Category Archives: Criticism

Ermergerd, erts Mernercer – A Monaco Review

My head hurts. I can’t tell if I’m dying or my body is trying to do that obnoxious migraine thing again. It’s also gotten warm here recently. I can’t tell if the two are connected. Neither can modern science.

So, in my agitation, what better topic to write about than a review of Monaco – What’s Yours is Mine!

Accessed from http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2013/04/22/monaco0419131600jpg-acb114.jpg

Monaco: What’s yours is Mine belongs to Pocketwatch games and all associated media belongs to everyone appropriately that isn’t me.

Now, I know I haven’t done a review of a piece of media for awhile. What between my procrastinating, ranting and own scribblings it’s not like I haven’t consumed media in that time. Granted, on the video game front I’ve mostly been taking a look at older work. I decided that, since I’m a PC gamer, it was foolish of me to be spending gobs of money on new releases when I have easy access to a large library of very inexpensive games. That is a Steam endorsement, if you did not catch it.

What this means, however, is that I’ve been focused on clearing my growing backlog of older titles as well as achievement grinding while I wait for the annual Steam Summer Sale to purchase something of moderate relevancy at an affordable price (mainly $2). Thus, between my rage inducing games of Dota 2, I have mostly been focused on a modded playthrough of Fallout: New Vegas in order to try and get as many achievements as possible, and working through this article’s titular piece with Derek when both of us are too tired of doing our respective writing.

So, what is Monaco? Well, it’s an independently made 8-bit inspired four player heist game which sees the player playing one of eight possible personalities as they work through the French gibbering city-state in an attempt to collect as many ambiguously shaped valuables as possible without getting bludgeoned, beaten or shot into a skeleton.

Accessed from http://images.gizorama.com/2013/08/Monaco-Whats-Yours-is-Mine.jpg

I warned you about the graphics, dawg.

It isn’t a looker, I’m not going to lie, but part of the charm and difficulty arises from trying to parse and understand what the stylized graphics are trying to display. I can tell you, there have been many botched missions due to Derek’s inability to perceive alarms and I’ve been stuck more than once in adrenaline pumping retreats upon the peculiarly impassable edges of a swimming pool. However, graphics are one thing that is often sacrificed in independent games. It would be like expecting Little Miss Sunshine to wow people with its CGI effects. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that the game would work with a more cleaner style if, at the very least, to provide the player with more distinct objects with which to interact.

Now, normally I would spend a great deal of my review discussing the characters, narrative and world of a game as usually those are my focus. This is impossible with Monaco. Partly because of its multiplayer aspect, the narrative elements are diminished in the name of gameplay. The window dressing for why we must steal into a museum and rob its eight great works is inconsequential to why we are performing this task. Due to their interactivity, telling a narrative in a game is tricky enough with one person who can and often will wander away from the points of interest the story-teller wishes to focus upon. Throw in upwards of three or four people wandering in all directions and you have a veritable narrative nightmare.

This isn’t to say that Monaco doesn’t try to tell a story. This is mostly to say that Derek and I completely avoided it. The only thing that I can remember are the wild proclamations of “Gyaaaard,” “Oui. C’est bon,” “C’etait seulement une chat,” and “Cerveau?” Each mission begins with a short description to set up the reason for whatever haphazard task we must accomplish. But the justification is terrible and not just because the developers were trying for some cutesy unreliable narrator shtick. I mean, you can only blame character bias so far when one of the missions is you breaking into a diamond store to steal the redhead a bunch of jewelry so she can get over having to murder people in cold blood.

I will say that the one narrative element I enjoyed about the game was its setting. Not that it was used to any useful degree, but the fact that the story took place in Monaco was refreshing and highlights the sort of lazy writing which I have complained against in past articles. Most stories do not necessitate a specific location and the vast majority of settings default to a handful standard locations. Typically, in American media, this will be New York City or Washington D.C. If you’re in Britland, the place where everything happens is almost always London. The number of movies that involve the poor Statute of Liberty being destroyed makes you wonder why people would want to visit such a high value target for just about every terrorist plot imaginable.

Which is a shame because we live in a large world filled with interesting locations. Monaco demonstrates that you can take a very standard, unremarkable tale and set it somewhere that isn’t a tried and tired locale. Nothing in its game truly requires it to be in that specific setting but it is able to adopt certain elements to give it an interesting flair. The guards and workers now shout French sentences when pursuing or fleeing you and even one level has you break into Prince Albert’s palace which, obviously, is impossible if you’re in the Big Apple.

Granted, I am not immune to this criticism. My first story takes place in a fantasy city analogous to London. I truly understand the automatic impulse of picking one of the default locations to set your tale especially if you don’t have anything specific in mind. The media we consume creates an almost internally feeding loop where we read about stories in New York, London and Tokyo so we write stories set in New York, London and Tokyo. However, I imagine a lot of us have lived or visited other places which we can draw on inspiration. And you never really know what you’ll get out of shaking things up and packing your protagonists to more remote, exotic or even mundane areas. It also gives a really great excuse to travel – you see, we have to do it for our research!

Anyway, my head is getting distracting again so I’ll wrap this promptly up.

Accessed from http://images.wikia.com/monacowhatsyoursismine/images/archive/1/12/20130426013345!Monaco_What's_Yours_Is_Mine_Wallpaper.png

I like how big the mole is. Probably to represent how absolutely broken he is.

I wouldn’t recommend Monaco to anyone unless you had friends who would play it. It is certainly doable with one or two people but the levels (especially the later ones) are designed with three to four players and I think a large part of its appeal is in co-ordinating your team to successfully pull of these heists. It is much the same as Left 4 Dead only you aren’t saddled with atrocious AI teammates if you are misanthropic.

Rules for Writing

Leave a reply

Grabbed from my favourite site for classic art: wga.hu

Paul Alexis Reading to Zola by Paul Cezanne (1869-1870).

I participate in online discussions and sometimes they end up touching upon subjects a little close to heart. The other week, I happened to be in a discourse over the representation of racial and sexual minorities in media and how the under representation of these people was a rather unfortunate habit which should be addressed. The usual suspects arrived to the argument – creatives merely write what they know and one shouldn’t demand otherwise; if minorities wished to see more representation then they should produce their own entertainment; stories featuring minorities don’t sell because the majority audience is unable to identify or sympathize with them etc…

I’m not going to address those arguments mostly because any sort of discussion on diversity in media is going to have those trotted out like some sick horse for a carnival’s grotesque show and if someone were truly interested in learning why those positions are weak, they wouldn’t need to look far for the counter points.

Instead, the discussion spurred a rather curious comment from a poster. This individual stated, with a remarkable amount of conviction, that everything presented to the audience about a character in a narrative must be there for a reason and that reason should reveal their desires and intentions. It is not an outlandish claim on its own and seems rather reasonable on first blush.

It is this statement which I wish to rant about today. Though the original discussion was not aimed squarely at writing, the argument presented was and, as such, I shall argue against it from a writing perspective and ignore other media forms and whether such a statement holds merit in them or not.

It’s a curious position since, whenever in an editorial role, I am constantly asking either myself or the author of the work what is the point for scenes and characters to the story. I do maintain that events, actions, characters and scenes should be added for a purpose. It must seem rather hypocritical that I’ll edit out scenes and dialogue because I feel it adds nothing while simultaneously writing long paragraphs on the Internet why someone who purportedly is expressing the same values is inherently wrong. However, outside of being a rather strong dictum, I feel this sort of rigid regulation of how art should be is rather insidious and dangerous.

Not that this individual is alone. Like I mentioned, I often wield this decree towards my own writing. Even Kurt Vonnegut, when publishing his eight rules for writing fiction, had something similar in his list which is produced below for this discussion and interest sake:

1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel that time is wasted.

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.

4. Every sentence must do one of two things – either reveal character or advance the action.

5. Start as close to the end as possible.

6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet or innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them.

7. Write to please just one person. If you open your window to make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.

8. Give your readers as much information as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the stories themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.

I don’t know about you but not only are these decent suggestions but right there, plain as day, is rule four supporting this anonymous individual’s bold stance. Granted, it has a bit more elegance as surely a writer as successful and proficient as Kurt Vonnegut would recognize that mere character alone does not create all works of good fiction.

So why my umbrage?

Well, the context of the debate is immensely important. I have written some articles before about modern feminism and diversity and it is my goal to try and adapt some of those philosophies in my own work. I need to stress that this debate started over the question about the viability of racial and sexual minorities in media. Ultimately, the statement expressing that all details given by an author must reveal character is, in essence, stating that “You must only use minority individuals as protagonists if your story is dealing with the issues a minority would face in that narrative.”

Basically, we must suffer Shia the Beef’s and Megan Vixen’s god awful performances in Transformers because the Transformers movies are not dealing with the hardships that African Americans or Jewish immigrants face in modern America. It is an argument which carries certain inherent biases. If you are to write any fiction not dealing with discrimination based on racial, sexual or gender difficulties then you must make your protagonist a white, heterosexual male. Otherwise, the argument purports, it is bad writing for you are presenting unneeded information.

Pacific Rim and all associated media is not owned by us and belongs to Warner Bros, del Toro and whoever else.

Raliegh and Mako’s head bump – platonic or romantic? You decide.

I want to stress again that this is not me twisting the posters words as this dialogue was occurring in a thread bemoaning the lack of diversity present in main protagonists across modern Western media. It is a discriminatory position since it puts forward that the characteristics which make these groups disadvantaged minorities must have deep bearing upon their identity. You can not, as the argument goes, make the lead brother of Pacific Rim gay “just because” since his sexuality must have some grander bearing on the story. Of course, his heterosexuality is, essentially, assumed thus it need not be justified in its expression. He can make some passing comment on pretty girls and not have that line considered “bad writing” since it is, essentially, the audience’s expected “default.”

I would counter that this is a very dangerous stance to take and thus, ultimately, I must disagree with Kurt Vonnegut’s fourth rule. I feel an author should be free to make their character hispanic, female, transgendered or whatever and not be weighed down by the challenges faced by any of these groups if the narrative does not call for it. Ultimately, our stories are expressions of ourselves and our experiences. The majority of them will feature humans or analogous individuals which explore the vast array of characteristics and lives that a diverse species will face. When writing a story about my characters, I am necessitated in choosing a gender for them – not because that gender weighs heavily upon that narrative but because humans have gender.

Of course, the immediate counter argument is that stating a person is female is revealing character and the proclamation in of itself satisfies Vonnegut’s requirement. In fact, this person probably intended to communicate just that with this response when I questioned his position about an off-handed comment on a character’s marriage status:

“I said it should affect their character, not that it should define them. If we run with marriage, then what does that mean? It means the main character made a commitment with someone else. Is that a happy marriage? Are they constantly arguing? If so, why? If not, to what extent is that person the most important part of our main character’s life? Maybe the marriage won’t change their decisions, but if they’re happily married it should at least weigh on their conscience if their decisions will impact the other person. If they’re not happily married, how does that impact the character’s decisions? Maybe it’ll make it easier for them to make decisions that put themselves in harms way… All I’m saying is that if we learn that a character is married, that should, in at least a small way, have a bearing on what happens or the nature of the character. That they have a dog, a specific type of car, where they live, what they eat for breakfast, where they work etc. If it doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t tell us anything about the character, why is the author telling the reader?” ~ Anonymous Poster On Internet

And this is when, I feel, the argument really breaks down upon itself. Now we are no longer insuring our lines are revealing character or advancing action but bogging down the narrative with constant explanation for why every small detail is necessary for inclusion. Make mention of a character’s blonde hair – we will need some justification for how that blonde hair shaped this individual’s life or they must be identified later in the story by their hair. If you wish to make your character a woman but do not go into great length about the impact of her womanhood on her personality or pivot a key narrative scene on her gender, then you should not have included it in the first place.

But as stated, we’re writing humans, so these characters need a gender and physical features. Most stories do not trip over these requirements so, unless this individual is arguing that essentially there is no well written stories, then some combination must be free of this restriction.

I don’t think it necessary to state what that combination inherently is.

I discussed this rather odious position with my co-contributors and Derek provided an expanded rule to Vonnegut’s fourth: Each sentence must do one of the following: reveal character, explain the world, advance action or reinforce tone.

I, personally, subscribe to a different approach. If I were to include this in my “Rules of Writing” it would be as such: Each sentence must be added for a reason. That’s it. Every line you write should be put to serve a purpose. What that purpose is, however, is entirely up to the author and it need not be inherently apparent for the reader. Perhaps you wish to make your lead in a sci-fi space opera transgendered for no other reason than you want to feature more transgendered individuals in fiction. Art is not a solitary experience but shared amongst the creator and consumer. This most peculiar of relationships is what inevitably determines what “works” and what “does not.” No list of simple rules will create a foolproof method for creation. No mandates from anonymous individuals can insure your writing is widely acclaimed.

And Kurt Vonnegut would agree. After creating his rules for good fiction writing, even he admitted that his great contemporaries had a habit of breaking many of his rules and that the best writers tend to do just that.

Mirror Sight by Kristen Britain – Part 2

Leave a reply

Well, I can formally say that all my predictions for Mirror Sight by Kristen Britain were wrong. As for my final verdict on the book: it was largely a waste of time. It reads like filler, a story that has no real bearing on the great arch of the world.

So what went wrong? The primary culprit was the time travel. This was a problem in many different ways.

First, the reader was disconnected from the Green Rider world. The fantasy medieval setting with its largely equal views on the role of women and hate of slaves was replaced with a repressive society. Two hundred years in the future, women are treated more like Victorian Era ladies, to be barely seen and rarely heard. In fact they are to wear fully covered bodies and long veils. Further slaves abound (mostly to show how Evil the future is). This was disconcerting in many ways. While the author tried to use Karigan’s perspective to show how bad society in the future was, it was all tell and no show. It came across as preachy and utterly unnecessary. The entire set up of the Green Rider world with its strong female characters does more for equality than Mirror Sight’s long-winded rants ever could.

Book 4 in the series. I was not fond of this one either.

The steampunk elements served no apparent purpose in the world other than making it different. Long sections were spent describing some of the mechanicals. This bloated the book but added nothing as the descriptions were not engaging. There was no sense of wonder when reading about Enforcers. In fact, machines seemed to be present as further evidence the Emperor was Evil. If anything was to come out of it, I would say the author was once again expressing a negative (preachy) view against technology.

Finally, being in the future stripped the reader of all their favourite secondary characters. Personally, I feel the previous books became too tangled with secondary plot lines and additional points of view. So in principal I appreciated the more focused story telling in Mirror Sight. On the other hand, we had glimpses of other characters, teasers, to remind us that we would certainly be returning to the ‘proper’ time. This lessened all the experiences of the future. Ultimately, the author undercut her long-winded novel herself when she returned Karigan to the past (the main-character’s present) with hints the future was completely changed (unmade) and the main character now forgetting all her experiences (because they never happened). If this doesn’t scream Waste Of Time, I don’t know what else would.

Now, I might have been able to forgive such terrible set up if the writing had been brilliant. It wasn’t. This was the least engagingly written book in the series. After a little thought, I believe there were a couple of very obvious and correctable problems. First, it was by far too long. I don’t know the word count of a novel with 770 pages, but it felt like it was well over 300 000 words. The author cannot even claim that she was rushed and didn’t have time for editing as it has been three years since Blackveil.

Book 5 in the Green Rider Series.

Another complaint (that I will reiterate from the previous mess of a post) was the long exposition about what was happening without ever doing anything. Description is both good and important. However, every chapter in the book should serve a purpose. The first half …. Hell, the entire book dragged because of its inflated word count and lengthy paragraphs of explanation. The book should NOT have summarized every previous novel. It should NOT have described events like a log-book of a scientist. The reader didn’t need the information and they can read the earlier works to better understand the references. Also, I am pretty sure it was repetitive in its descriptions. One clear example stands out. About 4/5 into the book Karigan ‘explains’ her experiences from Blackveil (previous book) to another character in the world. The reader gets a one page paragraph rehashing old information. This could have been handled in several ways. For example one sentence could have been used to indicate what Karigan was talking about (topic only). Or Karigan could have related her experiences in dialogue in some interesting manner.

Further, the character development was weak and often last minute. There was little progression of the characters and when they did ‘grow/change’ it was rushed, requiring more paragraphs of explanation. For example, the kindly Professor that shelters Karigan is driven to turn against her. The explanation of why he is doing this comes mostly as he is giving her a large dose of morphine (or the fantasy world equivalent). Now, I will grant the lead up to this decision was not entirely out of nowhere. It was not well structured, but not entirely surprising. However, within two sentences, the Professor instantly regrets his decision, has a complete about face, helps Karigan to escape and kills himself in part to protect her. Really?! If it only took 10 seconds for the character to go from betrayer to martyr why did he have to betray her in the first place?

Like the above, there were too many instances when characters did things only to drive the plot. Which is amusing as this was the slowest moving plot in the world. But while Miriam never betrayed Karigan, the Professor, Arhys, and Luke all did. Why? Well, we were given explanations as needed to help explain why these characters did what they did. Sure, the explanations were reasonable, but that doesn’t change the feeling everything is more than a little contrived.

Book 1 in the series. The best book I think.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to indicate how disappointed I am with the manner in which the Author dealt with her other great creation, the Black Shields (Weapons). This order of elite swordfighters has dedicated their lives to their monarchs. They are cultish in their oaths and highly secretive. Yet, throughout all the books the Author has teased her readers with the idea of ancient order of Weapon masters. In the first books there was just enough mention and reaction to the Weapons to make their mysteriousness intriguing. However, here we are in book 5 and the Author is trying to incorporate a Black Shield (well, a want-be-Weapon) into the story. Now is the time to unravel some of the mysteries, at least to the reader if not the main character. Only she still only teases about the goals and beliefs of the Weapons. Why? Well, I have come to the conclusion the Author does not herself know anything about this elite order. It is a great shame, because this was an opportunity for her to do something new and interesting that was still tied to the familiar world of the ‘past’.

I could continue to complain about the introduction of p’hedrose (half human half moose creatures – which don’t make any sense), the suggestion of a half-Eletian (half-elf), the tediously drawn out relationship between Karigan and her King (please let it end) or any other of things that irk me. But I won’t.

Instead I will say in my own self-defence that I do not hate everything. In fact I am still quite fond of the first Green Rider book. It was good. It was fast paced. I had magic, adventure, structure and compelling characters. Even the second book, though much dark, held a world in change. So, while I might not continue with this increasingly ridiculous series, I will fondly reread the Green Rider (book 1) periodically.

Mirror Sight by Kristen Britain – Part 1

1 Reply

Book 5 in the Green Rider Series.

I was terribly excited when the library called to inform me that my hold had arrived – and on the day the book was released! Mirror Sight is the latest book in the Green Rider Series by Kristen Britain. Over the past 20 hours I have managed to consume 276 of the 770 pages in this thick novel. So, while this post will be full of Spoilers. It is part one for a reason.

Before I start, I just want to clarify. I really enjoyed the Green Rider (book 1 of the series). I really appreciated what Britain tried to do with book 2 (First Rider’s Call). I thought book 3 was lots of fun (The High King’s Tomb). I was sorely disappointed with Blackveil (book 4) and so started Mirror Sight with mixed emotions. On one hand it is very exciting to read something new in a world I generally enjoy, especially when the author takes 3-4 years to write the next work in the series. However after the abysmal failure that was Blackveil I could only foresee disappointment in the newest novel.

Fortunately the book starts by dealing with the cruel and unnecessary cliff-hanger that ended the previous story. So far that is the best thing to have happened. Almost 300 hundred pages into the book we have finally started to create a plot.

The story takes place nearly 200 hundred years in the future. This leap in time travel is a bit weird to say the least. It is as though Britain became bored with her standard fantasy world – more medieval in feel than anything else – and decided she wanted to do something Steampunk because that is the latest greatest thing. Well, the attempt to add steampunk is meh at best. It mostly comes across as preachy against technology. And the leap forward 200 hundred years is silly – at least when you try to think of the mechanisms. Sure time travel has cropped up in the previous tales, but in small bursts and largely into the past (far more acceptable).

The future world lacks the feel of the original setting. It comes across as flat, underdeveloped and largely uninteresting. It is too much evil emperor à cartoonish in the villain. Granted, the villains in the stories do tend towards the Evil variety. It is one of the drawbacks of the writing. Evil villains (with a capital E) are really bland. It was one of the strengths of the earlier books. While Evil existed in the world, each story centred around a much more approachable villain – a force with clearly defined motivation.

The huge surprise that the Emperor in the future is not the Evil Mornhavon the Black was so clearly set up from the beginning as to be unsurprising. It is not entirely a bad thing; at least this was set up in advance.

I heard Mirror Sight was supposed to be a stand-alone story in the series. Not dependant on the previous books. Again, I have not finished the story, but thus far I would not recommend it to anyone not already indoctrinated. Mostly because I still feel the first story is the author’s strongest. This book suffers from weak writing and some silly characters. The silliest characters are the Eltians à Tolkien’s elves reused in a different setting. Yup I am bored with these immortal, perfect, beautiful, arrogant, tree-hugging non-humans. They are tiresome in the extreme. Their use is lazy and their character traits are all derivatives of Elves. There is nothing particularly new in these magical beings that are superior to humans in every obvious quality.

The weak writing surfaces most in the telling and not showing. There is far too much info dumping in these first 300 pages. Everything is description and explanation. Sure you could argue the author is providing a recap of all previous books so a new reader doesn’t feel lost – but it sucks! If there is something that has to be retold then find an interesting way of doing so. Don’t just have our main character think about it. At the very least make sure her perspective is biased. But the fact of the matter is I have read all the previous books. If I wanted to know more about them, I would pull them from my shelf to reread. Just to be clear, I totally love the idea of referencing previous events/books. Again it should be done in a new and refreshing way. It can be done obliquely so those familiar with the early part of the series are able to make the connection and those new just skim over that part as unimportant.

Which brings me to one of the interesting connections I had the pleasure of making. The earlier books deal with an underground movement (secret society) dedicated to replacing the world’s king with an ancient emperor (the Evil Mornhavon the Black). This group skulks in the shadows and plots against the good guys. Well, fast forward to book five where our heroine finds herself on the other side of things. Now she is part of the group wanting to over through their emperor and hiding in the shadows. I rather like the symmetry of the situation. Only of course, in this case everything is so decidedly black-and-white we know the emperor is Evil and has to be overthrown.

I feel like I should wrap this up with some sort of unifying comment. I don’t have one, so instead I will put down some of my predictions for the rest of the story.

*Mirriam will end up betraying the underground movement in some fashion.

*Karigan will help to burn the future capital but have to return to the past to prevent Amberhill from becoming the Sea King Reborn.

*The weapon they seek is really a jewel used to trap the spirit of the dragons (possible akin to gods).

Now it is time to find out how are sword yielding, horseback riding heroine fares at a dinner party in a restrained Victorian-esp social setting.

Cinderella

1 Reply

Haha! It is not even the end of April and I am posting. On the downside I am procrastinating my novel writing … Don’t expect too much.

From the movie version.

I am a fan of fairy tales. I was brought up with the Disney retelling of the Grim Brother’s classics. Over the years I have read a number of iterations and have watched numerous movie versions. Recently I found myself watching the film adaptation of Ella Enchanted, which urged me to reread the source material. Then as luck would have it another book arrived at the library for me – another Cinderella-based story.

All three of these stories involve the same basic characteristic elements. They have a young girl whose mother dies when she is young and whose father is either mostly absent or dies. There is a stepmother who despises her stepdaughter and works to make her life miserable. There is a charming suitor of prestigious background and a grand ball somewhere towards the end. Magic is thick through all three of these Cinderella retellings, though each one is different.

While the movie Ella Enchanted starring Anne Hathaway, Hugh Dancy, and Cary Elwes (and others) is based on the novel by the same title they should be treated as two different works. Certainly, I could not stop the flood of ‘that was not in the book; that was not how things happened, and where did that come from?’ comments while watching. The movie version takes the idea of freedom and runs with it. Everything is changed to make freedom the driving theme. Suddenly, there is a wicked uncle who is enslaving portions of the population. Of course Ella is the primary example, for she is under a curse of obedience which has stripped her of her freedom since birth. While this is not a bad way of dealing with the transition, I do think it removes much of the elegance found in the book. The movie is garish in colour and humour. It is loud, oversized and extreme. But it is also fun. It has an interesting mix of modern music, ideals and dance numbers set in a more medieval setting (with some visual quirks like the moving stairc

The book cover.

ase – also not found in the book). The evil stepsisters are even more comically driven to woo the prince than they are in the book. I would say it is fun, but childish and certainly lacks any depth.

I infinitely prefer the book version by Gail Carson Levine. Though my recent rereading reminded me it was written for a much younger audience. It is not the plot, by the simplicity of the writing, aimed more for early rather than late teens. Still, I really like the struggle the cursed Cinderella faces over the course of the novel. Her we can see how she has always fought against the curse. It also better explains how the orders work. Ella is not magically good at everything. When ordered to sing she does so, but being untrained her voice is awful. However, after a series of increasingly more specific commands, she can be ordered to do what is required. The specificity of the commands is not dealt with at all in the movie. Which actually brings me to the other thing I liked about the book, there is an incident with ogres in which Ella clearly helps the Prince – rather than being saved by him as is seen in the film. Being a book the story spans a year or more, in which Ella is allowed to slowly fall in love with her prince. It shows them building a relationship, something that is difficult to do on film because of time constraints.

While both works could be described as dealing with Freedom they come across very different. The film is taking the most obvious route of oppressed and oppressor. The message being that no one should be ordered around and told what to do with their lives. The book is not so blatant. Here the author explores choice and responsibility in less obvious ways. Ella is still cursed and ordered around by those who know. However, the ogres are also capable of making unwary people do what they want. It is more manipulation of people and freedom on a very personal level being discussed in the book; the freedom to be yourself in expression and personality. It seems such a slim difference. However the manner in which these ideals are expressed produced two very different works.

Both of these works are targeting a younger audience with their Cinderella retellings. Glass slippers, another Disney element play only a nominal role in the novel version and are not present at all in the film.

The glass slippers take on a slightly different role in Wayfarer: A Tale of Beauty and Madness by Lili St. Crow. Here the stepmother’s job is to manufacture high-end footwear. While many of the Cinderella elements are present in this book, much was done to create a different and unique fantasy world. I would say the world building was successful – I also enjoyed the first book in this series dealing with Snow White. However, my age started to show through while reading Wayfarer. Ellie Sinder – Cinderella – was not the spunky girl from Ella Enchanted. She was ultimately depressed, convinced that no one would believe how terrible her stepmother was (at least no adult) and that her friends only stayed next to her through pity. Even while she professed these ideas, Ellie also admitted that her friends were really good to her. And really, so many of Ellie’s problems would have been solved if she just told someone she needed help. Instead she flopped between bleak desperation that no one cared and the noble need to sacrifice herself to protect her friends. It was tiresome. Especially, since you get to the end of the book and the adults are quite reasonable and ready to believe the stepmother was evil (she really was). So, while there were many good ideas brought forth in this world it was simply too much self-pity and needless whining for me to really enjoy the story.

Such Anger Much Vitriol

Leave a reply

Today’s rant is going to be a special one. It’s a comment on Internet culture – as useful a topic as any to complain about for it will be as effective as shouting into a hurricane. But I am annoyed, dear reader, and what better place to post my annoyance but on this personal little chunk of cyberspace reserved just for my aggravation.

Accessed from knowyourmeme.com. The only positive quality of memes is the impossibility of copyrighting them.

I don’t know if this is the actual origin of the Doge meme though it’s certainly the most copied image of the damn dog.

For those between the ages of “dead” and “not old enough to be consumed with raising children” (which is could be shorted to between ‘dead’ and ‘dead’) you may have heard of the Doge meme. Perhaps this delightful bit of highbrow online couture has consciously slipped by your notice and if you are like Derek and I, without a finger on the staggered, sickly pulse of what passes for the world’s collective attention deficit users, then your introduction to Doge was likely through some obnoxious parroting by an unnamed party. ‘Such wow’ they blithely stammer as if the first signs of severe damage to Broca’s area was manifesting. ‘So edge’ flies across their mind in some self congratulatory half mockery of the mentally disabled.

For most people unfamiliar with the origins of this… activity, they will probably dismiss these utterances as some peculiar form of verbal Parkinson’s. It’s like the mind is rapidly hemorrhaging half composed thoughts into the thought-sphere of the wider world. Alas, the unfortunate truth is that people say this with sincerity and intention. They are referencing the Doge Meme. And it is such a stupid practice that it annoys me to no end.

Now, that may be an unfortunate confession to make, as a great driving force in the development of Internet culture is the cultivation of ‘trolling.’ This activity is devoted specifically to making the practitioner as obnoxious as possible. It’s how things like Rick-rolling have become a thing. However, what truly aggravates me about Doge is that it is not designed to be annoying – it is the ubiquitous blind replication of it that crawls beneath my skin. Every time I get a steam message from someone going “Such wow, many whatevers,” God kills a kitten. I know this is true, because I keep a box of the cute little creatures and squeeze the life from them as if they were a fuzzy, mewling stress ball.

There are two things that I hate about Doge. One is that it is stupid. It was never funny. Originating as some lame internal monologue tumblr captions overlaid pictures of Shiba Inu, I would consider it racist towards Japanese if I gave two shakes of a rat’s tail about tumblr activism. I don’t so the cheap joke at the broken English of Asian speakers doesn’t rile me up. The lazy joke itself is the problem. It’s not funny. It never was funny and mostly exists as part of that weird cultish worship of cute things that also predominates the Internet.

Second, the meme’s spread is so mindless as to be a virus. It shows up everywhere. Unlike Rick-rolling, perhaps its closest analogous entity, it isn’t meant to inconvenience or ‘troll’ the audience. It is a lazy reference to an obscure captioned image. It’s the white noise of someone’s verbal diarrhea as they make a brainless flatulence of popular culture as if the very act of reproducing the tripe is somehow forcing some ounce of wit into its lifeless husk. I’m tired of commentators spewing out in my Dota matches as if their mimicry were evidence of how ‘hip’ and ‘up to date’ they are. Which is an ironic goal since the damn meme has been flopping around for months – a staggering time for anything birth on the Internet – too pathetic to be truly prominent and too miserable to finally die and be forgotten.

What’s worse, unlike other memes were learning its origins can often add some quantifiable ounce of amusement from ‘being in on the joke,’ the Doge is too lame to even get better with the knowledge of what it’s truly about.

Maybe one day I’ll do a proper rant against/for actual memes in general. Suffice to say, the Doge meme is representative of all that’s wrong and apprehensible about those things. It’s sole existence is through the thoughtless japing of its existence as if blind adherence to what everyone else is doing will somehow grant its user some measure of popularity. It doesn’t. All it does is make you sound like an idiot.

Moth and Spark – Book Review

Leave a reply

In my dutiful attempt to chronicle the books I actually finish reading I present to the readers of this blog another hum-drum title: Moth and Spark by Anne Leonard.

While searching for fantasy book suggestions I stumbled across a list that was supposed to include: good, new, adult fantasy titles that are not the common big names (things like a Game of Thrones, etc).

The tagline held promise: A Prince with a Quest. A Commoner with Mysterious Powers. And Dragons who Demand to be Free – at any Cost.

The jacket cover than goes on to introduce the two leads, Prince Corin, just returning from the North with strange tidings for his father, the King and apprehension about the Summer court and his mother’s intensions to marry him off. Tam is joining her sister-in-law at court. She is cuirous to see what it is like, though disdainful of the flighty chatter of insipid airheads (not quite the words used in the synopsis, but close enough).

“Chance leads Tam and Corin to a meeting in the library, and he impulsively asks her to join him for dinner… Tam is surprised by how easy it is to talk to Corin, and Corin thinks to himself that Tam is the first person to genuinely see him as a man rather than The Prince.”

Well, this section holds promise. Obviously, we are expecting a romance. However, from the last line I am looking forward to a developed romance based on wit and conversation. Things are looking good.

The jacket cover continues to explain that the Dragon’s want Corin to free them from bondage and Tam will discover she is a Seer. Good, good, we have dragons, a romance based on strong personalities, a threat of war, and a bit of magic in the form of a Seer. Things are looking up. And in fact I enjoyed the opening. The prologue spoke of vague, unsettled powers starting to waken and dangerous things to come.

The first couple of chapters were solid in their introductions of the key players. Everything was looking up. Until things stagnated. Until my romance was utterly crushed. Until the ending resolved itself in the most contrived and poorly explained matter that destroyed my enjoyment for this stand-alone novel.

First, the political intrigue initiated at the beginning was solid. But it didn’t develop into anything. What was the importance of the death at the start if it was not to play a roll later in the work? Why kill that character and why do the murder with a very illegal and dangerous substance if you are not going to use that for character development?

Second, the romance sucked. Granted part of that was based on my expectations of strong, witty dialogue. However, even without my preconceived notions I would have been disappointed as the attraction between the characters was physical. She was sooo pretty he just wanted to bed her right then and there. He was sooo handsome that she wanted him as a lover even if that ruined her chances of marriage at some later date. Bleh. Their conversation, when they got past staring longingly into each other’s eyes was flat and boring. It was so restrained as to say nothing. The teasing was so mild I would not have noticed it if the author hadn’t drawn obvious attention to those lines. While she tried to set up conflict within the romance: Corin was a Crown Prince and Tam was a commoner, she undermined it at every opportunity. Tam was from a wealthy, respectable family, who had married into the edges of nobility. Worse, the King and rest of the Royal family instantly liked Tam the moment they met. And unfortunately Tam turned out to be so beautiful that she attracted the attention of everyone at court – all the men wanted her. Which was tedious.

Then there was the magic, it was undefined and supposedly relegated to myth and legend. Certainly, the fact that wizards existed was kept secret. I don’t have a problem with this. I do have issue with the manner in which the King miraculously seemed to know about all the magical happenings around him. He was not fazed to discover his son had been recruited by the dragons. He was the only one who recognized that Tam was a Seer – something she didn’t know anything about. To top it all off magic did stuff without ever being properly defined. The cutting away of reality just meant that it could do anything whenever it was needed. Sigh.

While I liked the animal characteristics of the Dragons their plot line was stupid. They were stolen from their Valley by the Emperor who used them to solidify power and claim more lands. How was this accomplished? A Wizard did it! Really, somehow (though it is not properly explained), the wizards managed to steal the Fire from the Dragons. And how does one correct the problem? Well apparently, the Prince had to enter a crevice and die. Only then the Emperor came, he fought the Prince, nearly died and Tam told a story and ta-da the dragons were free. Confused? I know I am. How did any of those actions return Fire to the Dragons? Hard to say. Why did the Emperor have to live? Apparently because he drank dragon blood which meant that the dragons could only be freed while he lived. Why? Reasons, I suppose. It never was clearly communicated in any manner.

The first two thirds of the book was spent setting up conflict and introducing problems: Dragons want Corin to Free them; the Emperor is plotting against our heroic vassal Kingdom; another evil threat is sweeping its way in from the East (with a torturous and twisted leader); there are bandits in the country and war on the horizon and political unrest at the court (only I was never entirely certain what the court nobles were trying to do as their goals became mudded in the confusion). The last third was a rush of trying to tie up all these loose ends. We spent a little time experience war. A little time talking with Dragons. A little time talking with the mysterious Wizards. A very little time being introduced to and then killing the mean Emperor. And someone else went off to kill the Evil Guy from the East – cause really we were running out of time. Still, we did manage to spend more time with the leads as they kissed, touched and proclaimed their love for each other – oh and they had some weird, prophetic dreams and freed their people at the last moment.

The good thing about this book – it is a standalone. The bad thing about this book is the plot progression, the undefined use of magic, the illogical trapping and freeing of the dragons, the random war, the random evil killing of the minor noble, the bland main characters, the king that knows everything for unexplained reasons, the rushed ending …

In short, it could have been better. Though, in all fairness it could have been much worse too.

True Detective – False Mystery: A Review

1 Reply

I did like the opening credits and thought it interesting the overlap of location on character to blur the line between the two.

From True Detective’s title crawl. Series aired on HBO and belongs to whoever.

Expectation is a curious thing. It can be both a source of great elation and anticipation and the harbinger of infuriation and loathing. Quite often it carries both in turn, drawing its victim joyfully in with its double strike of promise and praise before delivering its brutal reality that leaves naught but a wreck of broken visions in its wake. Not that all things with great expectations are terrible. Sometimes our expectations are met and we leave pleasant and fulfilled. Sometimes they are exceeded and we talk and dwell gleefully upon the experience with renewed vigour.

After nearly twenty nine years of existence, I have come to realize that expectation is not worth its price. The higher your anticipation for the payout, the less enjoyment you will collect. But keep your expectations low and you should be surprised more often than not.

Today’s review of True Detective isn’t about failed expectations. Instead, it’s that more trouble quandary. It’s misaligned expectations. I had heard about True Detective from multiple sources that all praised it for being high quality television. Had that been all I’d known, I may have sought it out but given how difficult it is for acquiring access to HBO shows, I may have let it slip by. There are, after all, many series which I intend to watch based on the praise they receive. They are the Breaking Bads and Parks and Recreations. They’re on my list to check out not because the initial premise is promising to me but because so much good word of mouth has surrounded them that it seems they are almost like the Titanic; they are too big too fail – or at least disappoint as would be the case here.

True Detective, however, came with an addendum. It was, according to one source who shall remain nameless for his own protection, a good show with Lovecraftian elements. I have been enjoying the Cthulu Mythos over the last few months. I particularly find most tales good travel literature for their morsel like size. However, I have been reading Lovecraft on and off for years now. While my feelings towards the enormous body of work encapsulating the Cthulu Mythos is mixed, I do enjoy the monument of literature as a whole. It’s an intriguing look at fiction writing in a specific time period. It is a culture artifact dug up for our enjoyment. Though its old time society and issues leave it from being truly horrific, those same elements make it engrossing.

Thus, I was curious how a modern take could incorporate the ideals of Lovecraftian horror. I did write that post many months back detailing the issue with Lovecraft and the modern era. I boldly pronounced that type of horror dead, though I hold no great convictions on the diagnosis. So, a critically acclaimed detective show with Lovecraft horror? Well, sign me up!

If that extended introduction didn’t make things clear enough, True Detectives was not to my tastes. I suppose I am partly to blame for having my vision of what the work would be. I didn’t do much research before diving in, hoping to avoid any spoilers beyond what I heard from acquaintances and friends. Perhaps if I had done some early investigation, I could have spared myself the disappointment and the time.

But then I wouldn’t have this post to make.

Of course, as True Detective gloriously made a point of itself, the biggest clues were right under my nose the entire time. The mini-series is an HBO show. There’s a certain… reputation that the station carries. I had not seen many of its original content before and had been living quite happily in my ignorance. In a sense, True Detective is a great crash course to the expectations of the programming executives. It has certainly made clear to me that I would not like their vision of what television is or should be. I shall politely avoid their True Blood and Game of Thrones. Though peering at their wikipedia page, I did like the Newsroom though I don’t think it’s nearly as revolutionary as the rest of my family may believe. Course, it seems the Newsroom is only getting three seasons so maybe it’s the black sheep of the bunch.

At any rate, one thing is clear and that is HBO has a quota. I would feel remiss if I didn’t contribute to their quota during a review of one of their celebrated shows.

Accessed from http://seemorepictures.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-blue-footed-boobie.html. Not my photo. I don't have much interests in Boobies.

Of all the lessons I’ve learned from watching True Detectives, the most important is that as an entertainer I must show frequently a pair of boobs else I’m apt to lose the attention of my audience. So here’s my first pair.

I have spent a number of hours in reluctant debate with my co-contributors over the series. For those that don’t want to slog through the next couple thousand of words or so, here’s the short of it. I don’t like True Detective. Specifically, I think it is a bad show. This may make me a hipster or just a chronic hater-of-all-things but that is my feelings on the matter.

Course, being who I am, I won’t just slap my opinion and walk away. I will provide some room for discussion. Truthfully, there are some things the show does well. I think Matthew McConaughey has both an impossible name to spell and a very consistent and powerful performance. Woody Harrelson, on the other hand, took a few episodes to get into the swing of his role but by the end I felt he had reached a stable level of performance even if it wasn’t on the same level. I wouldn’t say it was terrible, though, and I can see why he’d get praise for it too.

The cinematography of the series is also particularly well done. At least, I think it is. I’m not a film critic so I don’t know the proper terminology. However, the use of the Louisiana landscape gave the production a very haunting touch. More often than not, the actual vistas and shots conveyed that slow building of discomfort far better than the story itself. There is something domineering about those factory skylines that seem to press down on the viewer as their concrete towers rise over flooded plains blotting out all else from sight. Perhaps the most eerie moment is the slow drive to a half burnt church in the middle of nothing with only a thin line of wispy trees to half-heartily try and cover the ruin and keep the rest of the world protected. Every now and then the show flirted with the cosmological horror so captivating to Lovecraft and his peers. But it’s a fleeting relationship, and one more often carried strictly by the strength of the show’s visuals than anything.

Which brings me to what is bad about the show.

The writing is awful. Do not believe what people say, the show is poorly written. When I first began watching, I was lulled into a gentle state of repose by its marble gargling characters. The dialogue, for the most part, is fine barring for the fact that the actors have a tendency to grind on their lines in their hasty attempt to sound gruff with their affected southern accents. Mostly, I found I had to crank the volume if I wanted any chance to hear half of whatever was being said. The mumbling was so bad, one of my friends recommended I watch with subtitles like he did. The actual written lines are fine even if the characters have tendency for slipping into melodrama in their attempt to wallow in the self-pity of whatever emotional decadence the show was trying to indulge.

McConaughey’s character, in particular, was prone to long bouts of almost eye-rolling pseudo-philosophy about nihilism and the emptiness of existence. Once again, I felt maybe this was the show attempting to cleverly pull on the psyche breaking horror of one’s insignificance beneath the vastness of Lovecraftian revelations and how bewilderingly unknowable the universe is. Perhaps we would get the slow explanation for a mind that snapped beneath unearthly realizations through the slow interview format established in the first couple of episodes hoping to ascertain McConaughey’s character by the current investigating detectives (as if there needs to be a warning: spoilers are going to abound in this review though most of this is pretty evident early on). Alas, this is not the case and it seems McConaughey mostly just waxes about whatever nihilist mantra the writers happened upon that day of writing as even his philosophical outlook hardly maintained consistency. He bemoans the meaningless of existence in one scene, only to persuade Harrelson in another that he’s indebted to action by some vague sense of duty, honour or human decency which flies in the face of nihilistic pretensions.

Accessed from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sula_sula_by_Gregg_Yan_01.jpg

Red footed booby by Gregg Yan.

More than anything, True Detectives has no plot. Its “story” could be summed up in the span of a thirty minute episode. Instead, the crux of the show focuses on the petty life of Woody Harrelson as he flits from affair to affair while trying in vain to be a good father to his rapidly distancing family. This is interspersed with the repetitive personal conflicts between him and McConaughey who are diametrically opposed personality wise that it leaves you wondering why their chief insisted on them being partners for ten years despite their constant bickering and arguing.

My first concerns with how poorly the show was structured arose in the very first episode. Our introduction to the two detectives is with them driving up to the scene of the crime – a young woman tied naked before a tree as if in prayer and adorned with deer horns surrounded by a bunch of ritualistic animalism stick structures that are never even attempted to be explained in the series. It smacks of such lazy “this is weird cult shit” by not even being remotely close to the source material they’re referencing by looking suitably Wiccan enough for the average viewer to associate it with paganism and – by obfuscating intent – satanism. I doubt, given the show’s rather grim view of Christianity, that there is any malicious intent in portraying modern (or even historic) Wiccan beliefs or practices with satanism and I’m left wondering why they didn’t try dressing the cult artifacts in a more unique or, dare I say, Lovecraftian fashion. Instead, we have some shitty stick bird cages meant to inspire dread but mostly appearing as some poor child’s craft project. Anyway, these first scenes are abruptly interrupted with Harrelson’s constant reminder to the modern investigators (and the audience) that he wasn’t particularly close or knowledgeable about his partner even though he repeatedly informs us that they had been working together for three months.

I was never able to figure out the significance of this three month period. Harrelson is portrayed as a sociable, charismatic man and given the way he kept trying to communicate with McConaughey it is bizarre that the two seemingly went three months without him ever even attempting small talk and then randomly that day he begins to learn more about the foreign Texan. As it turns out, McConaughey doesn’t share Harrelson’s Christian values, which leaves them quarreling for most the first episode over philosophical nihilism before Harrelson’s insistence his partner come to dinner to meet his family and wife.

To simply summarize those two long paragraphs, I don’t know why the show didn’t just have McConaughey new to the Louisiana division and it was… say… his second week on the job. Maybe they were trying to avoid some sort of cliche but they ended up instead with some even more bizarre scenario that was awkwardly brought to the audience’s attention by Harrelson’s own constant stammering. This trend – of making the structure of the story unnecessarily complicated – continued for the entire series. I still don’t know why they even bothered with the two modern investigators questioning McConaughey and Harrelson over their case. It was clear a couple of episodes in that they suspected McConaughey of being the serial killer, but the audience knew without a doubt he couldn’t have been it as the flashbacks to the scenes when both lead actors were police officers was an accurate portrayal of events and not what they were communicating in their interviews. So in the latter portion of the series, they spring their intentions as if this is suppose to be some sort of plot twist meant to leave the audience second guessing the reliability of McConaughey’s character.

Accessed from http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/blue-footed-booby/

Blue footed booby by Tim Laman from National Geographic.

However, we had already seen that pretty much the only reason the show extended past the fourth episode was because Woody Harrelson is an awful person with zero self-control. The show completely abandons the interview format in the final act of the story and I was left wondering what the entire point of it was as the investigating officers are pushed completely to the sideline. McConaughey returns in the present to recruit Harrelson and after the shortest amount of detective work they discover the true serial killer and tie up the plot in a remarkably unsatisfactory fashion that neither dealt with any of the King in Yellow teases they had dropped once an episode or even the overarching character flaws that we had spent the entire time entertaining.

And this is why I say True Detective is a bad show. I was happy to proclaim it as “fine and not for me” after the third episode, but really despite their handling of the characters there was just too much inconsistency and complete bungling of the plot for the writing to not be considered bad. Just like this review, the biggest issue with the series is that I can’t shake the feeling it was just an enormous waste of time. So much of each episode is devoted to Harrelson’s crying over his affairs and the personal drama between him and McConaughey that it just felt like the writers didn’t know what they wanted to do. It was eight hours of spinning wheels with the odd “oh right, we have some sort of plot here about government cover-ups and cult worship!” But none of that panned out. Even in the end, the main characters’ flaws are never addressed. Harrelson ends up divorced but his ex-wife shows up by his hospital bed with a smile and warm hand squeeze despite the character not once showing any change in his ability to control his urges for over indulgence in women or drink. I suppose after nearly dying before some hallucination of some vaguely alien blackhole in the depths of a cyclopean sunken city inexplicably found in the killer’s backyard but politely ignored by the entire cast of characters, McConaughey cries a little about the loss of his daughter.

And don’t get me even started on how illogical Harrelson’s wife’s affair was. Nor how horribly presented almost every single side character is. And what the hell was up with that subplot about the daughter that was just hand waved away with a short comment in the present about her “now on her drugs?”

Verdammt! Just thinking about it reminds me more of its nonsense. This is why everyone ends up an alcoholic, HBO! You are the cosmological horror whose very image inspires madness and insanity!

Accessed from http://www.mattdebenham.com/blog/proving-the-negative-true-detective-and-remembering-when-this-is-not-my-thing/

From the title crawl. I found this on a website also calling True Detective shit. So much about me being the black sheep!

What is Good Writing?

Leave a reply

As with most discussions this didn’t just come out of nowhere. It started with a comment my brother made, which I have mostly forgotten (I have no memory for details). Ultimately he was mocking me for thinking the first part of Name Of the Wind was good, and thus I had not sense of good writing.

Naturally, I was offended. I like to think that I can recognize good writing from bad writing. Which brought me to today’s question: What is Good Writing?

A scribe at work.

To answer the question I started by considering the various aspects of writing: plot, character depth and progression, setting and world building, language and dialogue, description, grammar, flow of prose, voice, style, etc. I tried to tease apart the various components of writing as I would break down the elements making up a film (director, writer, actor, cinematographer, etc). With my list of components making up writing I tried to strip away the least important elements. I argued with myself that plot was not as important – a good book could follow a familiar plot and still be interesting because of good writing. However a bad book could have a new and exciting plot and still be terrible to read because of poor writing. Thus, plot was not necessarily part of the intangible writing.

I tried to remove characters under similar arguments. I am drawn to classic archetypes. But then I thought of books that included those familiar archetypes but failed to properly develop the characters. These flat, boring imitations were bad writing. So perhaps I character depth and development was critical to good writing.

How else could I form a base definition of good writing?

I decided to look at books that exemplified good writing and bad writing (for contrast). Examples of bad writing were far easier to remember. First on the list: Name of the Wind which had started this whole problem. At the time, I was intrigued by the opening pages. I read with a curiosity. Then the pages started to elapse and I continued to wonder when the story was really going to start. From my perspective I was reading a very long (and often ridiculous) character introduction. I never got to the end to see if anything came of the opening which held promise for me. As for the bad writing, what caught my eye was the author’s failed attempt to play up classic tropes. The killing of the family (too clichéd for words), the sojourn in the city to show how the child was first bullied and then became stronger and I quit by the time the lead reached university (it was Harry Potter all over – only worse). For me the bad writing was in the character and plot development.

I am not good at reading details in books – mostly I skim read. While this allows me to eat through a story in an afternoon, it does mean I will miss the little details. I was blind to the black on black on black description that proliferate the start of Name of the Wind. I also missed the compulsive bottle polishing performed by the main character. A shame as these two examples are comical for all the wrong reasons. However, this is also an example of terrible writing; world inconsistency and illogic of action (and boring detail).

Now what about an example of good writing?

All the Book covers – the first books are way better than the later ones.

For various reasons my mind drifted to my bookshelf and the Harry Potter collection I have there. First, Harry Potter is not brilliant writing. That said, I thought of books 1&3 which I hold as the very best of the series. Are they good writing? Well, they have engaging characters, tightly written plots and an engrossing world. They had that intangible feel, the spark in the writing that I notice in the books that I really like. In contrast the latter half the series is undeniably terrible. It is a combination of things: a plot that is recycled throughout all seven books, a world that becomes internally inconsistent, a villain without motivations (moustache twirling is not a real motivation), and a main character so obnoxiously whiny I really wanted to punch him in the face. They were also bloated, rambling and poorly written. It was more than just bad plots and undeveloped characters. There was something in the stringing of the words and sentences together that was rough, poorly edited, primitive – ultimately bad. It is an interesting series in that I feel you can see deterioration of the actual writing over the seven books.

For an undisputed example of good writing I had fall further back to one of the classics: Pride and Prejudice. It is well written, with compelling characters and a tightly organized plot. There is definite character development. There is functioning world that does not contradict itself. And most importantly it is fun to read. It is good writing.

But was I any closer to defining good writing?

Meh book.

Well, I tried to apply my thoughts and examples to a book I was reading: The Golem and the Jinni by Helene Wecker. Reading the first few pages led me to think this was not an example of bad writing. There were characters with goals and flaws. There was semblance of a plot. However, the style was such that each character of future importance came with their own backstory. It was a trifle cumbersome to read. You would be following the goings-on of the Jinni when he came in contact with another character (on in at least one instance, he came in contact with a tertiary character that then interacted with a secondary character). The introduction of the secondary character was followed by a two page synopsis of that individuals history: he was born in … went to school… married, had a family and was happy until the day when… and that is why he ended up in New York. It was consciously done and thus I attributed it to the style of the book. However, I cannot say it was a good style. I slogged through some 200 pages or so before the two main characters met. I then continued to plod forward until eventually I became bored with the pace and skipped to the last chapter.

What can I take away from this experience? Was it an example of bad writing or an incompatibility between author and reader?

I know that some books, sometimes terribly written books, can be engrossing. I pick them up and charge headlong to the finish without putting them down. Others I savour and all too many books I lose interest in and leave unfished. Personality and taste play a huge part in how a reader reacts to a book. The same can be said for art. I don’t like all art. However, while I may not like a painting, I can appreciate whether it is good or bad. There are qualities that distinguish a child’s crayon drawing of their horse … I mean dog, from those of a master artist. The viewer may prefer the crayon drawing but that doesn’t make it good. So I feel the same can be said with writing.

There has to be some defining characteristics that make the writing of some books good and the writing of other books poor irrespective of who much an individual enjoys the story. Only, after all this thinking I am still not certain exactly how to define those characteristics. It is a combination of plot, character and style that weave together to produce strong writing. A flaw in one of those threads weakens the entire work. And damage to more than one aspect will produce a piece of heavily flawed material, weak to all who read it.

Man Writing a Letter ~ 1665 This is not me – I typically use a computer and I am not a man.

*PS – I would really love to talk to someone who actually liked Rothfus’ Name of the Wind and can defend it as good writing. I am honestly interested to know what you enjoyed about this piece.

Fade to Black – Book Review

Leave a reply

It has been a while since I picked up a book that I either hadn’t already read once or wasn’t ashamed to admit I read. Fade to Black by Francis Knight was found on list of fantasy suggestions. It met my requirements of sounding like it might be an interesting story and most importantly was available at my local library.

Book Cover.

As books go, it was Ok. I liked the attempt to create a slightly different fantasy world that was a good mix of modern-seeming technology (moving carriages run on some power source other than animal) and high fantasy (mages). The world was just discovering guns, having been restricted to knives and swords, but was very familiar to artificial lights (similar to the neon lights found in so many city centres). The writing was dark, gritty and had me thinking the author was male. Yes, men usually have a different voice than female authors – at least in my limited experience. The plot was solid, though not surprising. Actually it was all rather predictable. The first person narrative was solid. In the end the book was fine, nice, ok and any other generic adjective. I didn’t hate it, I sort of enjoyed it. But it was not engrossing, so I can’t say I loved it.

In fact, I wouldn’t be bothering with a book review at all if I hadn’t stumbled upon another reader’s review. While they appreciated the setting and the system of magic in use they complained loudly about the dark, gritty nature of the imagery and the overly sexist protagonist.

In one sense I understand where the reader is coming from. The book is dark, the plot is dark the setting is dark – literally you do not get to see the sun at all. Most of the story takes place deep in the shadows and underground, at least buried under layers of city to be effectively underground. But the complaint about the gruesome nature of the description seemed exaggerated. Sure the mages fuel their magic on pain, but that requires injury. And the beating of the main character’s had into the floor was no more gruesome than the torture that was happening in the background. Besides, it was no worse than a fight scene.

But the truly entertaining complaint regarding Rojan’s sexism is what made me chuckle. Yes, the main character is sexist. It is his flaw – the character flaw. All good characters need a problem, something that will serve to make them more human, make them less perfect. And since the only significant female in the book didn’t end up in his bed, I think this was a fair and reasonable flaw. He bungled his interactions with women becomes of his absolute belief that he could charm any woman he wanted into his bed. Arrogance is part of his character flaw. In fact, he needed very strong and very real flaws to fit into the broken world.

The author was clearly going for the dark. The main character is a bounty-hunter living on the edge of squalor in a dystopian city. He is to represent the average citizen living in the slums, eking out a meagre life in a world of despair. The character needed to reflect that in his attitudes, his appearance and his actions. He was supposed to be caustic, abrasive and cynical. He needed a tough personality to survive the harsh realities of his world.

Besides, his sexist ideas leaned more towards his arrogant assumptions of how all women would eventually fall for his charms rather than limit their role in society. At no point did he think that the only good woman was one staying at home and keeping house. His eye was drawn to strong females clearly capable of taking care of themselves. Does that excuse his attitudes? Well no, it is not supposed to. A character flaw is just that – a flaw. It is not a trait that makes the character more likeable, just more human. Flaws are meant to be detractors and clearly this one worked well.

So, what is the point of this review? Well, there isn’t much of one. Fade to Black is still a passable book made worse when I discovered it is supposed to be the first in a series. The best part was not the story itself (though it was fine), but the reactions of others.