• 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

The Endangered Monologue?

5/26/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
While down a literary rabbit hole the other day, I came across the famous Jaws monologue --- in print, not a video clip, lest you should (ahem) unjustly think I was watching YouTube instead of doing the writing I was supposed to be engaged in. I was struck by how well that monologue is structured and presented. … you know, it’s the one where crusty old shark-hunting Captain Quint really opens up for the first time and presents Hooper and Brodie (and us, the audience) with a human side of his personality no one has suspected he actually possesses. Then --- okay, I admit it --- I did go to YouTube and watch it… all four minutes or so that it takes Robert Shaw to masterfully deliver it, complete with a little ironic smile as he calmly and slowly makes his way through a pretty horrific experience. And I thought, man, that’s a damned fine piece of writing (and let’s not forget the delivery, because Shaw takes a spellbinding narrative and imbues it with understated horror). The fictional Quint is deftly inserted into the real-world event of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis, an American warship which delivered the nuclear weapon components to the island of Tinian in the Pacific Ocean so they could be assembled and placed on the plane which eventually delivered them to Hiroshima. After leaving Tinian, the Indianapolis was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine, and the classified nature of the mission meant it wasn’t listed as overdue for several days.
 
So, yeah, the monologue… which, as I used to tell my students, is a fairly lengthy speech made by a story character to do one of several things. It can create an emotional experience, relate a past experience which explains something exceptional about a character, examine some deep philosophical issue relating to the human condition we all share… the list is almost endless. Note it’s not an information dump. That’s something else entirely, and much less entertaining. Some monologues are soliloquys, which means the character involved is really just thinking them --- but on stage or in film, it would look pretty damned boring if Hamlet just stood there for four minutes, frowning, chin in his hand. So Will had Hamlet state his thoughts aloud, putatively to himself, but practically for the watching audience. Soliloquys aren’t really that much of a stretch, you know, because, let’s be honest, raise your hand if you’ve ever talked some thorny problem through with only yourself physically present in a room? Hey, you in the back… yeah, I’m talkin’ to you… come on, put yer hand up. You know you’ve talked to yourself, too. Monologues are soliloquys with an audience… like the aforementioned one delivered by Captain Quint. They’re well worth looking at strictly from a writing point of view, too, because Quint’s monologue gives us huge dollops of information about why he is the way he is and why he will later in the tale react the way he does; it also provides a fair amount of foreshadowing about his death. And it does it without being pedantic or preachy… just provides us with a gripping, raw tale of life and death in the Second World War.
 
Other famous monologues? Well, visually (and most appropriately, given the insanity going on in America these days), the masterful monologue from the series The Newsroom (created by the extremely talented Aaron Sorkin) about why America isn’t the greatest country in the world is another four minutes’ worth of amazing prose ruthlessly cutting through the (let’s be honest, here) smug self-congratulatory mindset a lot of Americans have about themselves (fewer nowadays, I rather suspect). Jeff Daniels plays a journalist who’s part of a panel and is asked to say, in one sentence (‘or less,’ the clueless university student says before she realizes the inanity of her words) why America is the greatest country in the world. Up until that point, he’s been determined not to say anything controversial, but is goaded into speaking the truth… and boy, does he let loose.
 
Literary monologues… well, of course, as a retired English teacher, I must turn to Will, because he wrote so many… and so many were great ones. Hamlet’s ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy, for example, is justly one of the most famous in literature. I used to explain to my students that Hamlet, who is one of the great ditherer protagonists --- he spends much of his eponymous tale trying to figure out what to do --- is wondering in this soliloquy whether he should just kill himself and put a stop to all the endless machinations and misery his situation has brought him to. Then, later on in the play, he has another brilliant soliloquy where he decides to throw off all his indecision and embark on a clear course of (bloody) action. (It’s worth noting that when I read that one aloud to my students, I used to play the soundtrack from that scene in the 1995 Kenneth Branagh film version --- which always got me a round of applause from my scholars at the scene’s conclusion.)
 
Then there’s my obligatory LOTR reference of the day, though it’s from the film: a terrific monologue from none other than Samwise Gamgee, whom you wouldn’t expect to have too many erudite philosophical musings buried in his ample frame. There’s something similar in the book, but these words are really Jackson’s, not Tolkien’s. When protagonist Frodo is deep in despair at the prospect of them ever successfully ridding the world of the malevolent One Ring, Sam makes a rousing monologue about how evil is transient and better times are coming. He concludes by saying, “Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding on to something. That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for.” Well done, Peter Jackson.
 
Is the monologue a dying literary device? I don’t think so, necessarily. But it does require skill and sensitivity to write well, and in this age of quick, pithy one-liners, I’m not sure there are too many writers able to pull it off successfully.
 
It’d be a shame if it did wither away… there’s so much to be learned, and gained, from hearing a character deliver a good “friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears…”

0 Comments

So You Wanna Follow Me...

4/28/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
Okay. I don’t think we can put this off any longer. It’s time to talk about that deeply unhealthy contemporary addiction so many people suffer from. (Not me, of course, no, sir, no way. And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.) I refer, of course, to… Social Media (which I’ll hereafter aptly refer to, with my razor-sharp irony, as SM). Yep, SM, Waster of Time, Sapper of Creativity, Fount of Banality, and Destroyer of Peace/Goodwill Towards All Carbon-based Lifeforms.
 
If it’s so awful, I hear you ask, why are you on it, then? Well… good question. Mainly because, back in the day, it was supposed to be the way for budding writers to interact with their potential public (we’ll discuss that below) and like most bad habits, I do it nowadays more out of inertia. But I do limit my use. No, really: I NEVER use SM on my phone. Never. Only on my computer, which cuts down the opportunity for idle doomscrolling… at least a little. And I’m only on Twitter, Facebook, and Bluesky. Of the three, I mostly use Twitter, because, quite frankly, despite nowadays being the Elongated Muskrat’s personal hellscape, it’s where I still find the most engagement with the writing community. (And I hesitate to label even the Good Olde Days before the Muskrat as Twitter’s golden age. Because… there wasn’t one. Mostly, when people tell you how much better things used to be, regardless to what they refer… they’re employing heavily rose-coloured glasses.)
 
So, anyway, here we are. Let’s paint a hypothetical scenario: piqued by my delightfully quirky sense of humour, you’ve followed me on Twitter or Bluesky. For your entertainment and edification, I hereby present several Vitally Important SM Things you should know.
 
First, kinda like Liam Neeson, I will find (and vet, scrutinizing your feed) you before following you back. It deeply pains me this has become necessary, but the levels of hate and general weirdness on SM have skyrocketed in the last ten years. If you’re a MAGAT, for example… why, no, we can’t simply agree to disagree; we’re not talking trivialities, like the merits of butter versus margarine. No, we’re talking fundamental differences in understanding what’s right and wrong, and I just can’t have anything to do with you. (Memo to his followers: he’s not a saviour. He’s one of the most blatantly reprehensible examples of everything wrong with humanity. And you’re in a cult. Call your mom.)
 
Second, don’t DM me right after I’ve followed you (in fact, most of you, don’t DM me, full stop). I’m just fine, thanks for asking, but we don’t know each other at all, even by SM’s largely superficial standards, and I have a really hard time believing you care about my wellbeing. Why, no, thanks again for asking, I’m not interested in buying whatever you’re selling (which leads into our next point).
 
Third, writers, don’t expect to sell your books on SM. For most of us, it’s mainly ineffective. Once upon a time, as I noted above, we all believed SM was the perfect way to sell our books. Of course, once upon a time, we also believed in Tinkerbelle and the Tooth Fairy. The problem for writers on SM is you mostly follow other writers, who --- breaking news! --- only want to sell THEIR books, and have little to no interest in buying yours.
 
Fourth, similarly, if the only things on your timeline are plugs for your own work… if you’re just using your SM as cheap self-advertising… I’m not following you back. It’s both uninteresting and… well, kinda sleazy: you’re simply using followers to promote your work.
 
Fifth, stop whining about lack of engagement in your posts. Or as some of you poetically phrase it, feeling you’re ‘shouting into a void.’ YOU ARE. More news: the algorithm sucks like a vacuum cleaner, and isn’t structured to give amazing life and breadth to your pearls of wisdom. Primarily, it’s designed to generate revenue for the Muskrat, because plainly, he doesn’t have enough, poor lamb. There’s absolutely no rhyme nor reason as to why some posts garner millions of views, while others get only a few. It’s Capricious with a capital C. Deal with it.
 
Sixth, similarly again, don’t ask questions you’ve no real interest in having answered --- or could get answers to by consulting The Google. Many people ask questions which either can’t be properly addressed within a Tweet’s all-too-finite limits, or are transparently, pathetically designed only to generate engagement stats. Stop it! You’re being annoying, and SM has way too many of those people as it is. You want intellectual engagement? SM’s generally not the best place to find it.
 
Seventh, most of my posts are what I quaintly like to describe as wryly amusing takes on the Art of Writing. (The others are my weekly blog posts, which also generally deal with the aforementioned Art, but in a slightly more serious vein.) I take existing memes, add my own pithy captions, and send them on their merry way, chuckling at my Oscar Wilde-like wit. So… they’re humorous. Or at least meant to be. But damn, there are TONS of very literal-minded people out there who don’t seem to understand humour, because there are always those who reply to my lightning shafts of wit with serious, frequently pedantic, comments showing they utterly failed to grasp my attempts at levity. Oh, the humanity.
 
And finally, Eighth… for your own sanity… DON’T ENGAGE THE TROLLS. SM is replete with them, smelly and brutish and ignorant and laughing coarsely, oh my --- kind of like an Orc convention at Isengard… and you’re Saruman, staring down at them from your balcony (my obligatory LOTR reference for the day). DON’T respond to them. They’re not worth it. Just block them and move on. They have the same mental capacity as toddlers, and there’s simply no way to argue with them --- logic and reasoning not being part of toddler skillsets, who only know enough to stamp their feet, throw tantrums and say bad words for shock effect. Life’s too short for that bullshit (unless you really DO have toddlers, and hope one day to transform them into rational, functioning human beings).
 
Not everything’s doom and gloom, however. I’ve met delightful, interesting people on SM, and even count some of them as friends. But it’s a strange old world out there, folks, and as one of the memes I posted recently said, we seem to be living in the timeline where Biff read the sports almanac.
 
So be careful.
0 Comments

When We Were Very Young Redux

3/31/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
A couple of posts back, I discussed some of the fantasy works which had a major impact on my embryonic reading/writing tastes, way back at the Dawn of Time (well, dawn of my time, anyway). The other genre I steered to very early on was science fiction (SF). Why? Well, partly because I was a youngling in the 1960s, at the height of the moon race between the Muricans and the Russians, and was swept up by the technology and excitement. One of my very first exposures to science fiction wasn’t between the pages of a book, but rather the idiot box i.e. the TV: Gerry and Sylvia Anderson’s Fireball XL-5, filmed in Supermarionation, dontcha know. Go ahead, Gen Xers, look up clips on YouTube. Revel at the simplicity, the laughable plots, the obvious practical effects. But I thought it was pretty damned cool. Then I discovered people actually wrote books about this stuff, and as Will says, thereby hangs a tale. So today, I propose to go back and revisit a few examples of those seminal SF works which had major impacts on me…
 
The New Tom Swift Jr. Adventures (putatively by “Victor Appleton II, really by a host of ghostwriters). Wikipedia informs me Tom Swift has been with us in one incarnation or another since 1910. The series I was exposed to was written between 1954 and 1966, so… yeah, in the depths of the Cold War (the series villains were “Brungarians,” which even I could figure were really Soviets). Looking back now at the dozen or so I owned, I’m kinda embarrassed to include them here --- even where I purchased them: the hardcovers were 88 cents at K-Mart. Talk about simplistic writing, all wrapped up in truth, justice and the Murican way. But Tom was always also coming up with some new piece of shiny technology to foil the bad guys with, and eight-year-old me wasn’t quite as discerning as --- ahem --- much-older-me is, so… yeah. Loved ‘em, corny as they were.
 
The City and the Stars and 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke. Okay, my first ‘real’ science fiction. Artie was a scientist before he was a writer --- and while nowadays, I think most of us would agree his writing style was pretty stilted, he came up with some really interesting concepts. If Tolkien is my literary daddy for fantasy, I’d say Clarke was my SF literary parent. I thought 2001, book and film, was just about the coolest thing ever, and because I’d read the book first, which is what everyone should do, I wasn’t baffled by the film --- which, admittedly, Stanley Kubrick made pretty confusing at times.
 
The White Mountains (and numerous others) by John Christopher. Hot on the heels of Artie, The White Mountains trilogy showed up on my radar. My first dystopian SF, oh my! Set in the far future when the human race has been conquered by an alien race which rides around in enormous Tripods and lives in domed cities, this trilogy also helped awaken my precocious, pre-pubescent mind to SF’s amazing possibilities. Christopher’s SF (including his Sword of the Spirits trilogy) was clearly aimed at children, and therefore much more simply written than Clarke’s. But it was an enormous influence on me.
 
The Space Merchants (also numerous others), by Frederik Pohl. Another gritty, dystopian tale dealing with the triumph of advertising turning us all into mindless consumers (and presciently written in 1952, if you can believe it). But the big thing I loved about Fred Pohl’s writing, in this and many other works of his, was his breezy, chatty writing style, which I found, and continue to find, endlessly absorbing and entertaining.
​
Citizen of the Galaxy (AND numerous others) by Robert A. Heinlein. I think Bob Heinlein has gotten something of a bum rap in recent years, with the revisionists accusing him of being a fascist, a misogynist, and other heinous things. But I’ve pointed it out before: authors write of, and for, their times. Is there casual misogyny in Heinlein’s writing? Yes. Is his treatment of women frequently two-dimensional and patronizing? Also yes. But he wrote in the 1950s and 60s, when such things were lamentably common. (His Starship Troopers gave ammunition to people accusing him of fascism, though I don’t agree he was a proponent.) But he was a damn fine writer, and his stories were engaging --- Citizen of the Galaxy is a classic rags-to-riches story as we discover a young male slave happens to be one of the wealthiest people in the galaxy. And reading Heinlein was rather like the Wile E. Coyote cartoons I watched as a kid: he didn’t turn me into a fascist or misogynist, any more than the cartoons made me want to drop anvils on people or blow them up with dynamite.
 
Tarnsman of Gor (and others) by John Norman. I hesitate a little to include this, because let’s face it, anyone familiar with his work knows John Norman had some VERY peculiar ideas --- I mean, aside from the fact he was often overly didactic, extremely fond of what we today term ‘information dumps,’ all women want to be slaves, according to him, and sometimes his books tend to become little more than BDSM manuals --- much more so after the first six or so. But the basic story premise, of a man taken from this world to the ‘Counter-Earth’ which revolves in Earth’s orbit but on the other side of the sun, to live where human technology has been deliberately limited in some ways by an alien race… well, it’s not uninteresting. Kinda like Burroughs’ John Carter of Mars, except updated and a helluva lot more fixated on kinky sex. By the way, the Wile E. Coyote metaphor applies here, too. I read them for the SF, was mildly baffled by the BDSM.
 
Needless to say, I’ve owned these titles for 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… it’s been a while 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 these books between the ages of… oh, 10 and 16. They’ve stayed with me, literally and metaphorically, and they’ve had a profound impact on my understanding and appreciation of the science fiction genre --- not to mention influence on my writing style, which continues to this day.
0 Comments

The Immunity Syndrome

2/24/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
In the evenings, my wife and I like to close out our busy days by watching shows together from the many different series on various streaming platforms. And in the spirit of egalitarianism, we take turns choosing what to watch. When my eldest son wanders in from his long day of being a working stiff, it’s easy for him to discern, within a second or two, which of us has chosen that night’s selection: in keeping with my writing genre and literary tastes, my choices tend to veer sharply towards fantasy and science fiction, with a generous dollop of varyingly grim dystopian themes thrown in for good measure. My wife, God bless her, likes kinder, gentler offerings, and is reluctant to sample series which don’t possess a good measure of redemption… or the HEA (Happily Ever After). So even without knowing us much beyond that, you shouldn’t have much difficulty figuring out who chose the latest season of Outlander. (Hint: I’m not the one with the penchant for mommy-porn.)
 
Now, look: before you accuse me of lamentable unfairness, I’ve read all the Diana Gabaldon books (except the most recent one) and, courtesy of my wife, watched the previous seasons of the television show… and aside from the aforementioned mommy-porn and Ms. Gabaldon’s penchant to rather go on and on at times, I find the books reasonably entertaining… though they seem to have become less a story and more a sprawling, Compleat History of the lives of protagonists Jamie and Clare and Everyone Connected To Them In The Slightest Degree. I’ll admit Ms. Gabaldon is a source of inspiration to me, in a funny kind of way, because I figure if a marine biologist can become a wildly successful author, then there’s hope for a slightly used, retired career English teacher. But this latest season did give rise to today’s subject, which I’m calling The Immunity Syndrome. Numerous spoilers follow, so… you’ve been warned.
 
During this Outlander season, set during the American Revolutionary War, Jamie is an officer in the American army, and Clare, his devoted time-traveling wife, does complementary duty as a physician. During one awful battle, we’re presented with the old writer’s bait and switch routine: with bullets whizzing overhead, we fully expect Jamie, in the thick of things, to be hit… but… no! It’s Clare! How’s that for irony, Uncaring Universe? Ka-pow! Take that!
 
And it looks bad. Hit in the abdomen, spurting blood, Clare sinks to the ground. Oh no! Is this the end of our intrepid heroine? (Reminds me of the climactic teaser we used to get at the end of every Batman TV episode, when it seemed Batman and/or Robin were inexorably headed for a one-way trip to the great bat-cave in the sky.)
 
Well, no, of course not. Clare’s going to be (a tad) uncomfortable for a (remarkably) short while as she heals from a (primitive but still potentially lethal) lead musket ball lodged in her innards. Fortunately, she’s trained her favourite apprentice Quaker doctor, Denzell Hunter, to (conveniently) perform 20th century medical miracles with 18th century tools and knowledge. So she’ll be right as rain in time for the next episode. But I’m afraid Denny can’t really take credit for Clare’s miraculous survival and recovery. No, what she has to thank is… (ta da!) The Immunity Syndrome.
 
You see, Clare is The Protagonist. And what’s our first writing rule about protagonists, boys and girls? That’s right! You can beat the crap out of them, you can toss them around in life’s tempests --- in fact, you should ensure they’re inundated by Will’s ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,’ giving rise to a plethora of hoary memes about the cruelty of authors. BUT… you can’t kill protagonists. They’re immune to shuffling off this mortal coil --- at least for the story’s duration. Which, of course, makes the whole notion of trying to make your audience think the protagonist is dead or dying rather a cheat. Because just like Batman, we know Clare has to survive. Without her, there’s no story. (Well, technically, there is, but I’d venture to say, based on my laughably ignorant male observations, that it’s the love story betwixt Jamie and Clare which largely inspires the fanatical loyalty of Ms. Gabaldon’s fandom, and if she was to foolishly kill that love story off --- no pun intended --- then the tale loses its narrative imperative.)
 
Ah ha! you crow. You’re wrong! What about George R.R. Martin, who’s made a (very profitable) career killing off (multiple) protagonists in grisly ways? Or even your literary daddy, Tolkien?
 
Well… no. Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but I don’t think so. What George has done is made a (very profitable) career killing off main characters left, right and centre in his bloody Game of Thrones franchise. (My gentle wife, who wavered in her willingness to watch as the series savagely progressed, was, unsurprisingly, irrevocably done with it following the Red Wedding.) But there’s a difference between protagonists and main characters, a difference as big as Drogon. (If you know, you know.) In fact, when you get right down to it, it could be argued Game of Thrones doesn’t even really have a protagonist, at least in the traditional sense. Rather, it has survivors, and at least two, Tirion and Jon Snow, could be protagonists… though neither really winds up ‘victorious’ at the top o’ the heap. Then again, sometimes just surviving is a win. In this world or others.
 
And Professor T… well, he made a half-hearted attempt to convince readers, two thirds of the way into LOTR, that our intrepid protagonist, Frodo, was dead, struck down after a horrendous, stygian duel with a monstrous spider. But he didn’t bother trying to maintain the fiction very long --- Sam quickly discovered Frodo was merely stunned, not dead (unlike Monty Python’s parrot) --- and in any event, even 12-year-old me, reading LOTR for the first time, just KNEW Frodo wasn’t pushing up the daisies, that he’d be back trudging his way on his booby-prize mission quicker than you can say ‘one does not simply walk into Mordor.’ (Well, I was a rather precocious child, he murmured modestly.)
 
So… writers, don’t try to sell your readers short with this silly notion their protagonist is going to die. It just doesn’t happen (especially if you’re writing in first person).
 
To paraphrase Will, ‘tis not a consummation devoutly to be wished.

0 Comments

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
<<Previous
Forward>>

    D.R. Ranshaw's Blog

    Copyright 2015-2026. All rights reserved.
    ​
    Author of The Annals of Arrinor series.  Lover of great literature, fine wine, and chocolate. Not necessarily in that order.

    Archives

    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    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