• Home
  • Blog
  • News
  • Events
  • About the Author
  • About the Book
  • Bookstore
  • Reviews
  • Press/Media
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Blog
  • News
  • Events
  • About the Author
  • About the Book
  • Bookstore
  • Reviews
  • Press/Media
  • Contact
D.R. Ranshaw

D.R. RANSHAW

When We Were Very Young...

1/27/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
Even as Twitter (not X) slowly implodes in these strange days we regrettably find ourselves in, it occasionally, even if unintentionally, provides good grist for the blog mill. Just the other day, for example, someone was asking about influential films we’ve seen which inspired us on our creative journeys. Now, I don’t respond to those tweets, because it’s painfully obvious the twit involved is just looking for engagement stats, and couldn’t care less about my opinion. However, as I say, these kinds of questions can provide good inspiration for blog posts… even if we change things around a little, to wit: given that I write in the fantasy genre, I’m opening up the memory vaults and looking at five titles which were seminal influences on my developing interest in the field.
 
Knee Deep in Thunder by Sheila Moon. I initially read this title a couple of years after its 1967 publication, signing it out of my elementary school library. It was my first real exposure to fantasy, and I found it enthralling. Maris, a young girl, is transported to another world with her dog, Scuro, by a mysterious rock she finds (so, what we today refer to as a portal fantasy, though I doubt the term was around back in the Dark Ages of my youth). Scuro can talk in this new world, as can several dog-sized insects she encounters and travels with on her quest. It’s a world of deep, empty places marred by the threat from shrieking Beasts who must be reclaimed and brought back into harmony with the guardians of the world. Accompanied by exquisitely detailed pen and ink illustrations by Peter Parnell, the story enthralled me. Fifty years later, I tracked down two more companion volumes --- I guess they qualify as sequels, though I found them hugely disappointing and quite lacking the original’s charm and wonder… just recycled ideas from the first book.
 
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. My mother bought the book for me, and ironically, given how massive Tolkien’s literary influence on me has been, I seem to recall not being bothered to finish it at first. But I’ve always been reluctant to mark a book DNF --- it offends my concrete-sequential nature to do that --- so I returned to it, was this time entranced, and wasted no time in finding its ‘sequel,’ The Lord of the Rings, which I read during the summer between grades six and seven. So I suppose you’re getting a bonus sixth book on this list, because it’s really not too hyperbolic to say that LOTR was a life-changing experience for me, even at the tender young age of 12. I read it during our family summer holiday trip, and night after night, I was absorbed by it as we sat by the family campfire. An entire world! With languages! And a tale which held me spellbound! If you want to know who my literary daddy is… yeah, it’s Tolkien.
 
Deryni Rising (and its myriad prequels and sequels) by Katherine Kurtz. After LOTR, I was actively on the lookout for fantasy titles --- though there really weren’t that many in the early 1970s, which I suppose people today would find a strange state of affairs. But along came Ms. Kurtz, with her tale of a 14-year-old boy-king named Kelson, just recently orphaned when his father was mysteriously murdered. Set in a very medieval fantasy world called Gwynedd, the first book concerns Kelson’s attempts to stabilize his rule and bring to justice the person responsible for killing his father. The main wrinkle of the book is that some humans --- the Deryni --- have all sorts of powers of magic and the mind which regular humans lack. Unfortunately, because they’re different, the Deryni are a persecuted lot; once upon a time, they ruled Gwynedd, but their rule was overthrown and now they tend to keep a pretty low profile, because the Church tends to look on them as devilspawn. And guess who just happens to be Deryni? These books were powerful influences shaping my emerging fantasy knowledge.
 
The Crystal Cave (and its sequels, The Hollow Hills, The Last Enchantment, and The Wicked Day) by Mary Stewart. Still, I think, one of the best retellings of the Arthurian legend I’ve ever encountered. I was severely disappointed by T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, by the way, which isn’t a popular opinion, I know, but I’ll go further and say categorically that White’s limp excuse for a tale can’t hold a candle against Mary Stewart’s, which is far richer, deeper, full of magic and imagery and history, oh my.
​
Kavin’s World, by David Mason. This virtually forgotten tale, along with its supremely unimaginatively-titled sequel (The Return of Kavin… like, really dude? That’s the best you could do?) is an odd blending of fantasy and science fiction, which has always been my other great literary love. Mason creates this world of medieval kingdoms, then weaves in things like other-world gates and acts of so-called magic which tend to bear out Arthur C. Clarke’s well-known saying that ‘any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ Despite the fact that I suspect these two books will show up on very few lists of readers’ favourites… they were quite well-written and engaging.
 
Needless to say, I’ve owned all these titles for many more years than I’d care to admit --- for proof, all you have to do is look at the prices on the covers in the photo at the top of this post… it’s been a year or two since people were paying 95 cents, or $1.50, or even $2.95, for a paperback which wasn’t motheaten in some decrepit secondhand bookstore. But I purchased and read all these books between the ages of… oh, I’d say, 11 and 16. They’ve stayed with me, literally and metaphorically, and they’ve had a profound impact on my understanding and appreciation of the fantasy genre --- not to mention influence on my writing style, influence which continues to this day.
 
So come to Middle Earth (or any of these other worlds), fantasy lovers! You have nothing to lose but your disillusionment with our own mortal and rather drab world.
0 Comments

A Little Elf Confidence

12/16/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
Seeing as how ‘tis the season of peace and goodwill, I thought I’d end the year on something of an encouraging note.
 
I recently came across a humorous post on what I and many others wryly call Xitter (and yes, Virginia, I think the X should be pronounced almost as though you’re saying ‘sh’ because that makes the name pretty much accurately describe the state of the Elongated Muskrat’s infamous social media platform nowadays). At least, I think the post was meant to be humorous, though with social media, one can never be quite sure. Of all humanity’s bizarre inventions, social media has got to rank among the weirdest and most toxic. One of the most accurate Tweets I’ve ever seen simply declaimed: ‘Welcome to social media; a person who does not understand humor will be with you shortly’ --- and boy, is that ever accurate.
 
Anyway, the theoretically humorous post read as follows:
STEPS TO WRITING A BOOK
1)     Have an idea
2)     Start to write
3)     Have a complete mental breakdown and wallow in a pool of anxiety for months
4)     Edit a little bit
 
Now, after having my appreciative little chuckle, I reposted it, along with my own humorous comment, saying the author had forgotten to include the ocean of tears --- I generally like to add pithy little asides to the stuff I repost… because, you know, I’m just a reg’lar laff riot… yep, a real James Thurber, that’s me. (For the benefit of those who don’t understand humor --- and gads, I’ve run into my share of them, he said, rolling his eyes --- that’s a joke, folks. Sheesh.) Then I paused and reflected a moment. I thought the original post humorous and had taken it as such, but then I got to thinking of all the writers out there whom I follow and who follow me, and… I began to wonder whether the post was really meant to be funny.  
 
Because, you know… the angst which seems to exist out there… about an art so many people seem to love, but profess their deepest, heart-rending insecurity about doing. The fear and loathing which seems to accompany the creative act of writing, the self-doubt… and that’s before we even get to the part of the process which involves editing. So many writers seem to hate the entire idea of editing. Gotta say, I find the histrionics a little baffling. Okay, a lot baffling.
 
When I have an idea… I love the writing process. And the editing process, too, refining and making words sharper and more… well, more. These blog posts are a great example: once I’ve got the idea, which admittedly is the hardest part, I just sit down --- generally on a Sunday afternoon, because I post blog posts on Monday mornings, dontcha know --- and I clackety-clack away and the words pretty much just flow. Usually takes a couple of hours to do the 1000 words or so I aim for, and then we’re done in time for dinner.
 
Now, look, I get it: the Muse can be a fickle bitch. Some days, she shows up with scads and scads of ideas, fairly tripping over herself to get them all out, but other times, she arrives with a pained look on her face and announces, “not tonight, darling, I’ve got a headache,” and then you’re up the proverbial creek sans paddle. Might as well go and do that load of laundry, ‘cause you ain’t getting too much done on the ol’ WIP for that day.
 
But when she’s handed you The Idea… the sublime, creative idea… well, carpe diem, folks, carpe diem. And have some confidence in your writing abilities. What’s with all the self-doubt? Have you never experienced the kind of feeling Robert A. Heinlein writes about in his novel Glory Road? The story’s protagonist is selecting weapons, and comes across a bow. Now, he’s no archer, admitting he hasn’t had a bow since he got one as a birthday present when he was young, but he selects the largest, heaviest bow (over the slightly patronizing objection of his groom, who thinks it’s too much bow for a beginner), slips on a bracer (that’s a leather arm guard to protect from the slap of the string), and nocks an arrow:
 
I didn’t have any hope of hitting that bloody tree; it was fifty yards away and not over a foot thick. I simply intended to sight a bit high up on the trunk and hope that so heavy a bow would give me a flattish trajectory. Mostly I wanted to nock, bend and loose all in one motion as Rufo had done --- to look like Robin Hood even though I was not.
But as I raised and bent that bow and felt the power of it, I felt a surge of exultance --- this tool was right for me! We fitted.
I let fly without thinking.
My shaft thudded a hand’s breadth from his.
 
There you are: I felt a surge of exultance --- this tool was right for me! We fitted. Well said, Bob. I felt that way right from the first time I stood in front of a class of hormonal adolescents as a young student teacher: the exultance of knowing I could do this, that I fitted. That I was good at this. And I felt that way right up until I retired, after nearly 35 years in the classroom.
 
Writing’s like that, too… when I have The Idea. Have you never read back over something you’ve written and thought, damn, that’s not bad at all? I know what part of the problem is: there’s so much out there, it’s truly intimidating to think that anyone would want to read the words we’ve written. And I think getting our words out there to a wider audience has got to be the biggest hurdle any writer has to overcome. But many famous, beloved authors have tales about how many rejections they endured before their words made it out into the world.
 
As the saying goes, someday you’re going to write someone’s favourite book.
 

0 Comments

Everyone Loves a Villain

11/18/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
Villains.
 
Writers love writing them. Actors love playing them. Readers love reading about them. Viewers love watching and listening to them… fantasizing about them. (Ooh, how deliciously naughty.) In fact, they often usurp heroes as peoples’ favourite characters. To which thoughtful creatives must, once in a while, scratch their collective heads and ponder: why the hell should this be so? Is my hero not attractive enough? Daring enough? Plucky enough? What? (Of course, we creatives are generally bubbling-hot neurotic messes anyway, so this kind of moody introspection is pretty much par for the course… though readers’ fickleness tends to exacerbate the situation.)
 
Well, fret not, faithful reader, because I have given this matter some thought, and generated, for your edification and entertainment today, several possible/plausible reasons why this state of affairs should be so. I should add that it’s not a Compleat Lyste by any stretch of the imagination, just several possibilities that came to mind quite quickly, once I put my mind to it. So without further ado, Reasons (in no particular order) Why We Love Villains:
 
They Revel in Their Egocentrism
This is the big one. Never mind the Catholic Church’s Seven Deadly Sins. For my money, Egocentrism is the Supreme Sin, the one from which everything else bad flows from. Kinda like the One Ring. Simply put, egocentrism is characterized as I. Want. And my wants are more important than yours. Now, everyone’s born egocentric. It’s all babies know, it’s how they survive, even and especially when they’re non-verbal, to wit: I’m hungry and I want to be fed! NOW! My diaper is poopy and I want it changed! NOW! I’m gassy and I want something done about it! NOW! Yep, the operative word is NOW. Babies don’t care it’s 3 AM and they just had you up a couple of hours or so ago. That was then, this is now, so move it, bub. And they don’t actually articulate these things in so many words… they just howl and leave that up to their perplexed parents to figure out. So… that’s fine. Well, not really; it’s often exhausting and frustrating to have a wee tyrant dictating your every move. But… what’s supposed to happen is parents gradually educate their children out of egocentrism. As the kids become self-aware and realize there’s a world out there beyond themselves. To paraphrase Robert Fulghum, kids are supposed to learn things like… playing fair; waiting your turn; sharing; and other things suppressing that powerful egocentrism. Some parents are more successful than others --- or more diligent --- teaching their kids these things. And villains… well, either their parents were complete failures at teaching their kids, or the villains-in-training resolutely resisted their parents’ efforts. Either way, villains are generally supreme egoists/narcissists. Many are self-aware enough to realize this. And they don’t care. They get to flout the rules. See, a long time ago a fellow by the name of Rousseau spelled it out: as humans, we surrender some of our freedoms so that… well, so that we can all live together without killing each other. Villains refuse to surrender those freedoms or accept the norms of society. They play by their own rules --- which would lead to anarchy if everyone did it, but the idea has a certain appeal to many people. At the least, many of us get a vicarious thrill watching villains do the awful things we don’t do. Though many of us are tempted.
 
They Can Be Such Tortured Souls
I love Lady Macbeth; she’s one of Will’s --- literature’s --- great villains. She starts off the play as a grade-A evil bitch, far more daring than her spineless hubby, whom she goads by calling a coward. He returns the favour by telling her she should never have daughters. She goes on to say she’d be willing to throw her baby to the ground and bash its brains out if it furthered her aims. Yada, yada, yada. You get the picture. But then, later on in the play, she’s racked with guilt over what she’s done. Well, well, well, she’s not quite the hardass we were led to believe she was. In fact, she’s so remorseful over her deeds, she winds up killing herself. It’s a fascinating progression to watch.
 
Their Implacable Evil is Often Chilling
One of the superlative villains in the Star Trek canon are the Borg, a cybernetic race with a shared consciousness --- the hive mind concept --- and they are utterly relentless and emotionless. I used to use a story in my high school English classes, A Matter of Balance by W.D. Valgardson, which contained a beautiful phrase supporting the implacability of so many villains: “their anger was not personal, and so could not be reasoned with.” Oh, yeah. That’s chilling. But fascinating to watch --- from a comfortable distance.
 
Their Backstories are Frequently a Source of Fascination
How does a Sauron become a Dark Lord? What makes a Lucifer declare it’s better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven? Why does a Tom Riddle become a Voldemort (anagrams aside)? Were their mommies mean to them as children? Did the other reindeer laugh and call them names? Or did they have perfectly normal, happy upbringings? That scenario can make for a more thoughtful analysis which often leads us back to the old nurture vs. nature argument. Just how, exactly, does a villain become a villain? Is it something they deliberately choose? Or do they just make some really, really poor choices? It’s not always knowable, but the thing is, we want to know.
 
They get to do everything we would like to do, but know we can’t, or shouldn’t. Note I’m not saying ‘the things we wouldn’t do” because, given sufficient motivation or provocation, pretty much all of us are, unfortunately capable of just about anything. But villains don’t have to suppress powerful urges to tell the rest of the world to get stuffed and just do whatever the hell they want. And that, ultimately, makes them so delicious to read about and watch.
 
Bwahahaha!

0 Comments

Writing Sins

10/28/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
“Students,” he said sternly, peering nearsightedly over his glasses at his audience like an annoyed owl and stabbing the air with a forefinger for additional emphasis, “I want to talk to you today about two writing sins which have yet again come to my attention, and which we can add to the already-lengthy list.” He paused at the chorus of groans and held up a pre-emptory hand for silence. “That’s quite enough. Need I remind you of the words of the immortal Stephen King regarding writing sins?”
 
“Only God gets it right the first time, and only slobs say, ‘oh well, that’s what editors are for,’” they responded dutifully.
 
Ah, you know, I still miss teaching. More than five years retired from a 35-year career, most of which I thoroughly enjoyed, and I still yearn for moments like the hypothetical one above. I don’t miss the politics or the pedagogical bullshit which, in later years, veered sharply into utter insanity on the order of the Mad Hatter’s tea party, mind you, but the teaching and the kids… yeah, those I miss. (Why did I retire, then? you ask. As well you might. In a nutshell --- because this is not really the point of today’s epistle --- and as you might expect, it was because I was so disgusted by the watering down of academic and behavioral standards by well-meaning but hopelessly out-of-touch administrators and politicians that I could not, in good conscience, be a part of it anymore. Sauve qui peut and all that.)
 
Anyway, back to the point of today’s epistle: those two writing sins. (My students often accused me of branching off on tangents during my lessons, an accusation I stoutly deny. Or at least, mildly refute.) I have even come up with catchy titles for said sins, which I herewith triumphantly present for your entertainment and edification: Barn Door Writing, and Fire Hose Writing. I have to point out that these sins seem to be slightly more prevalent in film and television than in the printed medium --- if it doesn’t become obvious to you why that should be, don’t worry, I’ll explain why later --- but can be, and are, still present in books.
 
So. Barn Door Writing (BDW). This is what happens when a writer hasn’t thought things through properly in constructing the plot. They’ve left gaping plot holes which result in continuity errors and gaps in the logic of the storyline. And to compound the sin, they make no effort to explain or remedy them, just either ignore them completely or gloss over them as though they didn’t exist, with all the calm, contradictory illogic of a toddler. (“Why did you hit your sibling?” I once asked one of my children. “I didn’t,” they replied with remarkable sangfroid. “Yes, you did,” I retorted. “No, I didn’t,” they said. “I SAW you!” I exclaimed heatedly. “No, you didn’t,” they maintained. Well. What can you say in the face of that? That’s the moment when it was reinforced to me not to bother arguing with small children.)
 
Now, every writer experiences BDW… in the story’s early drafts. That’s what first, second, third, ninety-eighth drafts are for: to eliminate the BDW and reinforce a story’s interior logic. The idea is that you gradually eliminate BDW so the final product to reach your reader’s sweaty little hands is as bulletproof, as tightly scripted, as is humanly possible. Note I’m not saying characters have to behave in perfectly logical, predictable ways; no, no, no. People aren’t logical. Often they’re predictable, sure, but other times… not so much. But don’t allow your characters’ illogic to get you out of sloppy writing. People may be illogical, but there’s usually a remorseless logic to the chaos the universe often inflicts on them.
 
Fire Hose Writing (FHW) often arises out of BDW. (You could say it’s BDW’s ugly stepchild.) This is when writers bombard their audience with a stream of so much going on, so incredibly quickly, that the audience is left gasping to keep up with the pace and doesn’t have time to sit there puzzling out those pesky examples of BDW. (“Wait a minute… in the last scene, didn’t the protagonist say/do…?”) You can see that FHW is going to occur much more often in film and television, if only because with written stories, readers can go at whatever pace they darn-well please, going back to reread the previous page or chapter whenever they like. Sure, viewers can do this too, to a certain extent, by pausing the playback and doing more or less the same thing, but if those canny film and television writers have turned the stream on to full fire hose mode, viewers don’t have time to sit there puzzling out the bits of BDW they’ve just seen; in today’s action-packed special effects extravaganzas, film is a pretty immersive experience, and bombarding the audience into submission with full-on FHW seems to be a favourite trick of far too many screenwriters, to cover up their lazy/sloppy BDW.
 
Have BDW and FHW always been around? Sure they have. The deus ex machina, a writing term which comes down to us from the ancient Greeks, refers to writers solving BDW by what we would quaintly term Acts of God i.e. events which tie up our sloppy plot by simply solving them through the wanton use of wholesale miracles. (I’m not saying I don’t believe in miracles, I’m just decrying their indiscriminate use by writers whose spouses have just called them for dinner, so the writers need to wrap things up fast, but they’re fresh out of inspiration.) Simply because sloppy writing has been around since the Dawn ‘O Time doesn’t justify your using it as a crutch.
 
So cast off the shackles of BDW and FHW, writers! You have nothing to lose but your chains, as one obscure writer said. Sure, it takes more creative energy and time, but you’ll wind up with stories you can be justifiably proud of.

0 Comments

Of Butterflies and HEAs

9/30/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
Gads, they’ve done it to me again. Why do creatives do this?! It makes me want to tear my hair out (a gesture which, to paraphrase Niles Crane, becomes less significant with each passing year). Argghh.
 
What is this, you ask? Well, the source of today’s State of High Dudgeon (SHD) is a Netflix series titled The Umbrella Academy, which recently dropped the last episode of its fourth and final season. My youngest son introduced the series to me earlier this year, prior to the fourth season’s release, so when my wife returned from her frequent travels, I suggested we watch (in my case, re-watch) the first three seasons for her benefit, then watch the final season… after it was released.
 
Which, BTW, is another thing putting me into SHD (there do seem to be a great many of them nowadays, I admit, but all I should have to do is wave my hand vaguely at the world around us to illustrate, and you should get my point): we get six or eight --- maybe ten, if we’re lucky --- episodes of a ‘season,’ which all by itself is laughable when compared to the 20+ we used to get in the Goode Olde Days, and then we have to wait a year or two for ‘them’ to make another paltry six or eight episodes, by which time we’ve lost all sense of continuity with the storyline and can we be bothered to scratch our heads to recall it or should we just rewatch the damned thing? Oh my gosh, ain’t First World problems a royal pain in the patootie.
 
Sorry. Deep breaths, deep breaths…
 
Anyway. The Umbrella Academy (UA). Lots of spoilers here, including some pretty penultimate ones, so… you’ve been warned.
 
I mostly enjoyed the first three seasons as Youngest Son and I watched them, though kind of in a ‘guilty-pleasures’ sort of way, because UA features the most dysfunctional bunch of superheroes you’re ever likely to meet. Like, catastrophically, comically dysfunctional. Like, OMG, they’re so annoying. The world is (literally) coming to an end and they’re standing around, bickering. They’re nominally a family --- not a biological one, just a bunch of orphans with strange powers gathered together by (of course) a reclusive, enigmatic multi-billionaire who’s (of course) not really a very nice person. They’re actually not in the superhero business anymore, anyway, because they’re so dysfunctional, they all went their separate ways, and have only gotten back together as the first season begins because said multi-billionaire recently died under (of course) mysterious circumstances. Lotta tropes here.
 
The series is… well, adequately written, I suppose, though it gets rather sloppy at times, partly because it involves a fair amount of time travel and alternate timelines. These always provide room for a great deal of confusion unless your writers are the sharpest knives in the drawer, which, quite frankly, UA’s aren’t. I’m not saying ‘don’t use time travel at all’ in your writing, because it can be very entertaining if it’s cleverly done. (Full disclosure, I use it in my writing… and do consider myself a pretty sharp knife, at least writing-wise, he said humbly.) But one does open oneself up to some major paradoxes with time travel (i.e. plot holes) if one isn’t careful, so it isn’t something to be entered into lightly.
 
Turns out, our dysfunctional superheroes are attempting to stop an impending Apocalypse… not once, not twice, not… oh look, the gimmick is that they’re consistently trying to stop the end of the world. Because we (and they) finally discover in the fourth season that the cause of the impending Apocalypse is… (drum roll, please)… our dysfunctional superheroes. (Of course.) And the only way to stop this Apocalypse is… (repeat drum roll)… for our dysfunctional superheroes never to have existed. So they self-destruct, not without one or two fond remembrances and witty comments on the way out.
 
Now, as I recall, this has all been done before. Back in 2004, Ashton Kutcher starred in a film called The Butterfly Effect. (The Butterfly Effect is a real thing in chaos theory, dealing with how small changes in one thing can massively influence other things.) Kutcher’s character is able to go back in time and change various events in his life. The problem is, every time he does that, he initiates unintended --- mostly catastrophic --- side effects into his life and the lives of those around him. And at the climax of the film, he concludes the only way to erase all these catastrophic changes is… for him never to have been born. (Of course.)
 
I’m not decrying the fact that UA isn’t being particularly original. After all, as we all know, pretty much all narratives have already been done endlessly sometime in the last five thousand years or so of recorded history, and so I’ve always therefore maintained that, at least to some degree, it isn’t what’s in the story, it’s how well it’s told.
 
What I am decrying is this Chekhovian (or Poevian, come to that --- remember the ending of The Masque of the Red Death?) idea that, after watching characters endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune throughout the tale, why do we have to bear witness to them deciding the only way to fix the woes of the world is by dying? Or checking out? (Frodo didn’t die, but he had to skip town, telling Sam he’d been too badly wounded to remain in Middle Earth.)
 
I suppose all this means I’m arguing for the HEA --- the Happily-Ever-After, in writerspeak. But even there, I don’t intend the HEA must mean our protagonist gets the guy/girl/miscellaneous carbon-based unit, or wins the lottery, or forever defeats evil as we know it. Just let them… you know, savour the victory a little, maybe settle down and enjoy the fruits of their labours with quiet, fulfilling lives, and not be consigned to the flames of oblivion. Sure, the ugly ending/oblivion thing happens in life all the time… but isn’t one of the reasons we read heroic tales to at least temporarily feel that life is fair and justice will prevail? Even if it all too often isn’t?
 
I know I do. So gimme the HEA, please.

0 Comments

Of Characters And Bell Curves

8/26/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
I blame Twitter. And Tolkien. Mostly in that order.
 
I should probably back up a little after such an obscure opening --- something I would’ve heavily discouraged my students from writing. But hey, here we are: I’m retired and they’re out there saving the world. Hope so, anyway.
 
Yesterday, a fellow Twit was moaning her daughter’s school still hadn’t released class lists for the upcoming year and how was she going to manage? She needed more than four days to prep her kid if said kid was having a different teacher and oh my goodness the world was falling apart. And then, of course --- because this was social media, he said, rolling his eyes --- all the usual trolls/hangers-on (real Twats) couldn’t resist trashing the arrogant, faceless indifference of teachers and the education system.
 
Now, anyone knowing me should/will be proud I limited my reply to a simple, neutral observation: it’s quite possible class lists are still in flux at this point --- because they likely are. I omitted saying the school may not have released class lists because they’re trying to limit the parental helicopters circling overhead with all kinds of contradictory requests which could make even someone with Solomon’s wisdom roll his eyes: could my kid pleeaase be with their best friend? Could my kid not be with their worst enemy? Could my kid have that teacher? Could my kid not have that teacher?
 
Now, as a retired career teacher, I can assure you we went to extraordinary lengths to create safe, positive learning environments, which included balancing classes by gender, personalities, and ability. (That last is particularly relevant to today’s epistle.) Too many boys in a class, and the testosterone soured the broth. Yikes. Too many shy or boisterous personalities could do likewise. And too many high or low academic abilities were also detrimental --- in fact, what you tried to do was reflect the bell curve. I suspect teachers still attempt that today, though God forbid they should admit something so politically incorrect. Because here’s the unvarnished, possibly unpalatable truth, folks: EVERY field of human endeavor reflects the bell curve. EVERY FIELD. At EVERY AGE. Whether you’re five, 15, 25, 45, 65… crap, it probably extends even unto death, too.
 
What is this notorious bell curve? Well, expressed as a graph, it says in any class --- or field of human endeavor --- at one end of the curve are a few people who fall flat; at the other, a few people who excel; and in the middle, a huge honkin’ multitude --- I privately call them the Great Unwashed --- who are… all right at what they do… not shining lights, but mostly competent to some degree. Average. (Another politically incorrect word nowadays.) And the graph of this curve is shaped like… wait for it… a bell.
 
(It’s kinda scary when you stop to think the bell curve also extends to professions dealing with life-or-death issues, like doctors… pilots… bureaucrats…)
 
So that’s my explanation for blaming Twitter. (Mind you, Twitter has a helluva lot else to answer for, too… though that’s another day’s topic.) But Tolkien?
 
Study that image by Pauline Baynes at the top of this post, Constant Reader, with the nine members of the fellowship of the Ring striding (no pun intended) towards their eventual goal of recycling a small piece of jewelry. They’re confident. Resolute. And as we read, we realize they’re all… really good at what they do. The hobbits are… well, hobbits, but their lack of combat abilities is more than compensated by the childlike wonder/innocence they exude at the world around them. Gandalf the wizard is a magical practitioner extraordinaire. Legolas the elf is an expert marksman with bow and arrow. (Sure, he has daddy issues, but that’s only in the bloated Peter Jackson Hobbit film trilogy, and therefore not canonical.) Gimli the dwarf likewise is dependable and a great team player. (I despised how Jackson made him the comic relief in the films.) And the two humans, Aragorn and Boromir… besides being terrific warriors, the first is a king-in-waiting, while the second is the noble son of a great house. (Yes, Boromir goes and tries to take the Ring, but that only makes him a tragic hero in the classic literary sense, a man of high estate possessed of a tragic flaw.) My point is, they’re all really, really good at what they do. Nary a sluggard nor an incompetent among them. Nobody wants to take the ring to the nearest pawn shop and ditch it, or sell it to the highest bidder. And, according to that old bell curve, that’s just a little too good to ring true. (Sorry. Well, not really.) So several generations of readers and writers have grown up believing character situations like the fellowship of the Ring are the rule, not the exception.
 
As writers, the temptation is always there to make characters so saccharinely perfect, they ‘shit marble,’ as Mozart disparagingly says in the film Amadeus while dismissing heroic figures. Often times, we vicariously want them to be the badass heroes we aren’t. But they can’t all float serenely at the high end of that damned curve. And it can’t just be villains or halfwits hanging out at the low end. (I used to tell my students it was no sin if they weren’t particularly great at English, because we all possess different gifts and abilities --- I was hopeless at high school math, for example --- and can’t be great at everything. Except, of course, that supremely annoying one or two people who smugly are. Though I suspect they too have foibles somewhere. Even heroes have feet of clay, more often than not. That’s the aforementioned tragic flaw.)
 
So when you’re writing, my advice is keep that ol’ bell curve in mind, and, if you want your story and characters to reflect the daily life journey we all share --- even if your tale is chock-full of dragons and elves and wizards, oh my --- make sure characters reflect that curve’s reality. I’m not arguing for mediocrity, but the simple, unvarnished truth is that most people are only okay at their jobs. A small elite are very, very good at them.
 
And very few, thankfully, are downright terrible.
 

0 Comments

To Revise Or Not To Revise...

7/29/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
Scrolling Twitter (take that, Elon! --- despite your exasperated pleas, it’s Twitter and always will be) the other day, someone wondered whether ‘twas a good and noble thing to rewrite a novel later… like, much later. They were commenting on something author Neil Gaiman said: “When people ask if I'd change anything about a book I've already written, I want to explain to them I'm not the person who wrote that book any longer, and even if I tried right now I'd write a different one. Everything you make as a writer is a combination of what you want to say and who you are at the time you are telling that story.”
 
Well, perish the thought little ol’ unfamous me has the unmitigated gall to contradict famous (or infamous, though discussing the allegations against him is outside this epistle’s scope) Neil … but that’s exactly what I’m going to do. Let me start by telling you a story.
 
My father, God rest his soul, was one helluva talented artist. In his native England during the Second World War, he was a technical illustrator for Rolls Royce, crafting intricate drawings of aircraft systems --- some of his hand-drawn lettering is so small, it requires a magnifying glass to read the lettering… which is perfectly legible under magnification. And after emigrating from the UK in the 1950s, he plied his trade as a commercial artist during the day, churning out any and all kinds of artwork for the small printing and production company he worked at for the next 31 years. During his leisure time, he painted stunning watercolours and acrylics of Western prairie grain elevators and train stations and houses and barns, oh my. He was gifted with an amazingly precise brushstroke and sense of scale.
 
One of said paintings was a two-story ranch house sitting on a hill. In the autumn. Just after harvest time. Mountains in the far background. Lovely, lovely painting. He framed it and it worthily hung in the living room for many years. When he passed away, my sister and I divvied up his artwork, and one of the paintings I got was the ranch house. Sad to say, it had fallen on hard times: somewhere along the way, dad cannibalized the glass from the frame for some other project, and then, in his early 90s, decided to revise the painting. He added a fence in the foreground, with a garish ‘For Sale’ sign on it, then painted a similarly garish figure on the house’s veranda. It looked awful. Totally destroyed the lovely warm harvest tones of the painting… and his artistic skills were, unfortunately, not what they had been decades previously. I don’t know what he was thinking.
 
Eventually, after much reflection and plenty of qualms, I decided to revise the revision. I painstakingly removed figure and For Sale sign, bringing the painting back to what it had been, reframed it, and it once more is displayed with pride. What right did I have to revise the creator’s vision? Well, in this case, I viewed it as a restoration, not a revision. Is that splitting hairs? Maybe. But rightly or wrongly, I felt the revision would improve the overall work.
 
Now looking at revision on the personal literary front… way back in 2015, I self-published my first novel, Gryphon’s Heir. It did moderately well as far as self-published works go, but inexplicably, did not make me the next Suzanne Collins or J.K. Rowling. Nonetheless, I set to work on the sequel, and wrote as time allowed… which increased appreciably after retirement in 2019. Then, of course, in 2020, Covid appeared, and the world stopped. Which didn’t impact my writing time… but something strange happened: a new protagonist abruptly appeared in my mind --- a 19-year-old girl, of all people --- and demanded I write her tale. Now. Sequel be damned. So I did. (Didn’t really have a great deal of choice, TBH.)
 
Her name’s Areellan, and her initial behaviour was entirely in keeping with her personality, I found: she’s scrappy, impatient, and takes no bullshit. I like her a lot.
 
Problem was, after finishing Areellan’s book --- her first book, if you please, because the story’s definitely not finished, though she hasn’t yet revealed what happens next --- I looked at my writing and had a major epiphany: it had improved in nine years. Markedly. Now, I know what you’re thinking: that’s a damned silly observation to make. After all, if your craft --- whatever it is --- doesn’t improve over nine years, you’ve got big problems. But still…
 
I decided to withdraw Gryphon’s Heir from circulation and rewrite it. Which I did. Didn’t alter the plot, just cleaned things up, writing-wise. Well, with one major exception: taking a page (screenshot) from the video games I play, I added an episode into the storyline. (Video games call this DLC --- short for downloadable content. After a game is published, the developers often later put out a self-contained episode which ties into the tale without altering the primary plotline. It adds to the story, and more importantly from their viewpoint, generates money.) So now, we have a new-and-improved Gryphon’s Heir (and its sequel, to which I applied the same treatment) which contains more story, yet is shorter and cleaner than the original. And I have three novels which I consider state of the art. Well, my art.
 
So… getting back to Neil’s (rather pedantic) assertion: true, I’m not the same person who wrote Gryphon’s Heir lo, those many years ago. But it’s the same story… just better expressed, and with an interesting ‘side quest’ added. How is that not a win? (Though Peter Jackson will undoubtedly cut it when he does the film version of my novel, because, like Tom Bombadil or the scouring of the Shire, it ‘doesn’t advance the plot.’ But as I’ve discussed before, I think that’s a fallacy too many writers fall into nowadays: “if it isn’t absolutely integral to advancing the plot, it’s gotta go.” No, no, no, folks: Stephen King rightfully argues such bits of ‘chrome’ --- his term --- are what takes a story from bare bones and fleshes it out.)
 
The crux of the matter is, I don’t think we need to get into existential debates about how we’re different people now than we were back when the tale was originally written; that’s a given. At least, I hope it is. The more relevant discussion is whether what we’re creating is a better work.
 
Which I did. IMHO, of course.

0 Comments

Hey, That's Cheating!

6/24/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
I’m kinda torn.
 
In my Twitterfeed (yes, you heard me, Twitter… not some idiotic random letter of the alphabet favoured by a certain narcissistic billionaire owner --- and calling him narcissistic is like saying the Pacific Ocean contains some water) I frequently post various writing memes, complete with my own captions I lightheartedly/naïvely believe are entertaining/droll. Some memes focus on sadistic habits writers often display regarding the trials and tribulations of their literary characters i.e. a predilection for making character lives so thoroughly and completely miserable, even the Marquis de Sade would blush with embarrassment. However, today, writing brothers and sisters, I come before you as an aggrieved reader/viewer, with a Serious Literary Complaint. (I realize the potential contradictory minefield I’m opening myself up to in penning this epistle, but we’ll see where it goes anyway. More on this later. Right now, like I said, I’m playing the part of Wounded Reader/Viewer, complete with plot spoilers from my chosen example. You’ve Been Warned.)
 
My wife and I like to end most days of our frenetic retired lives (he said with puckish tongue-in-cheek attitude) by watching an episode or two of various series on one of the many streaming platforms out there. (Like most, I suspect, we subscribe to far too many to really use any of them cost-effectively, but we’ll leave that little nugget of conspicuous consumption alone for now.) My tastes, given what I write, unsurprisingly tend to run to science fiction and fantasy, where dark, dystopian themes abound, while hers are mostly gentler, period dramas with good dollops of redemption. However, I’m quite amenable to watching ‘her’ shows --- most of the time, anyway, as long as they’re not too treacly, and in return, she’ll return the favour… as long as mine aren’t too dark. (She refused to watch Game of Thrones with me after the Red Wedding, for example, which was understandable.)
 
The series we’re currently watching is Grantchester, a British mystery-drama, based on novels by James Runcie. Set in early 1950s England, it focuses on the unlikely friendship between an amateur sleuth who just happens to be an Anglican priest in his day job, and a world-weary police inspector. They’re World War II veterans, and clearly suffer from PTSD as a result --- which, of course, wasn’t a diagnosis back then, so they wrestle with their collective demons as best they can… which, at times, isn’t very well at all. I suppose you’ve gotta love flawed protagonists --- I’m fully aware how boring perfect protagonists are --- but my gosh, these two sure take the flawed label and run with it at various moments. (I’m not a big fan of the catastrophically self-destructive protagonist… if I want to watch a train wreck in slow motion, there are plenty of grisly videos on YouTube, where the emotional commitment is much less, thanks very much.)
 
Now, our Anglican priest, Sydney Chambers, has had a love for one Amanda Hopkins (nee Kendall) for a long, long time --- it predates the series by a long stretch. Their relationship has been full of ‘almost’ and ‘not-quite’ and ‘what-if,’ but the plain unvarnished truth is, she’s a well-to-do heiress and upper-class type as only the British can do it, and he’s just an ex-soldier who became a lowly Anglican parish priest, so, as the English say, ‘it’s just not on’ that the two of them could ever marry, especially as far as her family is concerned. I’m not sure anyone besides Sydney is really surprised when Amanda winds up, at the behest of her crusty father, marrying a toffee-nosed upper-class twit who, it turns out, makes George Banks look warm and cuddly.
 
One would think this would be the end of Sydney and Amanda’s relationship. But… one would be wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. They keep bumping into each other… by accident and by design. It’s painfully obvious they still have feelings for each other, magnified by the fact Amanda is deeply unhappy in her marriage to a cold, distant husband --- who’s not above anger and jealousy over the fact his wife is still in touch with Sydney. Even Amanda’s eventual pregnancy doesn’t curb her feelings for Sydney… if anything it magnifies her misery and hopelessness of being trapped in a loveless marriage.
 
Eventually, at second season’s end, a very pregnant Amanda leaves her husband just prior to Christmas. She hangs out with a sympathetic aunt for a while, until her daddy, hard-nosed and callous even during the season of peace and goodwill, threatens to fire auntie’s husband, whom he just happens to employ. So a distraught Amanda trudges off through newly fallen snow into the darkness, winding up (unsurprisingly) at Sydney’s vicarage just in time to give birth. Unlike a certain other unmarried mother, there’s room at this inn, and the season ends with Sydney and Amanda framing a newborn baby, wondering how on earth their relationship is going to work. After all, she’s deserted her husband, divorces were waaay more difficult to obtain in 1950s England, and Anglican clergy weren’t permitted to marry divorcees. But true love will find a way… or so we’re led to believe.
 
Now, it’s at this point that I become the Wounded Viewer… though I have to make a rather horrendous confession in order to do so: you see… I looked ahead in our good friend Wikipedia’s episode summaries for Grantchester, because I didn’t want to wait to see how their relationship would resolve. (I know, I know. Mea culpa. Guess we all have feet of clay.) And… wait for it… Sydney and Amanda’s relationship… Doesn’t. Work. Out. (Warned ya.)
 
As a reader/viewer, I say… writers, don’t do this to us. It’s cheating! J’accuse! J’accuse you of leading us to believe that, like Westley and Buttercup, Things Would Work Out and True Love Would Prevail. And we hates it when gritty reality intervenes, precious, yessss we does.
 
Now, as a writer, I say… pfft. Deal with it. I never promised you they’d live happily ever after (which, as Orson Welles once adroitly pointed out, depends on where you want to stop your story).
 
So… yeah. Feeling a little torn about this, depending which literary hat I’m wearing.
 
But I’ll get over it.

0 Comments

More. And More. And...

5/20/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
What would Gene think of Star Trek: Discovery? Or Ronald think of Rings of Power? Or Frank think of Bijaz of Dune? I was musing on this and other existential life conundrums the other day when news came out that the second season of Rings of Power will premiere later this year.
 
I happen to think the answer is pretty easy, even though Gene’s kid is listed in the credits of the latest batch of Star Trek spinoffs as a producer. And Ronald’s kid, who created a thriving cottage industry cribbing stories from dad’s notes, signed off on the multi-million-dollar deal giving Hollywood the rights to the various other Middle Earth tales besides Bilbo’s and Frodo’s. And Frank’s kid was the (putative) author of about a thousand progressively sillier Dune sequels after daddio went to the great spice vault in the sky. (I’m sensing a trend here of children robbing their parents’ lucrative literary corpses. And I’m being very charitable --- one meme I saw referred to it as children raping their parent’s literary corpses.)
 
(As an Interesting-If-Thoroughly-Irrelevant Aside, I actually met Gene Roddenberry once and had coffee with him. It’s true, I swear on my copy of the Federation Charter. He was booked to speak at my university, and the student union vice president in charge of programming was an acquaintance of mine --- I can’t really say ‘friend,’ because he sorta stole my girlfriend at the time from me. Long story, which we can discuss another time if you really want the sordid details. Anyway, I chanced on him as he was heading to the airport to pick up Mr. Roddenberry, and he invited me along. Despite the source, I needed no second invitation, so we went. Although the airline had misplaced the Great Man’s luggage, he was incredibly gracious, inviting a couple of stumbling, nerdish university students i.e. us up to his room for coffee and conversation… which was the second time that day I needed no second invitation.)
 
Anyway. This sequel-upon-sequel-upon-sequel-ad-nauseum thing is a relatively recent phenomenon, I think… and by recent, I mean the last few decades. After all, you don’t see too many people writing sequels to Hamlet or Alice Through the Looking Glass or Pilgrim’s Progress. It is, I believe, an outgrowth of the fact that most of us, in our modern narcissistic, if-less-is-more-just-think-how-much-more-more-will-be philosophy (thank you, Dr. Frasier Crane, for that pithy but accurate summation of our society) subscribe to the notion that when we like something, we tend to like it a lot. And we want more of it. Lots more. Studios and authors (or their rapacious children) are only too willing to oblige, because, let’s face it, sequels come with a lot of the groundwork already done. Characters? Check. Settings? Check. Background detail about the worlds concerned? Check. In fact… even stories? Check, if daddy was thoughtful/planned enough to leave behind copious notes, as Tolkien and Herbert apparently did.
 
Now, I need to add a disclaimer at this point, because it may sound like I’m trashing these three (extremely lucrative) franchises: I’m not. I love Star Trek in all its incarnations. Have done since I was a tadpole in elementary school --- though, to my annoyance, my parents wouldn’t let me watch The Original Series as episodes initially aired, because Star Trek was on way past this then-third grader’s bedtime. And Tolkien is my literary demi-god --- reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time at the tenderly precocious age of 12 was life-changing. And the first two Dune books were amazing. (After that, they got increasingly, perplexingly ridiculous. I quickly decided Frank was starting to believe his own press releases, and stopped lining his and later Brian’s pockets with money they clearly didn’t deserve.)
 
But these sequels… augh, these sequels, he wailed with varying degrees of anguish. Here’s the answer to the question I posed at the beginning: Gene, Ronald, Frank… I think they would have collectively been appalled. Aghast. Amazed (but not in a good way). Angst-ridden. And a host of other alliterative descriptors. The first season of Rings of Power was… okay. (Although as I age, I become more and more impatient with characters who clearly can’t see threats which are plain as the ring on your finger. Yes, I’m talking to you, Galadriel, because there’s clearly something off about this Halbrand guy, and if I can tell he’s likely Sauron, why can’t you? Haven’t any of you ever read works or watched films in your genre? Well, the answer is: apparently not. It’s akin to the characters in horror stories who decide to split up while searching the haunted house, because they can cover more ground that way. Like… really, guys? Seriously?!)
 
So, yeah, Rings of Power was okay. But it wasn’t Tolkien, not really: it was yer standard swords and sorcery template, inserting names of several Tolkien characters. Yeah, I know, these series all say ‘based on the works by’ which means all they have to do is make nodding acquaintance with the original works to make us all wistfully believe we’ll be seeing the originals miraculously resurrected. Kind of like Tinkerbelle, I guess.
 
But, he whispered, glancing furtively over his shoulder… maybe… maybe… we should be leaving these beloved, deceased authors alone and not keep trying to milk yet another megabuck from their literary oeuvres. Maybe we should be boldly going where no writer has gone before.
 
Or at least trying to. 

0 Comments

The Stories We Had...

4/29/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
Ah, the stories we had…
 
In my last post, I was all set to wax philosophical about an English textbook I got in senior high school as a fresh-faced young scholar, and later used myself as an English teacher. But, in one of my patented teaching modes --- my students used to insist that, during class lectures or discussions, I’d go off on a tangent at the drop of a hat --- I spent most of the post discharging some long-festering psychological freight I’ve clearly been carrying around for quite some time. So. Today… Story and Structure (second edition). Published by Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.
 
(I hastily add I was not in high school in 1966. No dinosaurs here, no sirree. My name and the date --- 1975-76 --- is clearly labelled in pen on the inside cover… which is a whole ten years after publication. No, I’m not doing the math for you. Take my word, I’m just a spring chicken. Still wet behind the ears. On my first rodeo. Just born yesterday. And a host of other hoary old clichés.)
 
(And I’m afraid the exact stories we read from the text in that, my grade 12 year, are lost in the mists of time. I mean, it has been a year or six. Or more. Mrs. Pogue, my English teacher for both grades 10 and 12, God rest her soul, was a kindly older woman who once compared my writing to Thomas Hardy. She meant it as a compliment, and I was highly flattered until I actually read Tess of the D’Urbervilles in first-year university. Then, well, not so much: I found Tess dense, turgid, and dreadfully dull; given the choice, I would cheerfully have consigned her to the depths of DNF hell. But her tale was for an assignment, so, being the conscientious academic type I was, that wasn’t an option, and it never occurred to me to go hunting for the Coles Notes. However… I read Tess over the weekend before the term paper was due (subscribing to the long scholastic tradition of never doing today what you can put off until tomorrow). I vividly remember having the mother of all colds at the time, so was heavily hopped up on cold medicines, which back in the day, seemed to contain stuff a helluva lot more potent than today’s ‘all-natural, gentle ingredients.’ So I’m prepared to admit I may not have been completely in my right mind when reading Tess, and perhaps should give both her and Mr. Hardy another chance.)
 
Hmm. I begin to understand what my students meant about tangents. Let’s rewind a little. So. Today… Story and Structure (second edition). Published by Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.
 
When I began teaching English, I sought for my students stories I had fond memories of, so it wasn’t long before I spotted my copy of Story and Structure, and we were off down memory lane. Man, for one textbook, it was a treasure trove of classic, great, readable short stories. And its essays on the elements of the short story contained all sorts of grist for the mill, which I used in my classes. So herewith, a short compendium, in no particular order, of some of those great stories I read, enjoyed, and shared with a new generation of students.
 
Hernando Tellez, Just Lather, That’s All A barber who’s also a secret revolutionary in an unnamed South American country is given the chance to bring his straight razor up against the throat of his worst enemy, the local government commander. But our barber discovers getting your heart’s desire isn’t necessarily always a good thing.
 
Willa Cather, Paul’s Case Like many people in our incredibly affluent, fantasy-driven society, Paul cannot bear the reality of life on the lower rungs of the ladder. When given the opportunity, he bolts with a wad of stolen money to live the high life he’s always dreamed of. But it comes with a dreadful cost.
 
James Thurber, The Catbird Seat Erwin Martin, described as a “drab, ordinary little man” by his nemesis, is one of the millions of worker drones who toil in white-collar offices day after day. But when he realizes that the foundations of his well-ordered world are in peril from the forces of progress/chaos, he thwarts the threat by acting completely against type.
 
Shirley Jackson, The Lottery Oh, man, what need I say about this classic? Is there a high school student in North America who hasn’t read this cautionary tale about the dangers of mindless conformity and complacence?
 
Frank O’Connor, The Drunkard A young Irish boy accompanies his dad into the local pub, swiping the old man’s beer when no one’s looking. Unintentional hilarity ensues, with a bonus finish to the tale which you might not expect.
 
Paul Gallico, The Enchanted Doll American writer Paul Gallico, who would go on to great fame with The Poseidon Adventure, wrote this intimate, tender story about the power of love to heal all kinds of physical and spiritual hurts.
 
John Collier, Thus I Refute Beelzy A creepy little tale about a young boy’s imaginary friend who turns out to be unpleasantly, evilly, not so imaginary. The giveaway is in the title…
 
D.H. Lawrence, The Rocking Horse Winner An unexpected entry from D.H. Lawrence, who was far more famous for his (at the time of publication) shockingly explicit Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The Rocking Horse Winner is another creepy story about a young boy who uses supernatural forces to predict the outcome of horse races, with suitably creepy results.
 
Jean-Paul Sartre, The Wall Sartre is most famous as a philosopher, but this story, set during the Spanish Civil War --- the title refers to the wall where prisoners are stood against to be shot --- is really a tale of death and strange chances, which leads to a suitable plot twist and surprise ending.
 
Philip Roth, Defender of the Faith An egocentric, narcissist young soldier-in-training is taught an important life lesson by his sergeant in this World War Two tale.
 
Katherine Mansfield, Miss Brill A sad tale about the callousness of people and the power of words to puncture dreams.
 
So there we have it. Masterpieces of the short story, all of them. If you’re unfamiliar with any or all… correct that mistake forthwith, will you?
 
 
 

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    D.R. Ranshaw's Blog

    Copyright 2015-2025. All rights reserved.
    ​
    Author of The Annals of Arrinor series.  Lover of great literature, fine wine, and chocolate. Not necessarily in that order.

    Archives

    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly