I'm sorry for skipping last week. I intended to write a post Monday to make up for it... only that didn't happen.
This week I read an excellent book by Gillian Bradshaw called Cleopatra's Heir. It was a `what if' story in which Caesarion, the son of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, survived Octavian's attempt to have him executed. The book is very much a character study. Caesarion's flight forces him to depend on an Egyptian merchant named Ari, whose kindness and decency slowly change Caesarion's view of the world until Caesarion is able to let go of his destructive pride, his constant striving to live up to his parent's legacy and accept himself for the flawed person he is.
I latch onto any book with Gillian Bradshaw's name on the cover because her characters are just so likable. Her heroes are honorable, and willing to see the good in others. For example, in Cleopatra's Heir Caesarion starts out as a rather prickly character. He's used to being treated as a god, and hanging around camels is definitely a step down. But while Ari the merchant doesn't always appreciate Caesarion's attitude, he admires his bravery and willpower.
A lot of books are about friction between characters and there's plenty of friction in Cleopatra's Heir, but it's not because the characters like whining about each other. It's a pity there aren't more books out there where the characters are willing to acknowledge the things they find admirable in their friends and team-mates. It would sure make it easier for the reader to believe that the characters actually are friends.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Uses of Violence in Storytelling
Violence is a sticky sort of thing when it comes to writing. It's easy to go overboard. On the other hand, violent deaths can serve an important purpose in your story. The trick is knowing why the bodies exist and asking yourself if they're really necessary. Here's a list of reasons that I think are totally valid for tossing in a corpse.
1: Plot. How many murder mysteries have you read where nobody died a violent death? ....that's what I thought. Case closed.
2: Revealing Character: Violence is Hollywood's favorite way to show that your villain is pure evil. Remember The Empire Strikes Back where Darth Vader was dropping 'em like flies?
Violent deaths can serve to characterize your heroes, too. I'm thinking of Jack Sparrow's first appearance in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Black Pearl where he takes his hat off while sailing past the dead pirates. That moment helps humanize him. He has a respect for the dead (perhaps more so than the townsfolk who were willing to use bodies as warning posts). He also has a sense that those dead guys could be him if he got caught. It reveals his desperation: he's willing to sail into town despite the warning. That's a lot of characterization for one shot of a guy taking off his hat.
3: Establishing Setting: Speaking of those hanged men in Curse of the Black Pearl, the scene does more than build Jack Sparrow's personality, it also tells you a lot about the time and place of the story. This is the sort of world where it's normal to leave the bodies of criminals out as a warning.
The circumstances where violence is considered appropriate tells you a ton about the setting of a story. In The Three Musketeers, nobody cries `wait! Dueling is crazy! Surely there must be a better way to settle your arguments than drawn swords!'
4: Shock Value: When used right, the shock value of violence can add a lot to a story. Of course, for shock value to work, the event must be shocking. That means gore on top of gore is out because it lessens the shock value. Also, shock value changes depending on the setting. What's shocking in an Edwardian drawing room may be normal in a back alley at the height of the French Revolution.
The value of shocking your audience is added suspense. In the movie Serenity, an important character dies, and it is genuinely shocking. Not because the death is unusually violent (it's a random accident) but because the death is that of a major character. Up to that point in the movie I figured I pretty much knew the end. The good guys win, they fly off into the sunset, the end. But after a major character died, I no longer knew how things were going to turn out. When the final confrontation came, I was bracing myself for tragedy.
As readers and moviegoers, we've gotten used to the idea that certain characters are safe because they're too important to die. Shock Value violence is a way to shake people out of that confidence so they can enjoy a story with the same roller-coaster suspense they had before they learned to predict who lives and who dies. It allows you to get the same thrill from stories you had as a kid.
And that's it: the uses of violence in storytelling. There may be some uses I didn't think of, and naturally my list is completely subjective. Any thoughts?
1: Plot. How many murder mysteries have you read where nobody died a violent death? ....that's what I thought. Case closed.
2: Revealing Character: Violence is Hollywood's favorite way to show that your villain is pure evil. Remember The Empire Strikes Back where Darth Vader was dropping 'em like flies?
Violent deaths can serve to characterize your heroes, too. I'm thinking of Jack Sparrow's first appearance in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Black Pearl where he takes his hat off while sailing past the dead pirates. That moment helps humanize him. He has a respect for the dead (perhaps more so than the townsfolk who were willing to use bodies as warning posts). He also has a sense that those dead guys could be him if he got caught. It reveals his desperation: he's willing to sail into town despite the warning. That's a lot of characterization for one shot of a guy taking off his hat.
3: Establishing Setting: Speaking of those hanged men in Curse of the Black Pearl, the scene does more than build Jack Sparrow's personality, it also tells you a lot about the time and place of the story. This is the sort of world where it's normal to leave the bodies of criminals out as a warning.
The circumstances where violence is considered appropriate tells you a ton about the setting of a story. In The Three Musketeers, nobody cries `wait! Dueling is crazy! Surely there must be a better way to settle your arguments than drawn swords!'
4: Shock Value: When used right, the shock value of violence can add a lot to a story. Of course, for shock value to work, the event must be shocking. That means gore on top of gore is out because it lessens the shock value. Also, shock value changes depending on the setting. What's shocking in an Edwardian drawing room may be normal in a back alley at the height of the French Revolution.
The value of shocking your audience is added suspense. In the movie Serenity, an important character dies, and it is genuinely shocking. Not because the death is unusually violent (it's a random accident) but because the death is that of a major character. Up to that point in the movie I figured I pretty much knew the end. The good guys win, they fly off into the sunset, the end. But after a major character died, I no longer knew how things were going to turn out. When the final confrontation came, I was bracing myself for tragedy.
As readers and moviegoers, we've gotten used to the idea that certain characters are safe because they're too important to die. Shock Value violence is a way to shake people out of that confidence so they can enjoy a story with the same roller-coaster suspense they had before they learned to predict who lives and who dies. It allows you to get the same thrill from stories you had as a kid.
And that's it: the uses of violence in storytelling. There may be some uses I didn't think of, and naturally my list is completely subjective. Any thoughts?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Happy New year (late)
This is my first post of 2012.
It's been a week for firsts. I've learned to take the seeds out of pomegranates. (Delicious.) More importantly, the Frederick Art Association is doing a show at the Deleplain this month, and for the first time I have a picture in the display. I'm all giddy. The opening is this Saturday, from three to five. I plan to go and gawk at my own picture -as if I hadn't drawn it myself and know perfectly well what it looks like- then study everyone else's work, and say hi to anyone I recognize. It should definitely be an interesting experience.
It's been a week for firsts. I've learned to take the seeds out of pomegranates. (Delicious.) More importantly, the Frederick Art Association is doing a show at the Deleplain this month, and for the first time I have a picture in the display. I'm all giddy. The opening is this Saturday, from three to five. I plan to go and gawk at my own picture -as if I hadn't drawn it myself and know perfectly well what it looks like- then study everyone else's work, and say hi to anyone I recognize. It should definitely be an interesting experience.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Merry Christmas!
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name
John 1: 10-12
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Comic Relief
Dickens, Lloyd Alexander, and Terry Pratchett have spoiled me. They all take the time to make their comic relief likable. Now whenever I come across a grating `comic relief' I grit my teeth and wonder why the heroes don't find a way to get rid of the jerk -maybe put a sleeping potion in his venison and sneak away during the night.
Gail Carson Levine mentions here that one way to make your audience enjoy a character is to show that other characters like them. I love it when an author gives me some solid reasons why the heroes want to hang around with the comic relief. In Dicken's The Pickwick Papers, Sam Weller is sarcastic and far too mouthy to be a conventional servant, but he's also clever and fiercely loyal to his friends. At one point he deliberately get himself arrested so he can follow Mr. Pickwick into debtor's prison. You gotta love a guy like that.
The best comic characters have a wider emotional range than just cracking a joke -then cracking another one- repeat into infinity. Moist Von Lipwig from Terry Pratchett's Going Postal may not admit that he feels anything beyond enjoyment at outwitting the next mark, but with his slowly growing desire not to let his friends down, and the discovery that he has something to fight for, he becomes a very endearing -and well rounded- character.
I guess what I object to is people who don't treat their comic relief like real characters. But then, I've never appreciated slapstick humor, either. To me, pies in the face are just mean, and if they're always thrown at the same person, that's bullying.
Maybe I should start a Comic Relief Union?
Gail Carson Levine mentions here that one way to make your audience enjoy a character is to show that other characters like them. I love it when an author gives me some solid reasons why the heroes want to hang around with the comic relief. In Dicken's The Pickwick Papers, Sam Weller is sarcastic and far too mouthy to be a conventional servant, but he's also clever and fiercely loyal to his friends. At one point he deliberately get himself arrested so he can follow Mr. Pickwick into debtor's prison. You gotta love a guy like that.
The best comic characters have a wider emotional range than just cracking a joke -then cracking another one- repeat into infinity. Moist Von Lipwig from Terry Pratchett's Going Postal may not admit that he feels anything beyond enjoyment at outwitting the next mark, but with his slowly growing desire not to let his friends down, and the discovery that he has something to fight for, he becomes a very endearing -and well rounded- character.
I guess what I object to is people who don't treat their comic relief like real characters. But then, I've never appreciated slapstick humor, either. To me, pies in the face are just mean, and if they're always thrown at the same person, that's bullying.
Maybe I should start a Comic Relief Union?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Hero Types
I've been watching a lot of the nineties TV show Andromeda. My favorite character is Seamus Zelanzy Harper, the ship's engineer and designated comic relief. I've known plenty of people who handle stress with jokes, snark, or sarcasm. I don't know anyone who deals by vowing to right all wrongs, or becoming a cynical mercenary for hire.
Harper's not a coward, but he's not a fighter either. He's very much a talker. Whenever he's in a rough situation he tries to get out of it by cutting a deal. He's a contrast to the shows hero, Dylan Hunt, who is skilled with weapons and doesn't really do compromise.
It seems there are two different types of heroes. If the villain gives your hero the sadistic choice between saving his beloved Aunt Em or keeping an inhabited planet from being blown to smithereens, the one type of hero says `it's not like I knew anyone on that planet' and picks Aunt Em, while the other type says `Sorry Aunt Em. Been nice knowing you.' and saves the planet.
It's the difference between leading with the head and leading with the heart. Someone who leads with their head is going to take a `needs of the many outweigh the need of one' approach. Sometimes they'll be right, but other times they'll be too practical. They might be unintentionally cruel if it fits their agenda. They might sacrifice people who are loyal to them if they feel it's for the greater good.
The people who lead with their heart have just as many strengths -and just as many problems. They may betray their country to save their friend, or make compromises they shouldn't make. They're less likely to have well laid plans -or any plan at all.
Of course, in a perfect world you'd have both types of hero working together, one who leads with the heart to rush in and save the day, and one who leads with his head to pick up the scattered pieces and groan `why me?'
Harper's not a coward, but he's not a fighter either. He's very much a talker. Whenever he's in a rough situation he tries to get out of it by cutting a deal. He's a contrast to the shows hero, Dylan Hunt, who is skilled with weapons and doesn't really do compromise.
It seems there are two different types of heroes. If the villain gives your hero the sadistic choice between saving his beloved Aunt Em or keeping an inhabited planet from being blown to smithereens, the one type of hero says `it's not like I knew anyone on that planet' and picks Aunt Em, while the other type says `Sorry Aunt Em. Been nice knowing you.' and saves the planet.
It's the difference between leading with the head and leading with the heart. Someone who leads with their head is going to take a `needs of the many outweigh the need of one' approach. Sometimes they'll be right, but other times they'll be too practical. They might be unintentionally cruel if it fits their agenda. They might sacrifice people who are loyal to them if they feel it's for the greater good.
The people who lead with their heart have just as many strengths -and just as many problems. They may betray their country to save their friend, or make compromises they shouldn't make. They're less likely to have well laid plans -or any plan at all.
Of course, in a perfect world you'd have both types of hero working together, one who leads with the heart to rush in and save the day, and one who leads with his head to pick up the scattered pieces and groan `why me?'
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I've just done a marathon housecleaning job, and tomorrow it's cooking, so while I've fallen down on any kind of on-line presence, at least I've got something to show for it. I hope you all have a terrific holiday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)