Tag Archives: hemlock notations

The Dying of the Light

14 Thursday Nov 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“First they came for the socialist, and I did not speak out…because I was not a socialist.     

 Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out…because I was

not a trade unionist.

 Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out…because I was not a Jew.

 Then they came for me…and there was no one left to speak for me.”

 Martin Niemoller

I’ve been thinking of this quote for some time now, and I wanted to share it with you.  

Niemoller was a German pastor who supported Nazism, but after finding out what they were doing had a change of heart and spoke out against them.  His quote, which is part of the Holocaust Museum, is meant to shine a light on apathy, and how apathy makes one complicit in the persecution of others.

Some of you will understand why this quote has been on my mind lately.  Some of you may not.  The point of the quote still stands.  We can not be apathetic to the needs and safety of others, and expect others to care about our needs and suffering.  

The quote is a call to action.

For those of you looking to do something right now, you can search for mutual aid services in your city/town.  Specifically, direct aid mutual services.  This may not be for everyone, especially those with limited time due to family, school, or just life.

What is for everyone is caring.  When you see injustice, do as the quote says and say something.  The way to fight injustice is to shine a light on it.  Just like any fearful thing, it thrives in the dark.

It may not seem like it right now, but love is stronger than hate.  Hate, by its very nature, will self-destruct.  Hate consumes all.  Love accepts all.

Until next time: Be yourself, be well.  Speak yourself, speak well.

Of Course I’m Right.  I’m the Good Guy

08 Wednesday May 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized, writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Nobody thinks they’re evil or bad, they think they are doing the right thing”.  Andrew McCarthy, 1962. 

This is a famous quote for writing and storytelling.  It’s been paraphrased and repeated by lots of people, even villains in stories.  I’ve also seen people take lots of exceptions with this quote.  People have gotten very angry with this sentiment.  

It’s a great conversation piece.  Philosophically, it gets the brain juices flowing about the nature of good and evil.  What is the mindset of someone who does evil things, or even what an “evil” thing may be.  I, and really anybody, could go on about this at length.  As philosophically, sociologically, and psychologically speaking this has so many meanings and implications it’s literally still a hot topic for debate.

What I want to talk about today in regards to writing is the antagonist of your story.  What might this mean?  Does this mean that your antagonist is the hero of their story?  That is possible, but it’s only relevant if you’re telling the story from the antagonist’s perspective.  Of course, then the antagonist would be the protagonist, wouldn’t they?

Oops!  Looks like things have gotten muddled, doesn’t it?

Okay.  Enough of the philosophical gymnastics.  Let us, you and I, get down to the brass tacks of the matter.

I’ll try to make this as simple as possible.  When it comes to crafting a story, what I believe the quote means is that the antagonist has their own motivation.  Also, you, as the storyteller, have to know the role the antagonist plays in the story.  When you know the role of your antagonist it can help you find their motivation.  Let’s go over a few examples.

First, let’s look at Stephen King’s It.  Obviously, Pennywise is the antagonist.  What can we define his role as?  I think It can easily fit into the ‘monster’ role.  Okay.  So, what does that mean for its motivations?  Monster’s are forces of nature, they act on instinct, with one desire overwriting everything else.  Most of the time, this amounts to killing and eating indiscriminately.   Grendel from Beowulf is another example of a monster.  

Next, let’s look at Professor James Moriarte from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.  What is his role (other than being a Dark Mirror for Sherlock)?  He would be a ‘mastermind’.  He’s smart, thinking one, two, three, and even four steps, sometimes ten steps, ahead of those around him.  He has no compunctions about hurting people, directly or indirectly.  What are his motivations?  Usually, masterminds are worried about making as much money as possible (sometimes it’s to prove they are smarter than everyone else), because they are the antagonists of the story, the means by which they do this is usually through underhanded, immoral, and illegal means.  Unlike the monster, who will strike, stalk, kill, and hunt anything in its path bringing it into conflict with the protagonist(s); the meeting between a mastermind antagonist and a protagonist is usually, at least for the first time, completely coincidental.  The protagonist might not even know they’ve met the mastermind antagonist.  The reason the two of them have come into conflict is because of the difference in morals.  The antagonist wants to be rich/outsmart people and is willing to break the laws of man and nature to do so.  The protagonist, meanwhile, is an upholder of said laws.  Thus, the conflict is inevitable.  For more examples of masterminds check out almost any of the James Bond villains.

Lastly, I’d like to talk about Moff Gideon from the show The Mandolorian.  If we look at his behavior throughout the series, one thing becomes readily apparent, he is in the role of dominator.  A dominator is the type of person that wants to, as the name suggests, control things.  The dominator will lie, cheat, double-deal, and kill to get their way.  They are all about their way.  They want to control a group (like a gang, cult, or similar organization), a town/city/nation/galaxy usually outside of whatever actual government is in charge.  The dominator wants control because they are the only way the group will prosper, or order maintained, or only they have the correct vision of the future, and they don’t care how many rules/laws they have to break or how many people have to die for that prosperity/order/vision of the future.  For another example of a dominator, look at Magneto from the X-Men franchise.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I’m not here to give you an exhaustive list.  The point of the post, and the quote it started with, is that your antagonists aren’t just villains, they should be just as much people as your protagonist(s).  

Until next time, be yourself, be well, write yourself, write well.

Life is for the Living   

22 Wednesday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized, writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Let me forgive myself for the stories that are not perfect,

for the scenes rushed through and the plot points fumbled,

and the language less than it ought to be,

and the phrases that make me wince,

even though no one notices but me.

Let me forgive myself for the stories I didn’t write,

didn’t finish, or didn’t let anyone see-

because I was living my life, or saving my life,

because I was falling in love, or falling out of love,

because I had run out of words, or room, or time,

let me forgive myself for all those stories

that live inside me

and not on the page.

Let me forgive myself for my failures, but also

for all those times when I tallied my shortcomings

instead of celebrating each small success.

Let me celebrate now:

not the life that I dreamed of, but the life that I have,

not the stories that I dreamed of, but the stories that I’ve made,

not the writer I imagined I’d one day be, but the writer that I am.

And then let me keep working

                                                      – Terri Windling

Someone I respect posted this a while ago, and I’ve wanted to include it here for some time.  I’ve read it dozens of times since seeing it.  I look at it as a sort of Serenity Prayer for writers.

Writing is largely a solitary endeavor, and as such it is far too easy to be penned in (pun intended) by our own minds.  We are our harshest critics after all, and that means not only of our work, but of ourselves.  Seeing the promotions and the successes of others in our chosen profession can make us jealous, envious, mad, and depressed if we let it.  

In The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, Mark Manson mentions that we’re constantly bombard in today’s wired world of success stories, of once in a lifetime winners, of instant stardom, of perfect bodies and perfect lives.  Because of this, we can feel like we’re behind, not on schedule, and failures.  He also points out that this is a false narrative.  There are plenty of people failing or just “getting by” every day that we’re not hearing about.  So, it’s pointless to compare ourselves to other people.

Instead, I would like us to take a moment to re-read Terri Windling’s advice.  Go ahead.  I’ll do it with you.

There are going to be times, because of want or wane, that we will not be able to write.  That the stories on the page must stop so that the story of us can reach the end of a chapter, or the beginning of a new one.  And that’s okay.  Really.  Honest.  The story of the suffering, or starving, artist sounds romantic, until it’s you who’s suffering or starving.  

I’m not telling you to quit.  I would never do that.  But if there are times when you can’t, well, that’s how life goes sometimes.  And, again, that’s okay.  It may be a day, a week, a month, a year, maybe even a couple years, but take the time to live, take the time to take care of yourself.  I promise the words, the characters, the stories will all be waiting for you when you come back.  You might even find you’ve become a better writer too.

Take care of yourself, and be well.  

Constraints of Medium

29 Saturday Jul 2023

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I’d like to think that this isn’t just a writing advice blog, but a storytelling advice blog.  In that vein, I want to talk about a movie called, Slayers from 2022.  

If you watch the trailer for the movie, and/or read the synopsis for the movie, it sounds pretty rad.  A bunch of popular social influencers get invited to a pharmaceutical company’s owner’s house to talk about a branding deal.  Unfortunately for the influencers, the owners are vampires that want to turn the influencers, and use their platforms to promote their agenda. Unfortunately for the vampires, a grizzled, experienced vampire slayer is on their trail and is planning on taking them out.  

Doesn’t that sound like a pretty good action movie?  It’s not the stuff of legends, but it’s a fun movie for a Friday night with friends and popcorn.  

They’ve got a good cast.  Thomas Jane plays the vampire slayer, walking the line of paranoid conspiracy theorist and war veteran to a tee.  Abigail Breslin brings her own snarkiness to the lines of the vapid influencer she plays.  And Malin Akerman brings her brand of sexy to the role of vampire matriarch.  

If you decide to watch the movie, there’s a lot of fun stuff to admire.  Flashbacks on Thomas Jane’s character show the fall of a good man, and help to flesh things out.  Cut away scenes of animated sepia toned photographs gives us a quick look into vampire history.  Interjections by Jane’s character narrating the poor decisions of the influencers and nods to video game high score screens, all add together to give the film some pop.  

Sounds like a good movie, you might be saying to yourself.  

Unfortunately for movie-goers, it is pretty bad.  If you ask my wife, and I have to agree with her, I like some pretty bad movies.  I wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn’t bring myself to.  Many others agree, and are pretty vocal about it.  

I would like to point out that this is not a movie review, but a storytelling review.  So, what makes the storytelling so bad?  It’s the plain and simple fact that they are trying to do too much.  There are a few other things, like inconsistency, but the main problem is, they’re trying to shove too much into the medium they’re using.  

Since this is a storytelling review, let’s use more traditional storytelling terms.  For the purposes of this review, we’re going to look at Slayers as a short story.  Movies, like short stories, are meant to be consumed in one sitting, and are shorter (relatively), than the novel equivalent, a season of a television show.  

Like short stories, movies have to have a solid idea of what they want to accomplish.  Clearly, the writers and director wanted to make a fun movie, something reminiscent of the old 1980’s classics.  However, they also tried to pack in new lore for vampires as well, and they also added too many flashbacks, which take away from the present action, not only taking away the tension of the current situation, but bloating the story with excessive information.

Let me explain what I mean about how the tension is cut and the story becomes bloated.  As I mentioned, we get several flashbacks on Thomas Jane’s character’s background.  We get about a five minute long one that shows his daughter dying, and a clean shaven pre-slayer Slayer not being able to save her.  We also get a two to three minute flashback that’s the opening to a crime documentary show that Jane’s character hosted, a man with a beard and steely determination to find his daughter’s killer, and we see the shades of the grizzled, unkempt slayer peeking through.  This sounds cool, and it looks cool in the movie, mainly due to Jane’s commitment to the role.  However, in a later scene, where Slayer is talking to one of the influencers that got away, he explains how his daughter died, and about working on a crime show to find her killers that was ultimately being paid for by the vampires that killed her.  The line is given clearly and with feeling, and explains Slayer’s motivation in about two seconds.  

If the writers were going to have several scenes where Slayer maps things out with the influencers, and the audience, about himself and the vampire conspiracy they’re wrapped up in, then why have the flashbacks?  I mean, more stellar acting from Thomas Jane is always awesome, but the flashbacks are unneeded.  For one thing, Slayer’s clearly unkempt appearance, abrasive social skills, and cluttered RV, are all, mostly visual, shorthand for character expansion for Slayer.  The line with his motivation, given to illustrate how twisted this “family” of vampires is, is enough to nail down the character firmly in the film.  

Let’s be honest with ourselves, there’s only two reasons someone lives off the grid hunting monsters; one, they’re batshit insane, or two, they have a tragic backstory involving said monsters.  As people who are watching this type of movie, as fans of this type of movie, we know this.  There’s no reason to bloat the movie with unnecessary flashbacks to shove the fact down our throat.

Which brings us to the second thing that led to information bloat, the vampires.  There are numerous reasons horror movies are so easy to churn out.  One of the reasons is the permanent place monsters inhabit in the public psyche.  If you go up to someone who isn’t a horror fan and ask them what a vampire is and how you kill it; they could answer you.  That’s why you pick vampires, or werewolves, or a ghost, or a slasher.  As soon as you say that word your audience will know what’s happening and what’s going on.  However, the writers of Slayers decided to bring in lore about how only a vampire’s spirit is immortal and has to transfer to another body to survive.  Also, master vampires, older, more powerful vampires, have to be killed by someone in their bloodline.  All of this is explained by cutting away from the tension of the house and the obvious trap the influencers are in, to the grimy RV with Slayer and one of the influencers.  It also takes up precious time that could have focused on killing more vampires, or vampires toying with the influencers.  

Watching the film, it’s clear that the writers and director had a cool idea and a cool vision for a film.  Had they stuck making a fun, bloody vampire movie, it would have worked a lot better.  However, at some point they decided they wanted to put a spin on vampires, their own mark on the lore.  Which made the movie stumble, and threw off the timing.  Adding this to the flashbacks that, while good (not just the acting, but the cinematography is spot on), only serve to take time away from the current situation, the current danger, the current tragedy, and make the movie feel that much more choppy and cut-up, and the thrilling narrative of the story begins to unravel.  

Here’s the takeaway, know the constraints of the medium you’re using.  For short stories, make sure you know what you want to accomplish and stay focused.  

Be yourself, be well.  Write yourself, write well. 

Hello World!  Part III 

22 Wednesday Sep 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Hello World!  Part III

Here we are, the last way to introduce your world to your readers.  It is not so much a technique as it is a writing style.  The third-person omniscient narrator. 

You will find plenty examples of this type of writing in epic fantasy novels (J.R.R. Tolkien, and Sarah Douglass are good examples) and space operas in the science fiction genres (forgive me for not naming names, but I’m not familiar with this type of sci-fi enough to recommend).  The techniques for introducing the world to the readers are rather straight forward, but bear mentioning because that’s what this is all about. 

The first technique is sweeping, extravagant description.  I would like to point out that description is a big part of writing, and appears in every story no matter what the point of view.  In first-person point of view and third person limited point of view, the descriptions are confined to what the main character can see and what they would notice, adding to the characterization of the character.  For instance, the hardnosed detective is going to notice quite different things than the college student who just discovered magic is real.  With third person omniscient narration a good place to start thinking about descriptions is the bird’s eye view, the long-distance view.  This p.o.v. isn’t anchored to one, singular spot or person, but sees everything.  It is also not anchored to one spot in time either, so these sweeping, extravagant descriptions, can start with how something might have looked in the past, or how it will look in the future before settling on the present and coming down to what the characters in the story are doing.  In looking at the world from above, from different times (past and present), a writer can freely introduce a reader to the world.

Another technique of the third-person omniscient narrator is switching to different characters.  Being everywhere and all-knowing, the narrator can focus in on several different characters to show how different pieces of the story fit together or operator in synch (or at least tandem) with other parts.  Again, this opens up the world of the story for the reader.  If one of the characters you follow is upper class, and another is poor, it shows two different versions of the world in which the story is taking place.  Every new character that a third person omniscient narrator follows shows off another facet of the world of the story. 

I would like to state that each of these narration styles that I’ve mentioned in the past three posts have their strengths and weaknesses.  The obvious weakness for the first-person point of view and third person limited is the fact that if the main character isn’t there then they can’t know about something that happened, but then that can be strength in the adding-suspense-part of the story.  Where as third person omniscient narration can seem detached from the story, and authors run the risk of inserting their own voice and opinions into the voice of the narrator. 

Ultimately, you should pick the type of narration that works for you and your story.  Play around with each, experiment, and it’s okay if the choice changes throughout your writing life, or even from story to story.

Be yourself, be well.  Write yourself, write well.

Hello World! Part II

19 Thursday Aug 2021

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The next perspective I want to talk about in introducing readers to your world is, the grizzled veteran.  This character can be a veteran cop, or soldier, or knight, or private detective, or wizard, or private detective/wizard.  It doesn’t really matter what their profession is, what matters is they have lived and worked in the world of your story for some time, enough time to be an old hand at everything that’s going to happen.

As with the S/I/O technique, this technique is best from the first person and third person limited point-of-view.  The Harry Dresden books, and the Hunger Games series are good examples of the grizzled veteran P.O.V.  Pay attention to the Hunger Games suggestion, because it illustrates that “grizzled veteran” is just a turn of phrase, as Katniss Everdeen is a teenage girl, not “old” in any sense other than in the context of her story, but she has lived in the world of the story for some time and knows about everything in it—which makes her a “veteran” of the world.

DISCLAIMER: This P.O.V. can be exceedingly fun to write in the first person, but you have to be careful with it.  The grizzled veteran, first person P.O.V. is the stuff of noir and neo-noir detective novels and movies, and as such can come off as campy or parody very easily if you don’t have a strong grasp of character voice for it, and a plot that can sustain it.

Moving on!  Unlike with the S/I/O, the veteran introduces us to the world not by having it explained/taught to them, but how they react to it.  If, while on a case/mission/walk through the neighborhood, they encounter a hellhound and they are accepting of it (note: they can be surprised to see it but still accepting), then this tells the readers that hellhounds, and associated other demonic beings, are a part of this world.  During the course of the encounter, the veteran struggles to x, y, and z to banish/kill the hellhound, then the readers now know that x, y, and z can kill/banish a hellhound and that similar things can be done to banish/kill other demonic beings.  I would like to point out that it must be clear what the veteran’s reaction is and what they do to resolve the situation; it must be clear because those are the things defining your world.  If either one of those things is vague or confusing then your world is vague and confusing.

Sometimes, to ease the burden of this character being the sole thing defining your world authors will provide them with a partner.  When I say “provide”, I mean the author put in the partner, but story-wise there could be any number of reasons this person has latched onto the main character.  In the Harry Dresden example, he is a consultant for the police, and has to have a police detective with him at all times.  The presence of the partner is a release valve for the author, allowing them to explain to the partner certain bits of the world taking some of the weight off the back of the veteran and the storytelling.  Be careful with this however, because too much explaining to the partner can lead to a flipping of the perspective, giving us an inverted student/initiate/outsider story.  The partner should be competent individual in their own right, able to take care of themselves, if lacking in certain knowledge to do that effectively.  To bring back the hellhound example, and saying the partner is a police detective, they can shoot the hound, staggering, but not stopping it, slowing it, but not killing it, and fending it off long enough for the veteran to find x, y, and z to deal with it permanently. 

One of the ways to ramp up tension in this story is also the scenes of separation, (1) the unintentional split-up, and (2) the proving myself scene.  Many of these stories have the plot device of partner/client/chosen one/loved one that need some form of protection (even the partner in this case).  The unintentional split-up is usually a trap in order to separate the veteran from the thing they need to protect, but can also come as a twist of fate, or as part of a desperate last stand where the veteran and the thing must be separate for “safety”.  The proving-myself-scene can be any of several things, but usually comes from a “I-work-better-alone” attitude, or “they’d-know-you-were-a-cop-from-a-mile-away” setup.  Whatever the reason the veteran is taking a risk by going somewhere by themselves.  Which can lead to one of two things or both; (1) it’s a trap for the veteran, (2) it’s a lure for the veteran so the “villain” can take a shot at the thing the veteran needed to protect, (3) both of these. 

Of course, you don’t need a partner/client/chosen one/loved one to protect to ramp up tension in the story with the veteran.  Another way to do that is, the “something new” approach.  With this approach, the grizzled veteran who’s seen it all runs into something they’ve never seen before.  The reason for this can be as varied as the story your telling, the threat could be ancient, or so rare as to be thought of as a myth, or could just be so gruesome or inventively sadistic that they can’t seem to wrap their mind around it.  Let’s look at the show Supernatural, the premise being, there are monsters (werewolves, ghosts, and the like) in the world, and humans, called hunters, that hunt them down and kill them.  Sam and Dean, the main characters, were raised to be hunters by their hunter father, and they are good at it, but every once and a while they ran into something they never fought before and would have to research it.  In this story they are two grizzled veterans, and partners, and brothers (loved ones).

One of the most interesting ways to make a story with a grizzled veteran interesting, and to ramp up the stakes to eleven, is to have the antagonist another grizzled veteran.  This is a person that is just as smart/tough/world weary as the protagonist, and thus can out think them.  A story with a grizzled veteran antagonist is multi-layered, with the protagonist unraveling one plot only to find out that it’s there to obscure a much darker one.  Probably one of the most famous G.V. vs. G. V. relationships in media is Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty.  Two men, one a master detective, the other a master criminal, both geniuses, dark reflections of the other.  The beauty of a Sherlock Holmes mystery was the, “how is he going to solve this one” pull of the character, but…If he solved a case, only to find more threads underneath, the reader knew Moriarty was afoot, and then the pull of the story was if he solved it. 

Be yourself, be well.  Write yourself, write well.

Thoughts in the Key of ‘qwerty’

13 Saturday Mar 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This is the title to my memoir.  I called it!  You can’t have it.

I recently read a piece of writing advice that inspired this post.  I’ll give you the piece of advice so we all have some context for things.  The advice is: Have more than one project to work on; that way while you’re waiting for edits and notes from your agent/publisher/partner/reading group you have something to keep you busy, to keep your mind ready and writing. 

First, I love this advice!  I have this blog (where I try to share helpful thoughts and lessons I have/learned in my lifelong journey writing).  I also love to pen and paper roleplay (I know, big surprise), and I’m usually the Game/Dungeon Master so I’m the one coming up with the scenarios.  Even my hobby is writing, because I just can’t enough. 

I’m not crazy!  You’re crazy! 

Anyway, if you look at the archives there is a post about over preparing, and this one is going to be in the same vein as that. 

My wife has a work associate with which we’ve spent some time.  She works part-time and considers herself a writer.  To be fair to her, she does write.  She’s participated in NaNoWriMo a few years in a row, and has several partial novels from that, as well as a couple novels between 50 and 100 and some pages that she just felt inspired to start.

Can anyone see where this is going?

As far as I know, as of this writing, she hasn’t finished one project I’ve ever heard her talk about.  While it’s great she has so many ideas-SHE HAS TO FINISH THEM!  Seriously, just like in the “preparing post”, this lack of finishing even one project speaks to a fear of failure.  We’ve all been there, half way through a story and the thoughts creep in…

What if it isn’t good?

What if it doesn’t make sense?

What if no one wants to read it?

What if I can’t get published?

What if…

What if…

What if…

What if…

What if it’s fucking good?!

What if it’s the next great novel of our generation?!

What if it inspires someone else to follow their dreams and they become a doctor and cure ignorance?

The point is, you, we, us will never know any of that if you don’t FINISH. 

Which, I guess, if you’re continuously not finishing the stories you start that’s what you want.  You’re scared that people won’t like your story, that people won’t like you, that you’ll fail, but if you never finish a story you never have to share it, share yourself.  I can understand that.  My survival instinct, the way I approach every situation even now, is to not make a big deal out of things, to not make a big deal out of me.  I fade into the background, keep my head down, and live and let live.  At the end of the day though, I yearn to have a voice, to be heard, and so, I write. 

Failure can be scary, but I have to let you know: Failure isn’t not making it; failure is to stop trying.

So, finish.  Finish your story before someone else does.  I want to hear as many voices as I can. More!  I want to drown in a sea of voices sharing their stories, sharing themselves.

Write yourself, write well.  Be yourself, be well.

In Good Company Part 3

11 Monday May 2020

Posted by in Uncategorized, writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

So…We’re here for the final part, the part where we look at heroes and anti-heroes. Yes, I know I’ve gone over the whole protagonist/antagonist thing, but it is exactly these terms (hero/anti-hero) that I want to dissect and talk about, so that’s what I’m using.

Now, before we go any further, I’d like you to go look at an article from waaaaay back in 2006. You’ll find it here. The article will give us a base to start this dialogue. Go ahead…It’s a short article…Ready?…Okay…

The gist of the article is: how can we tell the difference between an anti-hero and hero in these uncertain times, when heroes stand on crumbling pedestals and anti-heroes are hard pressed to be “anti-” anything when it’s hard to solidly define what’s right and wrong.

Not to poke holes in another person’s writing (especially when I sent you to it), but I feel that the article starts with a false premise: that in the early 2000’s we finally have reached the age of the anti-hero. We have anti-heroes throughout the history of writing. To give you some examples: Hercules, while a “hero”, was renowned for having a berserker rage, during which he killed his family, and had to perform his twelve labors to exonerate himself; and in the original Sleeping Beauty story it was labor pains that woke her from her sleep (some true love’s first kiss). Peter Pan was a child thief, taking Wendy because she didn’t want to grow up, herself an anti-character for fighting the established order of nature (not wanting to age). Sherlock Holmes, so popular in the mainstream now, was a heroin addict. Paladin, the main character from the series Have Gun-Will Travel. Almost all of John Wayne’s characters, and about half of Louis L’Amour’s. And more, all the way up to Jack Bauer of 24 and Dr. Gregory House of House MD, possibly the two characters responsible for the “age of the anti-hero” that got everyone up in arms about the whole thing.

Let’s take a look at Jack and Greg for a moment to try to piece together what made them anti-heroes. Jack is a family man, who gets taken from his home with his family by terrorists, who he then tracks for a day, and, ultimately, foils their plans. Along the way he does kill some people, though they were trying to kill him too; he does torture some people, though the terrorists did rape his wife and are planning to kill everyone in a city (or was it kill the president?). As the article I had you read stated being an anti-hero means you’re against something (anti-), so what is Jack anti-? Is he against terrorists? Yeah. Is he against the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? Yeah. Is he against the rape of women (specifically his wife)? Yeah. Is he against people trying to kill him? Yeah. To be fair, the anti- in anti-hero means the character is against some established norm/laws/mores, but Jack is a character in a post 9/11 America, where the Patriot Act gave sweeping powers to law enforcement when it came to terrorists and their activities, making what Jack did legal if not exactly morally right. So, some people might take exception to the means and lengths Jack went to to accomplish his job, but I don’t know many.

Greg is another anti-hero to look at, a doctor, a man suffering from an injury that causes him constant pain, and someone addicted to pain killers as a result. Now, Gregory House is supposed to be an allegory of Sherlock Holmes, a drug addicted detective, but I think the character is much more than that. First off, his addiction comes from a genuine place (as opposed to being too smart), an injury that causes him pain. The fact that he became addicted to the drugs he needed to live his life is a statement on the pain-killer industry, and something that happens to hundreds of people a year. Also, he’s not just solving riddles of rich people who have been killed, or have missing jewels, he’s saving lives. Given Greg’s intellect, he could have been anything that could have kept his mind busy, but he chose to join a profession that saves lives. To be fair, he is more anti- than Jack, in so much that he hates all the rules he has to follow in order to do his job. In which case, he truly is an anti-hero for being anti-rules, but I think more in the case of Dr. Gregory House people are using the term anti-hero to mean asshole.

The point of the article I had you read is: it’s hard to pin down exactly what it means to be a hero. The point I’m trying to make, and maybe I’ve proven it, is that people enjoy complex characters; they prefer their heroes to get their hands dirty, or to have flaws. Not only does this give them depth (makes them believable), but makes them (I think) better examples than there pristine, “I’m-with-the-status-quo”, counterparts, the heroes. Because at the end of the day, it is the “heroes’” job to maintain the status quo, to make sure everything stays the same, or to, as quickly as possible, return things to “normal”. Which is fine if you’re in the top of the status quo, but something different if you’re not. From that point of view, the hero is actually the villain.

And thus, we come back to people like complex characters, and the terms hero and villain are too narrow and childish for many stories. So, the next time you start a story don’t think hero and villain, try to think of your main character as your protagonist and see how the story develops after that.

Until next time: be yourself, be well; write yourself, write well.

In Good Company

26 Thursday Sep 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized, writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I like villains.

Everyone who knows me just let out a collective, and sarcastic, ‘nooooo’.

Let me explain. I like complex characters. I like characters with layers. Characters who, if you get to know them, would be nice/interesting/kind people, if it weren’t for that homicidal streak/drug problem/superiority complex/emotional distance.

You hear it all the time, so-and-so is a one-dimensional character; or, so-and-so is a Mary Sue/Gary Stue.

To clarify: one-dimensional characters are exactly what they look like and nothing more. Horror movies (mainly from the 1970’s through mid-1990’s) are loaded with one-dimensional characters: the jock, the nerd, the cool kid/popular one/rich one, the criminal, the emo/goth/psycho one, the airhead, the innocent one/virgin. A Mary Sue (for a female character)/Gary Stue (for a male character) is someone who’s just great. They’re smart, good looking, kind, athletic, in short, they’re good at everything including being a human being.

Here are the problems with one-dimensional characters. One, they’re unrelatable. I’m sure there are those of you out there who know a jock. You might be thinking: Why wouldn’t the jock I know relate to the jock character? Well, and here’s the second reason one-dimensional characters are bad, because people, real people, are more than one thing. That jock you know could also be a father, a loving husband, a klutz, have a great sense of humor, they could write poetry. That air-head could be a great and selfless friend, a good cook, have a wonderful singing voice. The third problem with one-dimensional characters is that by boiling characters/people down to one thing you make your audience care about them less. Why should I care if the jock dies in a horror movie? But if Billy, the boy dedicated to his girlfriend, who lives with his grandmother, who happens to be on the football team dies I would care more. For instance, who’s going to tell his grandmother, and who’s going to take care of her now?

Mary Sues and Gary Stues have the same problems, but for the opposite reason. Mary and Gary are just too much of everything. They’re unrelatable because no one can be that many things. When was the last time you met someone who was good at everything? And a great person? They’re unrelatable because your readers can’t see themselves rising to the occasion and stepping into their shoes. It’s also hard to care about these characters because it’s hard to put them in danger. That locked door? I’ll pick the lock. That file we need from the computer? I hacked it. The killer is almost on us. Them? I doubled back and tricked/trapped them, we’re good now. There’s no rising action and climax, for the audience, because they know that Mary/Gary will definitely get out of it. This also renders the other characters in the story obsolete, giving them the role baggage or witnesses, just there to slow down Mary/Gary or to see how great they are.

The thing to do then is give your characters depth. Sometimes this means giving them a flaw or two. Sometimes this means letting your audience get to know them. Sprinkle in information about them and their lives outside of the story in the story. Mostly this means giving them more personality.

A couple movies you could watch that take the ideas of stereotypical roles (the jock, the criminal, the nerd, the emo/goth/psycho chick, the airhead, the innocent) and turn them on their heads are The Breakfast Club and The Faculty. In one the stereotypes are thrown together in a detention scenario and throughout the day we learn more about them, giving them depth. In the other the horrific crisis that the group goes through forces them to change and adapt. Plus, both are fun movies.

Another thing you can do is people watch. When you see someone assign them the one-dimension (jock, nerd, airhead, etc.), and try to identify what about them made you pick that. Then give them a backstory. Give them depth. Why do they look sad? Did their favorite team just lose, or did they just go through a breakup? Of all the sports, why are they into water polo? Were they the star of their high school water polo team, or was their father/mother a famous water polo player and that’s how they feel close to them? Of all the teams, why are they into that one? Is it the hometown team, or is that the team their grandfather worked for as a groundskeeper for their entire life?

Put simply, the way to stop writing one-dimensional characters is, instead of asking ‘What are they?’ you ask ‘Who are they?’.

Remember: write yourself, write well; be yourself, be well.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

01 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

2018 has been a year.

Technology has brought us together, torn us apart, and has revealed many things about people and society. Society has begrudgingly, with an almost Sisyphean effort, moved forward.

One of the wondrous (and sometimes horrifying) things about technology is that it gives a voice to everyone. From the president to the prepubescent youth, if you’ve got phone then you’re just a tweet away from having your voice heard around the world.

The voices don’t stop there. In what some are calling, the “golden age” of television, we have hundreds of channels giving us, literally, millions of options for shows to watch. Netflix alone has a breadth of variety from Jessica Jones, Diablero, The Protector, and a slew of others that promote diverse voices.

In film there are fifty-four independent film companies, and these are just the ones that have “major” releases in America. There are thousands of smaller companies that release films to little or no fanfare, but still their material, their voice, is out there.

Of course, in this discussion of voice availability we can’t forget YouTube. A platform that has singlehandedly changed the face of media in the world. To name a few productions that I like: Rooster Teeth, Crypt TV, and Unconditional Love Series.

For a beginning, or struggling, writer this can seem overwhelming/intimidating/hopeless. How can your voice be heard in the auditorium of the world when everyone is screaming?

In 2018, close to three million new books were published worldwide. Publishing is still a billion-dollar industry. Self-published books increased by thirty-eight percent. (The information is out there, you just have to look for it.)

The point being: There is still a need for stories. From small town hypocrisy manifest as a monster (It), to stories of discrimination and equality (The Sneetches), to finding a relationship filled with love and trust (Fifty Shades of Grey), the written word is still alive and well. Or at least as alive and well as we want it to be. The age of the tweet, the YouTube, and the DirectTV, people are still enraptured by a good story. Words can inspire, comfort, words can change the world.

Go out there and let your voice be heard.

“For last year’s words belong to last year’s language/And next year’s words await another voice.”

T.S. Eliot

Be yourself, be well. Write yourself, write well.