At the end of last year, I got mad at the character sheet I had and made a new one (in this post).

But, of course, I couldn’t leave it there.  I made new ones, but didn’t post them.  In cleaning out stuff today, I found them, so I figure I might as well post them.

The advantage with this set has is that they bypass the character/cell limit, which is a huge problem in Excel2003 and older.  They also scroll more smoothly.  Before, if you filled up a cell with info, it scrolled that cell’s height, so it was really hard to see info sometimes.

So, new sheets:

Character Sheet (Excel 2007) character

Character Sheet (Excel 2003 & older) character-2

With these sheets:

– layer #1 is for overall summary information

– layer #2 adds the tables with the white cells

– layer #3 adds the beige cells, which are for more detailed information, but keep it short because there are cell text limits, plus the scrolling gets obnoxious if cells are tall

– layer #4 adds text areas for very long and detailed information, these text-boxes can be made to be 2-column if your lines are short. BUT!! notice under the text boxes are purple cells.  Your text-boxes will grow to the size of the text you input, and as the text-box grows, add another row of purple cells underneath it, so text-box is always within rows of purple cells.  The purple cells are important if you want the text-boxes to collapse properly.  (this works better in the 2007 version than is does in the 2003 version)

– layer #5 adds instructions and hints for filling in the section.

For wallpaper and walk-on characters, just fill in layer#1.  As the character grows more complex, fill in more detailed layers.  Expand or contract as you desire.

Have fun.

“The Field” Lynne McTaggart, Harper Perennial, 2002
“The Intention Experiment”, Lynne McTaggart, Free Press, 2007

Even though I actually finished “The Intention Experiment” last night, I’m going to include both books with today’s date, because I know both books are going to be a influence over the entire year to come.

They are both examinations of quantum physics and the zero-point field, and how the zero-point field effects our every day life, without most of us even knowing it.

Lynne describes many experiments that have been done by reputable scientists into the power of human thought, presumably transmitted through the zero-point field. The experiments are varied, most replicated by other labs, and the outcomes have intriguing implications.

I’m not sure how accessible the first would be to somebody without a fair background in quantum physics, but I understood it completely. The second is more accessible, being less technical.

I found both fascinating reading. But the most fascinating thing I found, was that not once when Lynne was describing the zero-point field did she mention that it sounds amazingly like a description of God. Maybe science has found God, and just won’t admit it, yet. 🙂

I was over visiting Paperback Writer’s blog this morning, checking out reactions to my very first comment on anybody’s blog, and one very nice gal had responded to the comment I made, and in my response to her I wrote something that to me was profound:

For me, there are three promises the author/publisher makes to me when they put a book on the romance shelf:

1) A good romantic story,

2) A promise that’s been around as long as the genre for a happily-ever-after ending and

3) In the last 5-10 years the genre has changed so the current promise is that the man doesn’t force himself on the woman (physically or mentally).

This is important to me, because I disliked all the examples I saw of RWA’s attempt to define “romance”, and at the same time I think a definition of “romance” is needed because I keep running into books on the romance shelf that aren’t romances.

Those three were just off the top of my head, but as I think more about my personal definition of romance, I’d leave #2 and #3 basically the same:

2) A their-relationship-will-endure-and-prosper happily-ever-after ending.

3) No rape of heroine or hero by the other, either mentally, physically or psychically.

But #1 needs to be thought about … A good romantic story… what makes this up?

Number of people involved limited to two? Nope, my next book will be extremely romantic (if I do it right) and it’s a threesome.

Only a man and a woman involved? Nope, some of the neatest romances I’ve watched evolve have been between my lesbian friends.

Oh, and I also feel that there is a difference between a “love story” and a “romance”… “love story” doesn’t require rule #2. For a really neat “love story” you can kill off the hero in the last chapter, for a “romance”, you can’t.

It also has to have a (at least semi-) realistic depiction of the stages of emotional involvement, and their love has to be tested at some point in the story, to pave the way for rule #2.

A “romance” is:

The evolution of a loving relationship between the main characters, that is strengthened by the tests they face and culminates in a long-term commitment to each other and their relationship.

Hey, I like that. 🙂