm almost 31, and if I don't get rid of this fat now, it'll get increasingly difficult to discard it. There is only so much you can get away with, and I've eaten enough. It stops being fun when your body begins to bother you, and I have felt the warning signs. The immutable force of gravity is beginning to drag me down, so I must discard the extra ballast, or drown in a sea of gluttony.

I'm not going to be drastic with my mission. There'll be no stomach staples, no fat sucking surgeries, and no fad diets. I'm going to do this the slow and steady way, eating right and eating less! It may be troubling at times, for I can get irritable when I'm not stuffing my face (especially when the sweet, sweet sugar is sitting right in the other room, oh, man!) but I have a stubbornness of will, and I can overcome. Anyone can do it if they really want to, and I have decided I want to be lighter. Not "normal," because that's an arbitrary statement that can never truly be defined, but I will drop the extra pounds.

It won't happen overnight, and I expect it'll be a year or two before I am really where I should be, but I'll get there.

Tag Mania!

There is a little experiment I'd like you to help me conduct. It won't take you more than a minute for minimal participation, and a few extra moments to invite friends to join in if you feel especially motivated. Please, go to Amazon.com's Guns of Mars page, and scroll down to the "tags" section. Please pick half a dozen pre-existing tags, and "agree" with them by checking the little boxes beside them. Doing this may help boost the book's listing in some respects, and bring it to the attention of potential buyers in various ways.

There are readers out there shopping for books with certain labels. Some are just after a book tagged "Sci-Fi," others want "Action." Still others are after "Military SF" or stories about Mars. In order to be assured that a particular book really matches a label, people need confirmation, and that's where this multiple tags concept comes from. If enough people check the box and confirm that the book belongs in a certain category, buyers will have greater assurance that they'll get what's advertised, and buy with greater frequency (in theory).

Also, more checks for less common tags can rise an item to the top of certain listings, therefore it becomes more visible. If a book gets enough tags, it could really take off, especially in ebook format. At least, this is what our little experiment could prove, if enough people participate.

This is not hard to do, and I will consider it a big favor if you would each do this. Let's get as many people "tagging" The Guns of Mars as possible, and we'll see what happens. Come on, it'll be fun!

If you feel so inclined, add The Guns of Mars' Amazon link to your blog, and invite your followers to join in the fun. Now, let's get tagging.

Researching The Fantasy Western

Here's an update about my latest writing project. As you know from my previous blog entries, I am currently contracted to produce a novel-length story for Hall Brothers Entertainment. This story will be run as an 8-part serial sometime later this year, and then be released in book format (possibly with some exciting extras from yours truly).

This "Fantasy Western," which blends the setting of a classic Western with the might and magic of Sword and Sorcery, is proving to be one of my more researched tales. I've done quite a bit of research in the past with other books, most notably to double check the science for my hard SF tales, and to keep things somewhat realistic, so I'm no stranger to fact-finding missions. However, it seems every time I turn around with this new book, I'm stopping to pick up a different reference text. Who knew writing "the old west the way it wasn't" would involve so much history?

There are two reasons I'm doing so much research with this project. The first is what I always do, to keep things realistic (which is very important, even when you have a warlock for a sheriff and a dwarf gunslinger amongst your cast of characters). The second and most involved factor is the commingling of history with fantasy.

Without giving too much away, several real-life individuals will make guest appearances in this story. To place them in the right context, and in order to make their appearance logical, I'm using actual events that took place, and rewriting them just a little to match the Fantasy theme of the tale. I've done my best to make these people act in a way that fits their true, historical backgrounds.

As a recreational aside, I've also been reading a few Louis L'Amour books recently, hoping to see how one of the greatest Western writers in history did it. They have been entertaining diversions. His writing style was certainly different than mine, and his attention to detail was phenomenal. He actually spent time visiting the physical locations where his books took place, and learned every last detail about the surroundings and how people lived in those locales. That sort of hands-on research is a bit beyond my monetary limits at the moment, so I'll just have to settle for written descriptions and let my imagination fill in the rest.

I expect all of this added work will pay off, and later this year you can all be the judges of that. The story will be displayed for free at Hall Brothers Entertainment, so even those who are impoverished or just too darn cheap can enjoy the fruits of my hard labor. Later on, if some of you like what you read, you might even consider buying the published book.

Who knows, this could be the beginning of a whole new sub-genre.

You Might Be A Cousin, If...

As my family tree continues to grow, I'm beginning to see how many distant relatives I must have. Simply as a fun exercise, I have compiled a list of surnames for the last 12 generations of my family. Some of these are fairly common, and there is no guarantee that someone with the last name "Wilson" or "Smith" would be related to me, though there are others that are fairly uncommon. Just in case some of you are wondering, you might be a cousin if...

Here is a generational list, putting each surname where it first appears in my family tree. Counting myself as Generation 0, and my parents as generation 1, we have the following results:

1: Ingham*, Kirton


2: Counts, Forthman


3: Bailey, Littlefield, MacCain*, Nelson, Robinson


4: Ballinger, Carney, Gamble, Horner, Moore, Stark, Urech


5: Dillon, Doughty, Henderson, Lacay, Nixon, Silcox, Smith, Tucker, Wallwork, Wilson, Young


6: Austin, Guile (Guild), Hires (Hoyer), Hubbell, Hyler, Karper, Keeney, Kelly, Rogers, Sheppard, Waller, Wiley


7: Burch, Coleman, Cunningham, Davies, Garrison, Keeney2, Kennedy, Martin, Nelson2, Sockwell, Tucker2


8: Babcock, Beeman, Brown, Clark, Crosby, Davis, Davis2, Doxey, Kandel (Kandle), Lamb, Newcomb, Smith2, Whitaker


9: Belcher, Bowen, Brown2, Carmen, Forgison, Gates, Hitchner (Itchner), Hopkins, Ismond, Kinney, Maurer, McCarthy, Pineo, Scott, Thayer, Tracy, Waite, Warren, Webster, Wightman,


10: Babcock, Bangs, Bartels, Bradford, Brown3, Burt, Camp, Chapin, Church, Clark2, Colt, Cox, Culver, Daniel, Frazier, Gulliver, Hartshorn, Hills, Husted, Ismond2, Judd, Lottholtz, Lyon, Miner, Parish, Park, Pepper, Rich, Rogers2, Samson, Sheppard2, Wells, Westcott, Wheeler, Williams


11: Adams, Allen2, Allis, Avery, Babcock2, Baldwin, Barron, Bass, Belden, Billings, Brown4, Browne, Buell, Bushwell, Buswell, Camp2, Carpenter, Curtis, Denison, Elithorpe, Fellows, Fitch, Fuess, Gates2, Gates3, Geer, Geer2, Griswold, Hill, Hinchman, Holmes, Hopkins2, Jackson, Kellogg, Kingsley, Knight, Leonard, Lewis, Loomis, May, Mayo, Merrick, Morehouse, Neale, Newhall, Payson, Raymond, Roberts, Sheppard3, Sherwood, Sprague, Sprague2, Thayer2, Thurston, Tolman, Waldman, Walling, Wattell, Wise, Woodcock, Young2


12: Allen3, Allyn, Allyn2, Ayer, Babcock3, Bailey2, Bassett, Batt, Bayly, Belden2, Brewer, Brigham, Bronson, Browne2, Buck, Burnham, Canfield, Chapin2, Chauncey, Cheever, Cheever2, Clark3, Crooke, Curtis2, Danforth, Darrell, Deeg, Eames, Edwards, Eliot, Fitch2, Foote, Freeman, Goodale, Goole, Greenaway, Greenslade, Griswold2, Hallet, Hansford, Harvey, Hawkins, Hayward, Hilton, Hobart, Hopkins3, Johnson, King, Knoell, Lamb2, Lambert, Leids, Leids2, Lumpkin, Lyman, Marsh, Mason, Meigs, Odell (O'Dell/Udell), Palmer, Pendleton, Phillips, Plummer, Post, Pray, Provoe, Putnam, Rathburn, Rawlins, Reeve, Richards, Riley, Sayles, Seaman, Smith3, Smith4, Stalham, Stephenson, Terry, Thompson, Thompson2, Tracy2, Treat, Turney, Updyke, Waring, Warren2, Weld, Welles, Welsz, Wheldon, Whalen, Whalen2, Wilbourne, Wilcox, Wise2, Wood, Wood2, Wood3, Wood4, Woodward, Woolhead, York, Young3

There you have it; all the surnames I have been able to trace through 12 generations thus far. There are some that go back even further, but I'll leave those for another day and another post.

Perhaps this gets a little carried away, but there it is. Sure, being a 12th cousin might be mostly academic, but it's still neat to be able to look back and see how the lines diverged. This is by far not a complete list, and there are still many lines I haven't been able to trace beyond a few generations. Still, it's already quite a list, as you can see.

See if you recognize any of the surnames listed, and resign yourself to the fact that we might be distantly related! If you have any questions, or want to work on finding any possible genealogical links, let me know.

*The Ingham genetic line extends only to Raymond W. Ingham (generation 2), who was adopted by his step-father, Edward "Ned" Ingham.  His genetic lineage actually comes from Raymond W. MacCain, Sr.  Therefore, any of the "adopted" Ingham genealogy has been excluded from this list.

Pseudonym?

It's an old writer's trick to use a pseudonym for literary endeavors. Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) is the most notable example I can think of, though there have been numerous examples throughout the years. Many writers have used an alias to market their writing, though it is something I have never done. I pose you the question, is it a good idea?

The main item to consider is my real name. I've often wondered if Martin Ingham is such a useful moniker for the cover of a book. The big problem is obviously the last name. Who here knows how to pronounce "Ingham?" Say it aloud (go ahead, humor me). Now, I'm betting more than half of you got it wrong. Most people have the natural inclination to pronounce it "Ingram" with a "gram," rather than "um." Ing-um. Not really catchy, is it? Olde English at its best.

Is it wise to market books under a name that nobody can pronounce? Now, it's not like my name is long and hard, but it isn't exactly normal outside of England (I've found there are quite a few Inghams in the UK, and another Martin Ingham has a car dealership over there). This is one of the many points to consider.

So, if I were to use a pseudonym, which would I choose? A writer has so many invented names to select from, and there are any number of ways to go. Robert A. Heinlein had a few in his early pulp magazine days, most notably "Anson MacDonald" which was a combination of his middle name and his 2nd wife's maiden name. I've found many aliases often have some linking connection to the author like that. They still need a label with which they can identify.

Since I've been doing research on my genealogy, I have literally hundreds of names to choose from. Maybe "Richard Kirton" would be a good name (my 4x Great Grandfather), or how about "Charles Ballinger" (my 3x Great Grandfather). Or let's mix it up a bit, and use "Tobias MacCain?" Okay, maybe not, but you get the picture. So many fake names to choose from.

Yes, I know, it's a little late in the game to be considering a pseudonym. I already have 4 novels in print, and a growing fan-base under my real name, so this is probably all a waste of time. Then again, having achieved limited success thus far with my real name, it may be time to start out fresh. There is no doubt baggage that comes with my current career (editors who didn't like something I sent them, or think I'm old news and not liable to strike it big if I haven't already). A new name could be a way to come back, though I'm not sure I'd want to be known under a false label.

It's just a possibility...

Don't Be Afraid to Share

I always find it uplifting to hear from my readers, particularly when they sing the praises of my work. It is unusual that I encounter someone who has read one of my books and not enjoyed it, and the accolades often come from people I have never personally met. This lets me know I'm doing something right, and that my goal of creating entertaining stories is being achieved.

With that said, my readership in recent months has begun to stagnate.

As I previously wrote, silence is death, and without new readers, a writer cannot survive. I need word of mouth to promote my works, and there is only so much I can do on my own.

If you read one of my books, tell your friends and neighbors about it and encourage them to read what you are reading! If you truly like my work, don't be afraid to share. Also, speak up if you think my work is no good. Waste a few minutes explaining why you don't like it, and maybe other people will be curious enough to see if you're right. Either way, I ask that you share my work.

I sometimes get the feeling that people view my writing as a "guilty pleasure." I envision them like teenage boys with a playboy magazine, stuffing it under the bed when there's a knock at the door. "Oh, my, I can't let them know I'm reading this garbage!" Okay, it's probably not as dramatic as that, but the end result is equivalent. People aren't talking about my books, for whatever reason.

In this modern age of mass media, the book market is flooded with all sorts of small-time, independent authors, many of whom are good, and many of whom can't string a coherent sentence together. This makes it incredibly difficult for undiscovered writers to break out of the pack and get noticed. The only ones who manage to do that have the help of friends and fans, who get them noticed through their support.

If you speak up for my writing and encourage others to do the same, then you can rest assured that more fantastic stories will be on the way. However, if nobody speaks up, I will inevitably fade away. Without success, there will be fewer stories in the future, for less success equals less incentive to create new work. Not only will I have less time to write (for I'll be too busy working other jobs to make money), but the ego factor will be a hindrance (I'm not an acid freak, so I have an ego, forgive me).

Just think, if nobody's going to read a book, is it worth writing? That question weighs heavily on every writer's mind. There's also the pain of getting a book published that detracts from the enjoyment of the creation process, for rejections often seem to spit on your very soul. There has to be some reward in the end, and having readers enjoy what I produce is good enough for me, but volume is a necessary element.

A handful of devoted fans can be the basis for a great success story, so don't be afraid to share.