I've decided to take up painting. I'll just give you a moment to let that sink in.
Like many children growing up, I went through different phases with what interested me the most at any given moment. This led to me declaring what my career ambition would be multiple times. I remember wanting to be a pilot, paleontologist, jazz musician and even a journalist (actually, I did live that last one out for a few years before coming to my senses).
But the very first thing I wanted to be was an artist. I guess that's not too shocking considering I've lived an artistic life and only wish to continue it, hopefully making a living at it along the way. Anyone who even briefly knew me knows that I'm an artsy person. So yeah, not too shocking.
However, since about the age of nine, I've realized that I have close to zero ability when it comes to visual art. I can't draw. For one thing, I don't have the patience. Even when I make comic strips out of stick figures I find myself lamenting that it's taking too damn LONG and I just want it over with. But when I was three, four, five - I wanted to be a painter. I drew hundreds upon hundreds of pictures with my crayons, about 90% of them featuring various nature scenes, from the Triassic period to present day. Beside dinosaurs, I especially enjoyed drawing birds, trees and mountains. Remember that guy who made oil paintings in that black void? He was my hero. I watched him whenever I could and desperately attempted to imitate his method using crayola and my meager skills.
By the time I was about ten, I finally realized that the things I drew didn't look the way I wanted them to. I also had to admit that freehand, I couldn't draw a decent circle or straight line to save my life. It was just around that time that I was discovering a real talent (at least, I'd like to think of it as real) for writing. I was good at rhythm and metre and I was good at vocabulary and storytelling. I had (and have) a great memory for detail and I was adept at putting it into written words.
When I'd reached my teens, I was even able to laugh at myself when it came to my complete lack of ability at drawing and all things related. This was completely my own doing and of my own volition; I can't recall any point in my life when anyone criticized or made fun of my attempts at art. I'd just decided that it was time for me to concentrate on my strengths and let that old love go. I've never looked back.
Until now.
I don't have any plans to become a great artist. Not even a passable one. I've just decided that I've never really had much experience with any sort of paint beyond the most basic going back to art class in junior high and I guess probably finger paints years before that. My plan is simply to paint and see if i enjoy it. I have a lot of stress and anxiety...issues and I'm going to try to use painting as a means to combat it. Trust me, it's not my first line of defence. Just a diversion that I hope won't be a complete disaster.
So I'm going to post my first ever painting on this blog whenever it's finished. I promise I'll be honest. I won't show you my fourth or fifth attempt and try to pass it off as my first. Whatever winds up on the canvas will wind up on this page. God help us all.
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Action Needs an Audience: You Like to Read So...
Taking an unplanned break between books, all my reading over the past two weeks has been pretty much of the comic book variety. I've been buying more lately too and soon I'm going to need another box (that would be #8) for proper storage. So I've been a casual comic book reader for most of my life and a serious one for about the past eight years and lately I've been asking myself, "Are comics getting better?" Is that why I'm buying more?
Taking a look at what I'm currently collecting, the answer certainly isn't apparent. Over eighty percent of the books I follow and have followed over the years are Marvel, featuring superhero-types in that world. Many of the graphic novels I purchase are this too but those that are Marvel usually don't contain recent material at all. The vast majority of it comes from the eighties and nineties. As far as titles like X-Men goes, this is a direct reflection of how I feel about their state. Aside from a run of forty-some issues of the New Mutants title launched in late 2003 or early 2004, that eventually was renamed simply New X-Men (not to be confused with the title written primarily by Grant Morrison starting around 2000), I've never been able to maintain an interest in any X-book of the past decade. If I want stories featuring mutants I look to Chris Claremont and John Byrne, mostly. With some early stuff by Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld.
So I definitely don't think any of the X books are getting better but there's also a lot I simply haven't bothered with so it's fair to say I'm possibly missing out on something. I've been tinkering with the idea of picking up the newest X-Force but this will probably come to nothing.
But it's clear that I believe the Avengers have gotten a lot better. Here is a team that I have had almost zero interest in before 2004. The "big three" of Cap, Iron Man and Thor never did anything for me and even today after all that's transpired, it's only Cap whom I've changed my tune about. Brian Bendis is of course the man most responsible for this, with assists from guys like Ed Brubaker and Dan Slott here and there.
I could go on and on in this vein without really getting anywhere and possibly boring the living hell out of you so let's leave Marvel behind, shall we? Hell, let's leave superheroes behind too. Because really, as much as I love that genre and always will, I completely understand that it is the genre that simultaneously dominates and embarrasses the medium. No matter how well these titles are written, they're probably never going to escape the stigma that they carry for a lot of people. Which is unfortunate but fine.
But it's really not fine that this is probably the leading reason why so many people who love books and reading don't take an interest in comics and graphic novels. Do I have a solution? No. Really, if someone wants to deprive himself of the brilliance of something like Watchmen, Sandman, Maus or The Unwritten or any alternative comics by geniuses like Chris Ware (or how about Renee French? Look these people up!) just because they make naive assumptions about comics, then that's just his loss and I feel sorry for him. Call me a snob but if you have never read any comics or manga then I don't see how you could possibly call yourself a true fan of or authority on literature. I mean, you can be one to a point of course, but by ignoring a huge section of it, you maintain a narrow view. Then again, I can't say I've read a great deal of medieval ballads - so does that make me some kind of hypocrite? Yeah...no.
Ever since their birth, comics have been fighting an uphill battle to achieve legitimacy and respect in literary circles and sadly, it still seems like there's a ways to go. Someone recently told me that they themselves didn't read comics simply because they "didn't see the appeal". That was certainly a new one to me. Usually, if anyone had something to say on the subject, they'd talk about what they found to be unappealing. But just a lack of appeal overall? I find that hard to buy. Comics, more than any other literary medium - wears its appeal on its sleeve - it's right there. You don't have to search for it. It's front and centre. The fusion of writing and art to tell a story. Any story you can think of. I've yet to meet anyone who says they don't appreciate good art. So isn't good art appealing? Is there something about combining good art and good writing that somehow lessens their value? That seems a little screwy to me. As a pretty experienced student of the school of close reading, I figured I should take a stab at explaining comics and their appeal.
As a medium that is read, comic books relinquish a degree of control to its audience that television, movies, theatre and records do not. Even the shortest passages - maybe just one panel - are limitless in the time that they can command. The images remain frozen, the words echo on the page. Only once we've absorbed the tone and meaning do we move on. That's not something we do when reading a prose novel. A comic's inclusion of visual information is probably the major reason for its ghettoization, the idea being that words are harder earned information than pictures. But the fact is that while images do replace imagination, they also invite readers to slow down and reflect in a way that pure text never will. To me, this makes the experience of reading a comic more engaging than reading a novel. Not better. They're just different. Nothing is better than comics for delivering that one-two punch of active engagement and submissive escapism.
Since a comic book requires both acute visual and narrative talents, the comic book industry, kind of like the film industry, was facilitated by a studio system, at least in its earlier days. Comics are very rarely singular in their vision and nearly always collaborative in their creation. This makes them quite different once again from the novel, novella, play or short story. Even writer-artists have inkers, letterers (an often overlooked artform in itself) and of course, editors to work with.
But back to the actual experience. Comic books aren't a passive experience like film - it still is the imaginative, self-motivated act of reading that puts events into motion and brings characters to life. The result is an experience that we perceive through the intellectual force of text and the visual force of the image. At their best, these elements combine to create an intensity of experience that text alone can't hope to match. Of course, this isn't easily accomplished. Which is what I really believe makes comics special as a medium. While most people are happy to appreciate a pretty picture or to lose themselves in a good story, for some reason the combination creates raised expectations, if not a lack of interest that I just can't fathom.
I've always described myself as a "non visual" person and it's the truth. When recalling a person, I don't see their face flash in my mind, I hear their voice. It's often how I recognize actors in movies when they're playing roles that make them appear different. I'm pretty lousy at remembering appearance but I can't be fooled by voice. I'd much rather attend a symphony than a museum. But there is something still about the visual experience of reading that I adore. It's why I've never taken to audio books. I take great delight in how words are sometimes formed and how they look on the page. I love "oo" words like "moon", "broom", crook". Because it is so rare in English, I'm always pleased to see an "x" somewhere. This visual experience is absolutely crucial for me in reading. Here's a question for you: how often, when you're reading, do you find your eye floating to the bottom of the page to take in new information, maybe not even a full sentence, then return to where you were and continue reading forward? Sometimes I have to consciously force myself to keep my eyes from drifting ahead because I don't trust them. Comics take this experience to an even more pure level as we take in the picture up, down, to the side, up diagonally and so on, merging imagery and words effortlessly. It's not something you have to try to do; you just do it.
I've reached the end of my essay and am sorry to say I haven't been able to come up with a neat, concise conclusion. While that bugs the hell out of me, at least it will keep me from just repeating myself. If I come up with something later, I'll be sure to add it. See you in the funny pages.
Taking a look at what I'm currently collecting, the answer certainly isn't apparent. Over eighty percent of the books I follow and have followed over the years are Marvel, featuring superhero-types in that world. Many of the graphic novels I purchase are this too but those that are Marvel usually don't contain recent material at all. The vast majority of it comes from the eighties and nineties. As far as titles like X-Men goes, this is a direct reflection of how I feel about their state. Aside from a run of forty-some issues of the New Mutants title launched in late 2003 or early 2004, that eventually was renamed simply New X-Men (not to be confused with the title written primarily by Grant Morrison starting around 2000), I've never been able to maintain an interest in any X-book of the past decade. If I want stories featuring mutants I look to Chris Claremont and John Byrne, mostly. With some early stuff by Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld.
So I definitely don't think any of the X books are getting better but there's also a lot I simply haven't bothered with so it's fair to say I'm possibly missing out on something. I've been tinkering with the idea of picking up the newest X-Force but this will probably come to nothing.
But it's clear that I believe the Avengers have gotten a lot better. Here is a team that I have had almost zero interest in before 2004. The "big three" of Cap, Iron Man and Thor never did anything for me and even today after all that's transpired, it's only Cap whom I've changed my tune about. Brian Bendis is of course the man most responsible for this, with assists from guys like Ed Brubaker and Dan Slott here and there.
I could go on and on in this vein without really getting anywhere and possibly boring the living hell out of you so let's leave Marvel behind, shall we? Hell, let's leave superheroes behind too. Because really, as much as I love that genre and always will, I completely understand that it is the genre that simultaneously dominates and embarrasses the medium. No matter how well these titles are written, they're probably never going to escape the stigma that they carry for a lot of people. Which is unfortunate but fine.
But it's really not fine that this is probably the leading reason why so many people who love books and reading don't take an interest in comics and graphic novels. Do I have a solution? No. Really, if someone wants to deprive himself of the brilliance of something like Watchmen, Sandman, Maus or The Unwritten or any alternative comics by geniuses like Chris Ware (or how about Renee French? Look these people up!) just because they make naive assumptions about comics, then that's just his loss and I feel sorry for him. Call me a snob but if you have never read any comics or manga then I don't see how you could possibly call yourself a true fan of or authority on literature. I mean, you can be one to a point of course, but by ignoring a huge section of it, you maintain a narrow view. Then again, I can't say I've read a great deal of medieval ballads - so does that make me some kind of hypocrite? Yeah...no.
Ever since their birth, comics have been fighting an uphill battle to achieve legitimacy and respect in literary circles and sadly, it still seems like there's a ways to go. Someone recently told me that they themselves didn't read comics simply because they "didn't see the appeal". That was certainly a new one to me. Usually, if anyone had something to say on the subject, they'd talk about what they found to be unappealing. But just a lack of appeal overall? I find that hard to buy. Comics, more than any other literary medium - wears its appeal on its sleeve - it's right there. You don't have to search for it. It's front and centre. The fusion of writing and art to tell a story. Any story you can think of. I've yet to meet anyone who says they don't appreciate good art. So isn't good art appealing? Is there something about combining good art and good writing that somehow lessens their value? That seems a little screwy to me. As a pretty experienced student of the school of close reading, I figured I should take a stab at explaining comics and their appeal.
As a medium that is read, comic books relinquish a degree of control to its audience that television, movies, theatre and records do not. Even the shortest passages - maybe just one panel - are limitless in the time that they can command. The images remain frozen, the words echo on the page. Only once we've absorbed the tone and meaning do we move on. That's not something we do when reading a prose novel. A comic's inclusion of visual information is probably the major reason for its ghettoization, the idea being that words are harder earned information than pictures. But the fact is that while images do replace imagination, they also invite readers to slow down and reflect in a way that pure text never will. To me, this makes the experience of reading a comic more engaging than reading a novel. Not better. They're just different. Nothing is better than comics for delivering that one-two punch of active engagement and submissive escapism.
Since a comic book requires both acute visual and narrative talents, the comic book industry, kind of like the film industry, was facilitated by a studio system, at least in its earlier days. Comics are very rarely singular in their vision and nearly always collaborative in their creation. This makes them quite different once again from the novel, novella, play or short story. Even writer-artists have inkers, letterers (an often overlooked artform in itself) and of course, editors to work with.
But back to the actual experience. Comic books aren't a passive experience like film - it still is the imaginative, self-motivated act of reading that puts events into motion and brings characters to life. The result is an experience that we perceive through the intellectual force of text and the visual force of the image. At their best, these elements combine to create an intensity of experience that text alone can't hope to match. Of course, this isn't easily accomplished. Which is what I really believe makes comics special as a medium. While most people are happy to appreciate a pretty picture or to lose themselves in a good story, for some reason the combination creates raised expectations, if not a lack of interest that I just can't fathom.
I've always described myself as a "non visual" person and it's the truth. When recalling a person, I don't see their face flash in my mind, I hear their voice. It's often how I recognize actors in movies when they're playing roles that make them appear different. I'm pretty lousy at remembering appearance but I can't be fooled by voice. I'd much rather attend a symphony than a museum. But there is something still about the visual experience of reading that I adore. It's why I've never taken to audio books. I take great delight in how words are sometimes formed and how they look on the page. I love "oo" words like "moon", "broom", crook". Because it is so rare in English, I'm always pleased to see an "x" somewhere. This visual experience is absolutely crucial for me in reading. Here's a question for you: how often, when you're reading, do you find your eye floating to the bottom of the page to take in new information, maybe not even a full sentence, then return to where you were and continue reading forward? Sometimes I have to consciously force myself to keep my eyes from drifting ahead because I don't trust them. Comics take this experience to an even more pure level as we take in the picture up, down, to the side, up diagonally and so on, merging imagery and words effortlessly. It's not something you have to try to do; you just do it.
I've reached the end of my essay and am sorry to say I haven't been able to come up with a neat, concise conclusion. While that bugs the hell out of me, at least it will keep me from just repeating myself. If I come up with something later, I'll be sure to add it. See you in the funny pages.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Walk to the Water
It's four am. I just got in from my walk. It's a walk I've been doing for the last three years. Mother doesn't like that I do it. She insists I shouldn't be "wandering the streets" late at night. She doesn't understand that I need to do it.
But unlike most nights when I take my walk to the water, I eschewed my headphones. I needed to think, even more than usual. I also kept my hood down and let the cold wind hit my face. I always do a lot of thinking on this walk but I guess something made me more pensive tonight than usual.
It could have been the fight I had with my father a few days ago. It didn't involve much; I simply angrily stormed off after reaching my limit for tolerance of his sarcasm. I understand that at the moment, his father is in the process of, well, dying, and maybe I should have cut him some slack. It's just that I've heard this from him many times before. Apparently, I don't do anything with my life. I never leave my apartment or do anything worthwhile. All I do is waste time and money. He got especially annoyed when I said I would walk home from the hotel rather than taking a cab. I don't like cabs, especially when it's a walk that I can do easily enough. But my discomfort with taxis is just one more of my faults in his eyes.
So anyway tonight I did my walk to the water. It always takes me onto the boardwalk at a certain point near Bishop's Landing. Years ago, I used to do that part with Anne, except that it was usually around sunset, the one time of day when Halifax Harbour can look halfway scenic (although I suppose it must also at sunrise). I think I've seen more sunrises than a lot of people. But back to Anne and I (something long dead) - we used to look at Bishop's Landing and talk about the future; our future. I was in my mid twenties and she was in her early, and we both wanted something beyond being students or kids with low-paying jobs. We wanted careers and status. We wanted to live somewhere nice and own nice things. We wanted security and comfort. We talked about me being successfully published and us moving into ritzy Bishop's Landing. But even that would be temporary. I knew Anne didn't want to always live in the city. She's an outdoorsy type who wants a big yard and a million pets. I hope someday she gets those things. Well, she already has a million pets but she wants horses, for Christ's sake. I hope she gets everything she's ever wanted.
Back when I was with Anne, I believed in my writing. Nowadays, it seems to get harder and harder to do that. So maybe that's why I get especially upset and defensive when someone like my father expresses their own doubts. On the walk tonight, I thought of all these things and decided the best thing I could do would be to be write about it when I got back. So here I am.
Walt Disney said "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." While I've been writing, I realize it's rarely come close to the level that's required if I'm really going to make it work. So here goes.
But unlike most nights when I take my walk to the water, I eschewed my headphones. I needed to think, even more than usual. I also kept my hood down and let the cold wind hit my face. I always do a lot of thinking on this walk but I guess something made me more pensive tonight than usual.
It could have been the fight I had with my father a few days ago. It didn't involve much; I simply angrily stormed off after reaching my limit for tolerance of his sarcasm. I understand that at the moment, his father is in the process of, well, dying, and maybe I should have cut him some slack. It's just that I've heard this from him many times before. Apparently, I don't do anything with my life. I never leave my apartment or do anything worthwhile. All I do is waste time and money. He got especially annoyed when I said I would walk home from the hotel rather than taking a cab. I don't like cabs, especially when it's a walk that I can do easily enough. But my discomfort with taxis is just one more of my faults in his eyes.
So anyway tonight I did my walk to the water. It always takes me onto the boardwalk at a certain point near Bishop's Landing. Years ago, I used to do that part with Anne, except that it was usually around sunset, the one time of day when Halifax Harbour can look halfway scenic (although I suppose it must also at sunrise). I think I've seen more sunrises than a lot of people. But back to Anne and I (something long dead) - we used to look at Bishop's Landing and talk about the future; our future. I was in my mid twenties and she was in her early, and we both wanted something beyond being students or kids with low-paying jobs. We wanted careers and status. We wanted to live somewhere nice and own nice things. We wanted security and comfort. We talked about me being successfully published and us moving into ritzy Bishop's Landing. But even that would be temporary. I knew Anne didn't want to always live in the city. She's an outdoorsy type who wants a big yard and a million pets. I hope someday she gets those things. Well, she already has a million pets but she wants horses, for Christ's sake. I hope she gets everything she's ever wanted.
Back when I was with Anne, I believed in my writing. Nowadays, it seems to get harder and harder to do that. So maybe that's why I get especially upset and defensive when someone like my father expresses their own doubts. On the walk tonight, I thought of all these things and decided the best thing I could do would be to be write about it when I got back. So here I am.
Walt Disney said "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." While I've been writing, I realize it's rarely come close to the level that's required if I'm really going to make it work. So here goes.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The Dark Staircase - Complete
Yes, I finished something. Technically, the story has been done for a long time. But it wasn't done. Now it is. I have no idea what to do with it. I started writing it years ago for very personal reasons. Those reasons don't mean much anymore and I guess that's why it took me so damn long to finish a story that's only thirteen thousand words. If you search this blog you can find an early excerpt.
I think it's good though. I think it's publishable. I really think it's that good. I suppose it requires still more editing and revising but not much. The main problem I'm facing now is I don't know who to show it to. I'd like a few outside opinions before I do anything official with it but uncopyrighted works are a tricky business (not that I believe anyone I'd show the story to would steal it from me or anything) and also I guess I just feel bad that the person I actually wrote it for in the first place isn't going to be reading it.
But it's done. I'll figure something out and hopefully then I will give the story to the world. You know, like a writer.
I think it's good though. I think it's publishable. I really think it's that good. I suppose it requires still more editing and revising but not much. The main problem I'm facing now is I don't know who to show it to. I'd like a few outside opinions before I do anything official with it but uncopyrighted works are a tricky business (not that I believe anyone I'd show the story to would steal it from me or anything) and also I guess I just feel bad that the person I actually wrote it for in the first place isn't going to be reading it.
But it's done. I'll figure something out and hopefully then I will give the story to the world. You know, like a writer.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Vampire Problem
As you know, the most major of all my projects is V World (working title), a novel that features a sprawling narrative with multiple points of view in the tradition of books like The Stand (Stephen King). It's set in contemporary twenty-first century America (2008, actually) but features many supernatural elements. The most prevalent of these elements is the presence of vampires.
I started writing the novel in November of 2006 (sad, I know) and can't really say I had the intention of writing a "vampire novel". I simply wanted antagonists with a supernatural element and I chose something familiar and comfortable. I was just going to take all my favourite things about vampires I've read in books or seen in movies and videogames and combine them. At the time, none of this seemed complicated. The novel itself seemed endlessly complicated because even from the very start I had a fairly clear idea of how many different main characters and plot elements I wanted to include. But the vampires seemed like simplicity itself really.
But now I don't know. I realize it's silly to suggest that the vampire's place in popular culture today has really changed so much in three years and yet that's how it feels. The popular Twilight novels have been made into one film so far with more to follow. The Blood Books series is now a television series, Blood Ties. The books are by Canadian author, Tanya Huff, who was actually born in Halifax. The books were written in the nineties but it was in 2007 that they were adapted for tv. Coincidence? I'm starting to think not.
Less than a year later, another television series based on vampire books surfaced. This is True Blood, based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries series of novels by Charlaine Harris. The main thrust of this one is a human psychic falling in love with a vampire.
Notice how all these recent movies and shows are based on vampire books written by women? Yeah, so did I. Thanks, Anne Rice. Blah.
There's also some new show called The Vampire Diaries that's airing on MuchMusic of all channels so I figure this is some sort of blatant Twilight ripoff - can you imagine? So much of this kind of stuff creates tons and tons of horrible fan fic but probably the saddest thing about Twilight is that it reads exactly as if it was fan fic itself.
I have no idea when I'm going to finish this damn book but I vow here and now that finish it I shall. It's just that the current climate in literature and pop culture is oversaturated with stuff featuring vampires and I can just picture the reluctance of a publisher to release my novel. Even though I definitely wouldn't call it a vampire novel. Vampires are just...there.
So where will my novel fit into all of this? Hopefully far, far outside of it. My vampires regard humans as food and toys, nothing more. They do not fall in love with them or even treat them halfway decently. They enslave them, torture them and kill them. My humans will fight back, not swoon and prostrate themselves before the Almighty Sexy Vampire. Don't worry though - there's some sex in the book. Aw yeah.
I started writing the novel in November of 2006 (sad, I know) and can't really say I had the intention of writing a "vampire novel". I simply wanted antagonists with a supernatural element and I chose something familiar and comfortable. I was just going to take all my favourite things about vampires I've read in books or seen in movies and videogames and combine them. At the time, none of this seemed complicated. The novel itself seemed endlessly complicated because even from the very start I had a fairly clear idea of how many different main characters and plot elements I wanted to include. But the vampires seemed like simplicity itself really.
But now I don't know. I realize it's silly to suggest that the vampire's place in popular culture today has really changed so much in three years and yet that's how it feels. The popular Twilight novels have been made into one film so far with more to follow. The Blood Books series is now a television series, Blood Ties. The books are by Canadian author, Tanya Huff, who was actually born in Halifax. The books were written in the nineties but it was in 2007 that they were adapted for tv. Coincidence? I'm starting to think not.
Less than a year later, another television series based on vampire books surfaced. This is True Blood, based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries series of novels by Charlaine Harris. The main thrust of this one is a human psychic falling in love with a vampire.
Notice how all these recent movies and shows are based on vampire books written by women? Yeah, so did I. Thanks, Anne Rice. Blah.
There's also some new show called The Vampire Diaries that's airing on MuchMusic of all channels so I figure this is some sort of blatant Twilight ripoff - can you imagine? So much of this kind of stuff creates tons and tons of horrible fan fic but probably the saddest thing about Twilight is that it reads exactly as if it was fan fic itself.
I have no idea when I'm going to finish this damn book but I vow here and now that finish it I shall. It's just that the current climate in literature and pop culture is oversaturated with stuff featuring vampires and I can just picture the reluctance of a publisher to release my novel. Even though I definitely wouldn't call it a vampire novel. Vampires are just...there.
So where will my novel fit into all of this? Hopefully far, far outside of it. My vampires regard humans as food and toys, nothing more. They do not fall in love with them or even treat them halfway decently. They enslave them, torture them and kill them. My humans will fight back, not swoon and prostrate themselves before the Almighty Sexy Vampire. Don't worry though - there's some sex in the book. Aw yeah.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Work
I just read the latest post on Charlie Huston's site, (pulpnoir.com) a place I don't visit as often as I should because as he's someone I'd like to emulate, I feel like so far I'm doing a really horrible job. But anyway, you can check it out here. This time I'll actually try to draw inspiration instead of simply feeling defeated. It really shouldn't be too difficult - come on, Cole, you want to be a bartender till you're forty and only sometime after that become a writer? Get off your ass.
Because so far I really haven't. I mean, this blog is pretty good proof of that.
So I will be trying to make a fresh start right here, right now. I have ideas in my head and stories in my heart - that's never been the problem. The problem has been initiative and discipline. There's no magic way to develop those things, you just have to bear down. So this is me, bearing down. And you get to see some of it. Lucky you.
Because so far I really haven't. I mean, this blog is pretty good proof of that.
So I will be trying to make a fresh start right here, right now. I have ideas in my head and stories in my heart - that's never been the problem. The problem has been initiative and discipline. There's no magic way to develop those things, you just have to bear down. So this is me, bearing down. And you get to see some of it. Lucky you.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
From The Page to The Screen
I went to see Zack Snyder's much-anticipated movie adaptation of celebrated graphic novel, Watchmen last weekend and was, for the most part, pleased. Almost immediately after its release in 1987, speculation ran rampant concerning if it could be put to film successfully. I consider myself to be one of the bigger Watchmen fans out there, of my generation at least. I didn't read it until 2004 but I bought it immediately (in paperback graphic novel form) and have read it six times to date. So the idea of a movie being based on such a great work both thrilled and terrified me. Now, I know that even if the movie was absolutely horrible, it can't change the fact that the novel is amazing. But still, I think most fans of any work in any medium would hate to see it reduced to something less in another form.
So I'll quit screwing around here and get to it: do I think the movie should be considered a success? Well, I guess I already gave that away by earlier stating that I was "mostly pleased" with it. Ok, yes, I think it was a success. I believe it could have been better. But I still believe it was very close to what I wanted. I won't get into what I liked and didn't like, this isn't a review. I just wanted to talk about Alan Moore's well-known complete lack of involvement in the making of the movie, right down to vowing that he'll never even WATCH it. Ever. Just like the film version of V For Vendetta (another success in my opinion, albeit on a much smaller scale as the source material was far easier to adapt), you'll find Moore's name absolutely nowhere within the credits. Only artist Dave Gibbons is credited but this is at Moore's own insistence. I don't actually know Moore's reason(s) for not being completely opposed to film versions of his works (in that he doesn't keep them from being made) but I figure it mostly comes down to these two: as a writer who always works with at least one artist, he cannot claim sole ownership of the property and...money. Moore's name may not appear in the credits of any film based on his work but you can bet he still receives some of the revenue said films generate. I think he sold the rights so they could made into movies so I don't think royalties apply but my point is their being made into films has made him money. And that's fine. I'm not here to say Moore's a douche or that he shouldn't be allowed to do or not do whatever he chooses with his own creative property. As a writer I plan to make damn sure that I maintain creative and legal control over any works I produce.
But I will say that in my own humble opinion, I believe that Moore is wrong. His original intentions regarding the film based on V For Vendetta remain mostly unclear: he's had various disputes with DC over the licensing thing and this caused him to leave the publisher behind. But various sources claim that Moore was initially supportive of efforts to make movies from V For Vendetta and Watchmen and reversed his position years later. I don't know. I have no idea what to believe. But then they made V For Vendetta, without his involvement but also without his forbiddence, and Moore had this, among other things to say: "the [book] had specifically been about things like fascism and anarchy. Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy', occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country." (this quote can be found on wikipedia) So he wasn't happy with it. Fine. But maybe he WOULD have been happy with it if he'd involved himself somewhat in its production.
As near as I can figure, Moore doesn't choose to do this simply because he doesn't believe in the medium of film, insofar as adaptations of comics and and graphic novels go anyway. Again, if that's his belief, that's cool. It's just that Moore decided to find fault with V For Vendetta for reasons that had nothing to do with its medium; basically he criticized the film's producers for what he perceived to be mistakes. Mistakes that could have been avoided if he'd chose to involve himself in the making of the film.
Why I think Moore is wrong is because he seems to be contradicting himself. Either he believes his works are unfilmable or he doesn't. And yet it's clear that at least some of the flaws he found in V For Vendetta were not a cause, direct or indirect, of the medium of film. It seems to me that Moore can say others can adapt his works if they wish but he doesn't care to involve himself because he believes said works won't work on film - that's fine with me - but he does this and then finds other things to bitch about.
As far as Watchmen goes, I guess Moore figured they were going to fuck it up so badly that he'd make sure to never even watch it. A few months ago, in an interview with Tripwire magazine, Snyder said this about Moore's position on the movie: "Worst case scenario - Alan puts the movie in his DVD player on a cold Sunday in London and watches and says, 'Yeah, that doesn't suck too bad." When Moore got wind of this, he replied: "That's the worst case scenario? I think he's understimated what the worst case scenario would be...that's never going to happen in my DVD player in 'London' [Moore lives in North Hampton]. I'm never going to watch this fucking thing." (I read this in Wizard #209)
As I said, he can do or not do whatever he likes. And if he doesn't want to watch the movie, that's all well and good. But I think he is wrong in his decision to distance himself from movie versions of his works. Anyone who knows me is well aware of my position of movies based on comics and novels - they never replace the source material, they never represent it as well and they are never better. People have heard me rant endlessly on this and yet...I am still a fan of movies and am not often personally against movie adaptations of comics and books I like. I guess efforts like the movie versions of Akira and Jurassic Park - quite different from their source material but still really good - give me hope.
Maybe that's the difference between Moore and myself - while I also don't really believe in the medium of film when it comes to translation of stories originally told through text and art, I still LIKE films. So I usually want them to try. I simply lower my expectations and hope for the best. Which is precisely what I did for Watchmen and I came out mostly happy. And you'd have to be an idiot to read into this that I think we should just always be ready to settle for less when it comes to movies based on comics and books, that we should accept mediocrity. I am not saying that all. What we should be willing to accept is the limitations of a medium, whatever it may be.
A staggering amount of Stephen King's works have been put to film. And a staggering amount of them are bad. And even the best efforts are easily inferior to their original forms. But King still greenlights this stuff. I wish I had the exact quote but King recently said he does this because he's a big believer in "what if" as well as different perspectives. He was actually speaking in reference to some of his stuff being turned into comics there but I know it applies to the movies as well. And what he didn't say there is something that's well-known anyway: Stephen King is a big fan of movies. And I truly think this is his main motivation behind his decision to allow so many of his books to be made into movies, even though he knows they will ultimately fall short.
As near as I can figure, Alan Moore is NOT a fan of movies. Again, that's cool. I'm not condemning him for a personal preference like that. But it seems to me Moore has two options when it comes to movies based on his stuff - he can either involve himself in their production and try his best to help the film makers to come up with something that truly represents his creations or he can flat out refuse to allow something he made to be adapted into a medium he personally doesn't care for or believe in. But what he seems to be choosing to do is sit somewhere in the middle, telling people they can adapt his stuff and he'll sell the rights and get his money one way or another but at the same time he'll make his disdain for their efforts well known.
My feeling is that if I ever write some stuff that's worth a damn and the question of will I allow it to be put on screen comes up, I'll either throw myself head-first into the production and work with people to adapt it as best as possible, according to my own feelings OR I will just say, "no thankyou, I don't believe this will work on film and don't want to see an inferior version of my story" and I'll do whatever it takes to ensure no film ever comes about. Moore is a strange man but also in many ways, a brilliant man. I can't pretend to know everything about him and I can't pretend to understand him. But I do think that in this instance, he is wrong. It's not as if anything I say could bother him. If you saw Watchmen and liked it, read the novel. If you saw Watchmen and didn't care for it, read the novel.
So I'll quit screwing around here and get to it: do I think the movie should be considered a success? Well, I guess I already gave that away by earlier stating that I was "mostly pleased" with it. Ok, yes, I think it was a success. I believe it could have been better. But I still believe it was very close to what I wanted. I won't get into what I liked and didn't like, this isn't a review. I just wanted to talk about Alan Moore's well-known complete lack of involvement in the making of the movie, right down to vowing that he'll never even WATCH it. Ever. Just like the film version of V For Vendetta (another success in my opinion, albeit on a much smaller scale as the source material was far easier to adapt), you'll find Moore's name absolutely nowhere within the credits. Only artist Dave Gibbons is credited but this is at Moore's own insistence. I don't actually know Moore's reason(s) for not being completely opposed to film versions of his works (in that he doesn't keep them from being made) but I figure it mostly comes down to these two: as a writer who always works with at least one artist, he cannot claim sole ownership of the property and...money. Moore's name may not appear in the credits of any film based on his work but you can bet he still receives some of the revenue said films generate. I think he sold the rights so they could made into movies so I don't think royalties apply but my point is their being made into films has made him money. And that's fine. I'm not here to say Moore's a douche or that he shouldn't be allowed to do or not do whatever he chooses with his own creative property. As a writer I plan to make damn sure that I maintain creative and legal control over any works I produce.
But I will say that in my own humble opinion, I believe that Moore is wrong. His original intentions regarding the film based on V For Vendetta remain mostly unclear: he's had various disputes with DC over the licensing thing and this caused him to leave the publisher behind. But various sources claim that Moore was initially supportive of efforts to make movies from V For Vendetta and Watchmen and reversed his position years later. I don't know. I have no idea what to believe. But then they made V For Vendetta, without his involvement but also without his forbiddence, and Moore had this, among other things to say: "the [book] had specifically been about things like fascism and anarchy. Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy', occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country." (this quote can be found on wikipedia) So he wasn't happy with it. Fine. But maybe he WOULD have been happy with it if he'd involved himself somewhat in its production.
As near as I can figure, Moore doesn't choose to do this simply because he doesn't believe in the medium of film, insofar as adaptations of comics and and graphic novels go anyway. Again, if that's his belief, that's cool. It's just that Moore decided to find fault with V For Vendetta for reasons that had nothing to do with its medium; basically he criticized the film's producers for what he perceived to be mistakes. Mistakes that could have been avoided if he'd chose to involve himself in the making of the film.
Why I think Moore is wrong is because he seems to be contradicting himself. Either he believes his works are unfilmable or he doesn't. And yet it's clear that at least some of the flaws he found in V For Vendetta were not a cause, direct or indirect, of the medium of film. It seems to me that Moore can say others can adapt his works if they wish but he doesn't care to involve himself because he believes said works won't work on film - that's fine with me - but he does this and then finds other things to bitch about.
As far as Watchmen goes, I guess Moore figured they were going to fuck it up so badly that he'd make sure to never even watch it. A few months ago, in an interview with Tripwire magazine, Snyder said this about Moore's position on the movie: "Worst case scenario - Alan puts the movie in his DVD player on a cold Sunday in London and watches and says, 'Yeah, that doesn't suck too bad." When Moore got wind of this, he replied: "That's the worst case scenario? I think he's understimated what the worst case scenario would be...that's never going to happen in my DVD player in 'London' [Moore lives in North Hampton]. I'm never going to watch this fucking thing." (I read this in Wizard #209)
As I said, he can do or not do whatever he likes. And if he doesn't want to watch the movie, that's all well and good. But I think he is wrong in his decision to distance himself from movie versions of his works. Anyone who knows me is well aware of my position of movies based on comics and novels - they never replace the source material, they never represent it as well and they are never better. People have heard me rant endlessly on this and yet...I am still a fan of movies and am not often personally against movie adaptations of comics and books I like. I guess efforts like the movie versions of Akira and Jurassic Park - quite different from their source material but still really good - give me hope.
Maybe that's the difference between Moore and myself - while I also don't really believe in the medium of film when it comes to translation of stories originally told through text and art, I still LIKE films. So I usually want them to try. I simply lower my expectations and hope for the best. Which is precisely what I did for Watchmen and I came out mostly happy. And you'd have to be an idiot to read into this that I think we should just always be ready to settle for less when it comes to movies based on comics and books, that we should accept mediocrity. I am not saying that all. What we should be willing to accept is the limitations of a medium, whatever it may be.
A staggering amount of Stephen King's works have been put to film. And a staggering amount of them are bad. And even the best efforts are easily inferior to their original forms. But King still greenlights this stuff. I wish I had the exact quote but King recently said he does this because he's a big believer in "what if" as well as different perspectives. He was actually speaking in reference to some of his stuff being turned into comics there but I know it applies to the movies as well. And what he didn't say there is something that's well-known anyway: Stephen King is a big fan of movies. And I truly think this is his main motivation behind his decision to allow so many of his books to be made into movies, even though he knows they will ultimately fall short.
As near as I can figure, Alan Moore is NOT a fan of movies. Again, that's cool. I'm not condemning him for a personal preference like that. But it seems to me Moore has two options when it comes to movies based on his stuff - he can either involve himself in their production and try his best to help the film makers to come up with something that truly represents his creations or he can flat out refuse to allow something he made to be adapted into a medium he personally doesn't care for or believe in. But what he seems to be choosing to do is sit somewhere in the middle, telling people they can adapt his stuff and he'll sell the rights and get his money one way or another but at the same time he'll make his disdain for their efforts well known.
My feeling is that if I ever write some stuff that's worth a damn and the question of will I allow it to be put on screen comes up, I'll either throw myself head-first into the production and work with people to adapt it as best as possible, according to my own feelings OR I will just say, "no thankyou, I don't believe this will work on film and don't want to see an inferior version of my story" and I'll do whatever it takes to ensure no film ever comes about. Moore is a strange man but also in many ways, a brilliant man. I can't pretend to know everything about him and I can't pretend to understand him. But I do think that in this instance, he is wrong. It's not as if anything I say could bother him. If you saw Watchmen and liked it, read the novel. If you saw Watchmen and didn't care for it, read the novel.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Leia's Story
Leia came to us in the spring of 1999. I was finishing up grade ten. My sister had seen her picture in the paper and cut it out. She and my mother picked her up from the SPCA and brought her home. I found out about it on the way to UCCB (now called Cape Breton University) to play with my high school's jazz band in the lobby during an art show.
We weren't a cat family. Since my parents' marriage in 1977, we'd only had dogs, a bird and two iguanas. At the time, we'd had our current dog and second bichon frise, Vicki, for just over three years. But apparently my sister had had it in her head for some time (unbeknownst to me) that she wanted a kitten. So Leia, a tiny tortoise shell kitten with thick fur and a bottle brush tail came home to live with us.
It took Vicki four days of hyperventilating while one of us held onto her and a private discussion with Mother to get with the program that there was going to be a cat in the family. Leia, perhaps weighing a pound at the time, took no notice of Vicki and calmly explored the house, often getting lost in various corners causing us to embark on frantic searches for her. She was comfortable right away and never appeared nervous or frightened. She loved all of us as instantly as we loved her.
For the first few days, we wondered if she was mute as she hadn't uttered a sound. Soon she began purring. And purring and purring. But this didn't prove she had a voice. I think it was at least a week before she spoke, emitting what would become her signature chirp. This was a kitten that NEVER meowed or mewed. We could only theorize that she'd never learned how, although we'd never believed that was the sort of thing a feline had to learn. Whatever the case, for her entire life, Leia would rarely speak, purring often and loudly (even while eating) and occasionally chirping when something grabbed her attention or if she was pleased. But meows and mews were never her thing. Only a car trip - always a traumatic experience for her - would produce sounds of any similarity.
She was perfect from the moment she arrived. She instantly understood the purpose of her litter box and never had an accident at any point in her life. Once Vicki understood that Leia was ours, they became instant friends, sharing the water dish (Leia would always wait patiently for Vicki to finish drinking first if they ever arrived at the same time) and playing together every day. Leia remains the single kindest creature I have ever encountered in my life. She never got angry and she never expressed herself in any way other than as happy, friendly and loving. You could pick her up any way any time. You could hold her however you chose. Leia trusted all of us implicitly and was always glad to be petted and held.
My sister left for university after that first summer. So Leia began sleeping with me. Her favourite position was into my back as I lay on my side. She would wake me up by gently, always politely, tapping my face with a paw. Then she would leap off the bad, give a chirp and walk in circles until I gave her my attention so she could eat. That was the thing about Leia - in order to eat, she required an audience. At first she'd be forcing me to follow her downstairs to the kitchen at six in the morning to stand there and supervise while she ate her breakfast. I quickly learned to keep an extra food dish in my room for this. However, my being in the same room just wasn't enough - I STILL had to get out of bed and stand there, sometimes even pat her back, in order for her to settle down and eat her food.
After two years of this, I also left for university and Leia would find acceptance on my parents' bed. Vicki, ever the jealous type, was not initially pleased with this development but as always was the case when it came to Leia, she would come to accept the situation.
Leia was unique and beautiful for a million reasons. She always drank so daintily, first testing the water with a paw. She would tentatively dip a paw in then lick some water off it before finally deciding to lower her head and lap in the traditional manner. And in this she was extremely slow. While Vicki (and later, Wednesday, my cat) would simply plunge her head in and slurp and slop until she had slaked her thirst, Leia lapped very slowly. It wasn't uncommon for her to be crouched at the water dish for over five minutes to take a drink.
She loved toys and her favourites would be these plain, yellow ducks that were initially on strings. But she would chew the strings off then simply pick up the duck in her mouth, bat it around with her front paws, or, when she really got going, lie on her back grasping the duck with all four paws, sometimes kicking it with her hind feet. It was always a joy to play with Leia or just watch her but you had to be careful; if Leia ever found herself especially intense in her sport but then noticed she was being watched, she would very quickly cease this activity and walk away with her tail held high, as if trying to convince us it had never happened at all. Before this I'd never known that a cat could be embarrassed. But it was very important to Leia to appear dignified at all times in front of us.
Vicki would chase her and she would chase Vicki. They took turns. Sometimes Vicki would be lying on the floor asleep and Leia would come bounding in, sometimes hopping sideways, then leap onto Vicki and use the prone dog as a springboard, catapulting off her before running from the room or leaping onto a piece of furniture. Vicki would scramble to her feet in a fit of confusion, looking around dimly while Leia was already well out of sight. And Leia really did love Vicki. She would often jump onto the kitchen table to observe Vicki when she was put outside. It was clear she was concerned about the dog being out of the house (a place Leia never dared to venture) and I'm sure that sometimes she watched also in an effort to remind us that Vicki was out there - that she didn't trust us to remember to let Vicki back in on our own. She never in her life hissed or growled at Vicki; not even on those few occasions where the dog might have deserved it.
Leia is the only pet I know that would actually pose for photos. She must have had some understanding of her own physical beauty and it was clear she was very proud of her appearance. Unlike Wednesday, she was an almost obsessive groomer, constantly tidying her fur.
She loved her family and loved people in general. There was nothing solitary about her - she was always wherever we were and was very rarely alone in the house. She always came when called and had a very good understanding of English, better than many people I've met (and I'm speaking of Anglophones).
Her illness and eventual death are also a part of her story but it's not what I want to relate here. She was taken from us far too soon and I'll miss her for the rest of my life. Without Leia paving the way, we never would have gotten Wednesday, whom I love and adore just as much.
Leia will always be in my memory and my heart, not just as my cat and my pet but also as the most shining example of pure kindness I've observed so far in my life. She truly was an extraordinary creature and my words here could never do her proper justice. But I still wanted to try.
We weren't a cat family. Since my parents' marriage in 1977, we'd only had dogs, a bird and two iguanas. At the time, we'd had our current dog and second bichon frise, Vicki, for just over three years. But apparently my sister had had it in her head for some time (unbeknownst to me) that she wanted a kitten. So Leia, a tiny tortoise shell kitten with thick fur and a bottle brush tail came home to live with us.
It took Vicki four days of hyperventilating while one of us held onto her and a private discussion with Mother to get with the program that there was going to be a cat in the family. Leia, perhaps weighing a pound at the time, took no notice of Vicki and calmly explored the house, often getting lost in various corners causing us to embark on frantic searches for her. She was comfortable right away and never appeared nervous or frightened. She loved all of us as instantly as we loved her.
For the first few days, we wondered if she was mute as she hadn't uttered a sound. Soon she began purring. And purring and purring. But this didn't prove she had a voice. I think it was at least a week before she spoke, emitting what would become her signature chirp. This was a kitten that NEVER meowed or mewed. We could only theorize that she'd never learned how, although we'd never believed that was the sort of thing a feline had to learn. Whatever the case, for her entire life, Leia would rarely speak, purring often and loudly (even while eating) and occasionally chirping when something grabbed her attention or if she was pleased. But meows and mews were never her thing. Only a car trip - always a traumatic experience for her - would produce sounds of any similarity.
She was perfect from the moment she arrived. She instantly understood the purpose of her litter box and never had an accident at any point in her life. Once Vicki understood that Leia was ours, they became instant friends, sharing the water dish (Leia would always wait patiently for Vicki to finish drinking first if they ever arrived at the same time) and playing together every day. Leia remains the single kindest creature I have ever encountered in my life. She never got angry and she never expressed herself in any way other than as happy, friendly and loving. You could pick her up any way any time. You could hold her however you chose. Leia trusted all of us implicitly and was always glad to be petted and held.
My sister left for university after that first summer. So Leia began sleeping with me. Her favourite position was into my back as I lay on my side. She would wake me up by gently, always politely, tapping my face with a paw. Then she would leap off the bad, give a chirp and walk in circles until I gave her my attention so she could eat. That was the thing about Leia - in order to eat, she required an audience. At first she'd be forcing me to follow her downstairs to the kitchen at six in the morning to stand there and supervise while she ate her breakfast. I quickly learned to keep an extra food dish in my room for this. However, my being in the same room just wasn't enough - I STILL had to get out of bed and stand there, sometimes even pat her back, in order for her to settle down and eat her food.
After two years of this, I also left for university and Leia would find acceptance on my parents' bed. Vicki, ever the jealous type, was not initially pleased with this development but as always was the case when it came to Leia, she would come to accept the situation.
Leia was unique and beautiful for a million reasons. She always drank so daintily, first testing the water with a paw. She would tentatively dip a paw in then lick some water off it before finally deciding to lower her head and lap in the traditional manner. And in this she was extremely slow. While Vicki (and later, Wednesday, my cat) would simply plunge her head in and slurp and slop until she had slaked her thirst, Leia lapped very slowly. It wasn't uncommon for her to be crouched at the water dish for over five minutes to take a drink.
She loved toys and her favourites would be these plain, yellow ducks that were initially on strings. But she would chew the strings off then simply pick up the duck in her mouth, bat it around with her front paws, or, when she really got going, lie on her back grasping the duck with all four paws, sometimes kicking it with her hind feet. It was always a joy to play with Leia or just watch her but you had to be careful; if Leia ever found herself especially intense in her sport but then noticed she was being watched, she would very quickly cease this activity and walk away with her tail held high, as if trying to convince us it had never happened at all. Before this I'd never known that a cat could be embarrassed. But it was very important to Leia to appear dignified at all times in front of us.
Vicki would chase her and she would chase Vicki. They took turns. Sometimes Vicki would be lying on the floor asleep and Leia would come bounding in, sometimes hopping sideways, then leap onto Vicki and use the prone dog as a springboard, catapulting off her before running from the room or leaping onto a piece of furniture. Vicki would scramble to her feet in a fit of confusion, looking around dimly while Leia was already well out of sight. And Leia really did love Vicki. She would often jump onto the kitchen table to observe Vicki when she was put outside. It was clear she was concerned about the dog being out of the house (a place Leia never dared to venture) and I'm sure that sometimes she watched also in an effort to remind us that Vicki was out there - that she didn't trust us to remember to let Vicki back in on our own. She never in her life hissed or growled at Vicki; not even on those few occasions where the dog might have deserved it.
Leia is the only pet I know that would actually pose for photos. She must have had some understanding of her own physical beauty and it was clear she was very proud of her appearance. Unlike Wednesday, she was an almost obsessive groomer, constantly tidying her fur.
She loved her family and loved people in general. There was nothing solitary about her - she was always wherever we were and was very rarely alone in the house. She always came when called and had a very good understanding of English, better than many people I've met (and I'm speaking of Anglophones).
Her illness and eventual death are also a part of her story but it's not what I want to relate here. She was taken from us far too soon and I'll miss her for the rest of my life. Without Leia paving the way, we never would have gotten Wednesday, whom I love and adore just as much.
Leia will always be in my memory and my heart, not just as my cat and my pet but also as the most shining example of pure kindness I've observed so far in my life. She truly was an extraordinary creature and my words here could never do her proper justice. But I still wanted to try.
Friday, November 7, 2008
in Memory of
I'm feeling guilty because my cat (one of the two), Leia, passed away on October 10th at the much too young age of nine and I'd been meaning to write about her here because writing is how I deal with these kinds of things and she obviously made a huge impact on my life. She was a truly extraordinary creature and I will tell you her story very soon. I promise.
But I'm feeling guilty because what's moved me to FINALLY write something here is the death of someone who was not a member of my family. I'm talking about Michael Crichton, who you'll remember is one of my listed authors on this page, who passed away a few days ago after a private battle with lung cancer. As it hadn't been publicly known until....well, the end there, I was shocked when the news reached me. He was 66 but certainly didn't look it from recent photos I've seen. Anyway, you can criticize this guy and put him in the same category as someone like Tom Clancy, who sells a lot of books without ever doing any especially good writing, relying almost completely on technical knowledge to drive his stories. But I disagree. Here was a storyteller of the highest calibre who put absolutely everything he had into his craft. There are so many great authors I want to emulate and Crichton is no exception....but I also realize my own limitations and know that I could never match him for his scientific knowledge and imagination where such is concerned. I don't think I'll ever write a book or comic or even short story that requires the degree of research and know-how that Crichton poured into pretty much everything he ever did. He was a master of the "techno-thriller" and I'm not about to challenge that myself. I'll stick to simpler fiction and fantasy, thanks.
I'm pretty sure in an early post I mentioned that reading Jurassic Park was a huge event in my life. Well, it was. Firstly, intelligent as I was as a kid, I was basically too young to properly absorb and appreciate it the first time through. To be fair, I was barely ten. But like any book that I really enjoyed, I revisisted it again and again over the years. I'm twenty-five now and I'll estimate I've read Jurassic Park somewhere around seven times so far. Obviously, the biggest attraction was simply the dinosaurs but I discovered so much more between those pages.
It may well have been Crichton who first impressed upon me how useful character backstory can be if done right. What I recall best is an account of the book's Dr. Woo - an Ingen scientist chiefly responsible for developing the cloning techniques used to create real dinosaurs. There's a digression of about two pages or so that takes us back in time and tells us of Woo as he first graduates university and begins his work before being approached by John Hammond, the man who would found Jurassic Park.
Maybe this little bit of info on a character who was actually quite secondary to the novel's actual action wouldn't impress most people but I know it made a big impression on me. As technical as Crichton's novels could often be, I always found his characters to be very human. That's why I was rooting for Ian Malcolm and Alan Grant - because I genuinely liked them. They weren't just vehicles to drive the plot - they were compelling, interesting characters and Woo was interesting too.
Aside from his obvious mastery of knowing his subject matter inside out and deploying it in an intelligent and believeable manner, I really find Crichton's other main strength as a storyteller to be his sense of pacing and ability to build suspense. Timeline remains one of the most intense novels I've ever read and I always enjoy re-reading it. If you've seen the movie and not read the book, do your best to purge any memory of that "film" from your mind and pick the book up. It's awesome. Like King, almost everything Crichton has written has been made into a movie but with the exception of Jurassic Park (one of my favourite movies despite how different it actually is from the source material), these movies don't even come close to doing these stories proper justice. And if techno-thrillers about dinosaur cloning, time travel and deadly AI aren't your thing, I guess you could always give Disclosure a shot. It was the only Crichton novel I ever read (there's like three I have yet to read) that didn't really do it for me. I've also been told to avoid Airframe as it supposedly strays into Clancyesque territory in regards to technical details but I'll still give it a shot someday. Give the dude props for creating ER too - pretty much every medical drama out today (and god knows there are a TON of them) owes something to that show. Oh, and you're welcome too, Mr. Clooney.
The last novel Michael Crichton ever finished was called Next and I have yet to read it. Maybe it's fitting that something with that title was his last - up next, Mr. Crichton goes beyond this life and as for we who are left behind, what's next is up to us.
But I'm feeling guilty because what's moved me to FINALLY write something here is the death of someone who was not a member of my family. I'm talking about Michael Crichton, who you'll remember is one of my listed authors on this page, who passed away a few days ago after a private battle with lung cancer. As it hadn't been publicly known until....well, the end there, I was shocked when the news reached me. He was 66 but certainly didn't look it from recent photos I've seen. Anyway, you can criticize this guy and put him in the same category as someone like Tom Clancy, who sells a lot of books without ever doing any especially good writing, relying almost completely on technical knowledge to drive his stories. But I disagree. Here was a storyteller of the highest calibre who put absolutely everything he had into his craft. There are so many great authors I want to emulate and Crichton is no exception....but I also realize my own limitations and know that I could never match him for his scientific knowledge and imagination where such is concerned. I don't think I'll ever write a book or comic or even short story that requires the degree of research and know-how that Crichton poured into pretty much everything he ever did. He was a master of the "techno-thriller" and I'm not about to challenge that myself. I'll stick to simpler fiction and fantasy, thanks.
I'm pretty sure in an early post I mentioned that reading Jurassic Park was a huge event in my life. Well, it was. Firstly, intelligent as I was as a kid, I was basically too young to properly absorb and appreciate it the first time through. To be fair, I was barely ten. But like any book that I really enjoyed, I revisisted it again and again over the years. I'm twenty-five now and I'll estimate I've read Jurassic Park somewhere around seven times so far. Obviously, the biggest attraction was simply the dinosaurs but I discovered so much more between those pages.
It may well have been Crichton who first impressed upon me how useful character backstory can be if done right. What I recall best is an account of the book's Dr. Woo - an Ingen scientist chiefly responsible for developing the cloning techniques used to create real dinosaurs. There's a digression of about two pages or so that takes us back in time and tells us of Woo as he first graduates university and begins his work before being approached by John Hammond, the man who would found Jurassic Park.
Maybe this little bit of info on a character who was actually quite secondary to the novel's actual action wouldn't impress most people but I know it made a big impression on me. As technical as Crichton's novels could often be, I always found his characters to be very human. That's why I was rooting for Ian Malcolm and Alan Grant - because I genuinely liked them. They weren't just vehicles to drive the plot - they were compelling, interesting characters and Woo was interesting too.
Aside from his obvious mastery of knowing his subject matter inside out and deploying it in an intelligent and believeable manner, I really find Crichton's other main strength as a storyteller to be his sense of pacing and ability to build suspense. Timeline remains one of the most intense novels I've ever read and I always enjoy re-reading it. If you've seen the movie and not read the book, do your best to purge any memory of that "film" from your mind and pick the book up. It's awesome. Like King, almost everything Crichton has written has been made into a movie but with the exception of Jurassic Park (one of my favourite movies despite how different it actually is from the source material), these movies don't even come close to doing these stories proper justice. And if techno-thrillers about dinosaur cloning, time travel and deadly AI aren't your thing, I guess you could always give Disclosure a shot. It was the only Crichton novel I ever read (there's like three I have yet to read) that didn't really do it for me. I've also been told to avoid Airframe as it supposedly strays into Clancyesque territory in regards to technical details but I'll still give it a shot someday. Give the dude props for creating ER too - pretty much every medical drama out today (and god knows there are a TON of them) owes something to that show. Oh, and you're welcome too, Mr. Clooney.
The last novel Michael Crichton ever finished was called Next and I have yet to read it. Maybe it's fitting that something with that title was his last - up next, Mr. Crichton goes beyond this life and as for we who are left behind, what's next is up to us.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
PaSsIoN
I was supposed to be writing about sleep depravation and writing and my own experiences with it but something else has been bouncing around in my head.
Two weeks ago I went to see the Star Wars: Clone Wars movie. While using CGI caricatures rather than real life actors and not even having all the official actors on board for voices, it still is an official Star Wars movie, bridging the gap between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. although he didn't direct it (hell, he didn't direct Empire, remember?) George Lucas worked on it and obviously endorsed it and approved of it in every sense.
Besides the factors mentioned above, it's also pretty short and the music isn't done by John Williams (although some of his existing themes are worked in in places). I thought it was ok but there were things about it that bugged me. Needless to say, it's not up to the standard of the rest of the series. I think of it as just a little extra side-story so I don't really care. But the hardcore Star Wars fans, of which there are trillions, care very much. So message boards everywhere are flooded with complaints and opinions flying every which way.
I was on one such message board on imdb just to see if anyone actually liked the movie when i came across a thread in which the original poster basically said everyone should just shut up and stop complaining about this movie, and they should especially stop criticizing Lucas himself. Addressing the argument that Lucas was "selling out" and ruining the great name of Star Wars, this poster stated that Star Wars and everything encapsulated within it (and that's quite a lot) belongs to George Lucas, NOT the fans. It was his vision, his creation, his property, period. He can do as he pleases with it.
This of course lead to a response with one of those speeches saying how Star Wars is art created for its audience and it belongs as much to them as its creator. That as soon as Lucas released the first Star Wars to the public in 1977, it became in part, public property as well. Over the decades, Star Wars has spawned many, many fans who are absolutely nuts over it - they know everything about it and care very, very much about anything that is added to it. This obviously leads to a level of snobbishness - the diehards feeling they are "true" fans and much more deserving than people who only enjoy the movies and so on on a casual level. These fans become very opinionated over time and extremely protective of what they like. So it was one of these fans talking here. The basic idea being that fans like him/herself care SO MUCH about all things Star Wars, they are perfectly entitled to criticizing Lucas for any "mistakes" they feel he's making with his own creation.
And I agree. To a point. Of course, ANYONE, diehard fan or casual fan, has the right to have a freaking opinion. Call George Lucas the biggest moron of all time - it's completely legal, I assure you. But I'd like to talk about where I disagree with this poster and this argument. It's pretty simple, really. George Lucas does love Star Wars. If he didn't, it would never have even happened. He had to fight like crazy to make the first movie and completing the original trilogy the way he wanted to was a huge struggle. I think people do know that but some will argue that over time, all Lucas really loved about Star Wars was the MONEY it was making for him. This would lead him to cut corners or not try as hard when it came to making the prequels. A lot of people believe that. And now they see this latest movie as just a quick cash-grab, capitalizing on the Star Wars name. But I just don't think so. Cause, yeah, I know there are tons of fans out there that love Star Wars SO MUCH. They care SO MUCH. I know. But you know who's on an even higher level in that category? The people that worked on these newer films with Lucas. The guy who directed Clone Wars had been a fan of Star Wars his whole life. He loved it SO MUCH. He cared SO MUCH. How much? Well....he became a director. He wanted to make movies like his hero, George Lucas. So he went out and worked hard to get where he is today. Obviously, he's done a fair share of work before ever getting handed what he considered to be a dream job. And he probably didn't absolutely love everything he worked on. But it didn't matter because he was prepared to do whatever it took to get himself in the position to work on projects he really cared about. The animators, the artists - they all love Star Wars so much they're animators and artists. These people didn't sit in their basements and complain when a sequel to a movie they liked wasn't up to their standards. They said "i'm going to make movies too" and they went out and worked to make that happen. OK, so not every single one of them was inspired to what they do by Star Wars but it's the same principle - there was SOMETHING, some movie or show or comic or whatever that moved them in such a way that they wanted to be part of that world too - to create.
It's how I feel whenever I read a letters section in a comic book. Reader feedback is of course an important part of the comics industry, more than ever these days with the Internet. It's important for writers, editors and artists to listen to their fans. But Christ, you should see some of the DEMANDS some of these people are making. "I don't like this character, you should kill him off." "I think the whole whoever and whoever relationship is overdone." "Could you maybe put x character into this book? Get them on x team?" And on and on and on. Some people downright attack Marvel and DC and whoever, sometimes even vowing never to buy another one of their books because something has upset them so much.
And as I huge fan, I can of course relate. I'm not in love with every single decision that is made in, say, the Marvel universe. I don't adore every character, story arc and plot twist. Sometimes I'll read something and think something like "Mr. Fantastic would never do that. That's dumb." I live in that world. I love that world SO MUCH. I care SO MUCH. But you know what? I don't think that entitles me to much. No one's holding a gun to my head, forcing me to spend my money on these comics. How I feel about it is this: I love these characters, this world SO MUCH, that I want to be a part of it. I'm going to work my ass off so that I can be. To someday work on a title I've spent years enjoying reading. To write stories about the characters I've grown up adoring. Then they'll do what I want them to do. I'll try my best to appeal to as many people as I can, to not fuck up these things they love so much. But any idiot knows you just can't please everyone.
So if I ever get there it's cool with me if you want to talk to your friends or go on message boards and call me an idiot and go on and on about how I'm ruining this or that. Go ahead and vow to stop reading. I'd hate to lose any readers but that's how it goes and you can do as you please. But if you think you're more entitled or smart when it comes to this stuff then don't complain to me, accusing me of not trying or not caring. Step right up and do my job. And if you're not prepared to do that or you're just incapable, well, then I think we'll both know which of us is the bigger fan and who actually cares more.
Two weeks ago I went to see the Star Wars: Clone Wars movie. While using CGI caricatures rather than real life actors and not even having all the official actors on board for voices, it still is an official Star Wars movie, bridging the gap between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. although he didn't direct it (hell, he didn't direct Empire, remember?) George Lucas worked on it and obviously endorsed it and approved of it in every sense.
Besides the factors mentioned above, it's also pretty short and the music isn't done by John Williams (although some of his existing themes are worked in in places). I thought it was ok but there were things about it that bugged me. Needless to say, it's not up to the standard of the rest of the series. I think of it as just a little extra side-story so I don't really care. But the hardcore Star Wars fans, of which there are trillions, care very much. So message boards everywhere are flooded with complaints and opinions flying every which way.
I was on one such message board on imdb just to see if anyone actually liked the movie when i came across a thread in which the original poster basically said everyone should just shut up and stop complaining about this movie, and they should especially stop criticizing Lucas himself. Addressing the argument that Lucas was "selling out" and ruining the great name of Star Wars, this poster stated that Star Wars and everything encapsulated within it (and that's quite a lot) belongs to George Lucas, NOT the fans. It was his vision, his creation, his property, period. He can do as he pleases with it.
This of course lead to a response with one of those speeches saying how Star Wars is art created for its audience and it belongs as much to them as its creator. That as soon as Lucas released the first Star Wars to the public in 1977, it became in part, public property as well. Over the decades, Star Wars has spawned many, many fans who are absolutely nuts over it - they know everything about it and care very, very much about anything that is added to it. This obviously leads to a level of snobbishness - the diehards feeling they are "true" fans and much more deserving than people who only enjoy the movies and so on on a casual level. These fans become very opinionated over time and extremely protective of what they like. So it was one of these fans talking here. The basic idea being that fans like him/herself care SO MUCH about all things Star Wars, they are perfectly entitled to criticizing Lucas for any "mistakes" they feel he's making with his own creation.
And I agree. To a point. Of course, ANYONE, diehard fan or casual fan, has the right to have a freaking opinion. Call George Lucas the biggest moron of all time - it's completely legal, I assure you. But I'd like to talk about where I disagree with this poster and this argument. It's pretty simple, really. George Lucas does love Star Wars. If he didn't, it would never have even happened. He had to fight like crazy to make the first movie and completing the original trilogy the way he wanted to was a huge struggle. I think people do know that but some will argue that over time, all Lucas really loved about Star Wars was the MONEY it was making for him. This would lead him to cut corners or not try as hard when it came to making the prequels. A lot of people believe that. And now they see this latest movie as just a quick cash-grab, capitalizing on the Star Wars name. But I just don't think so. Cause, yeah, I know there are tons of fans out there that love Star Wars SO MUCH. They care SO MUCH. I know. But you know who's on an even higher level in that category? The people that worked on these newer films with Lucas. The guy who directed Clone Wars had been a fan of Star Wars his whole life. He loved it SO MUCH. He cared SO MUCH. How much? Well....he became a director. He wanted to make movies like his hero, George Lucas. So he went out and worked hard to get where he is today. Obviously, he's done a fair share of work before ever getting handed what he considered to be a dream job. And he probably didn't absolutely love everything he worked on. But it didn't matter because he was prepared to do whatever it took to get himself in the position to work on projects he really cared about. The animators, the artists - they all love Star Wars so much they're animators and artists. These people didn't sit in their basements and complain when a sequel to a movie they liked wasn't up to their standards. They said "i'm going to make movies too" and they went out and worked to make that happen. OK, so not every single one of them was inspired to what they do by Star Wars but it's the same principle - there was SOMETHING, some movie or show or comic or whatever that moved them in such a way that they wanted to be part of that world too - to create.
It's how I feel whenever I read a letters section in a comic book. Reader feedback is of course an important part of the comics industry, more than ever these days with the Internet. It's important for writers, editors and artists to listen to their fans. But Christ, you should see some of the DEMANDS some of these people are making. "I don't like this character, you should kill him off." "I think the whole whoever and whoever relationship is overdone." "Could you maybe put x character into this book? Get them on x team?" And on and on and on. Some people downright attack Marvel and DC and whoever, sometimes even vowing never to buy another one of their books because something has upset them so much.
And as I huge fan, I can of course relate. I'm not in love with every single decision that is made in, say, the Marvel universe. I don't adore every character, story arc and plot twist. Sometimes I'll read something and think something like "Mr. Fantastic would never do that. That's dumb." I live in that world. I love that world SO MUCH. I care SO MUCH. But you know what? I don't think that entitles me to much. No one's holding a gun to my head, forcing me to spend my money on these comics. How I feel about it is this: I love these characters, this world SO MUCH, that I want to be a part of it. I'm going to work my ass off so that I can be. To someday work on a title I've spent years enjoying reading. To write stories about the characters I've grown up adoring. Then they'll do what I want them to do. I'll try my best to appeal to as many people as I can, to not fuck up these things they love so much. But any idiot knows you just can't please everyone.
So if I ever get there it's cool with me if you want to talk to your friends or go on message boards and call me an idiot and go on and on about how I'm ruining this or that. Go ahead and vow to stop reading. I'd hate to lose any readers but that's how it goes and you can do as you please. But if you think you're more entitled or smart when it comes to this stuff then don't complain to me, accusing me of not trying or not caring. Step right up and do my job. And if you're not prepared to do that or you're just incapable, well, then I think we'll both know which of us is the bigger fan and who actually cares more.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
reminder
I've been thinking about talking a little about sleep depravation and the writing process as it relates to me. i don't have time to do it right now. i'm just posting this to remind myself about it. i forget so many ideas, good and bad.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Therapy
I just need to write this out somewhere where it will...stay. I would like to state here and now that I DID NOT WRITE THIS - this is the work of another artist. I don't know if I need permission to post it here or not but I can't see what kind of disservice I could be doing by doing so. I doubt this blog gets much traffic anyway. This is called Miss America and I did not write it. I just like it.
Miss America
Another lonely night in Amsterdam
The stars are coming out in waves
And I miss my Miss America in Park Hotel
But I'm too stoned to call today
When everything you wanted
Seems to hide behind your eyes
And I'm locked in my hotel room
Turning over our goodbyes
I will write this down for you
So you can read it
I will hold my breath for you
Till you can feel it
Another lonely night in Amsterdam
The water moving through the sound
Of the blood that's boiling in my veins
And the food I can't keep down
And I don't care if you don't love me
And I don't care if you don't change
I could live inside these shadows that I cast for you
If it meant that you would stay
I'll be home before the morning comes
And you won't have to be alone
I will write this down for you
So you can read it
I will hold my breath for you
Till you can feel it
You don't have to see me this way
Cause this way I'm ok
I will write this down
I will write this down
Oh Love, I'm tangled up again
Oh Love, when does this twisting end?
I will write this down for you
So you can read it
I will hold my breath for you
Till I can't feel it
You won't have to see me this way
Cause this way I'm ok
I will write this down for you
So you can read it...
Sure, it's cheesy to say but it really is how I feel right now. How I feel a lot of the time. Next one will be more productive but for now, I need my therapy. Peace.
Miss America
Another lonely night in Amsterdam
The stars are coming out in waves
And I miss my Miss America in Park Hotel
But I'm too stoned to call today
When everything you wanted
Seems to hide behind your eyes
And I'm locked in my hotel room
Turning over our goodbyes
I will write this down for you
So you can read it
I will hold my breath for you
Till you can feel it
Another lonely night in Amsterdam
The water moving through the sound
Of the blood that's boiling in my veins
And the food I can't keep down
And I don't care if you don't love me
And I don't care if you don't change
I could live inside these shadows that I cast for you
If it meant that you would stay
I'll be home before the morning comes
And you won't have to be alone
I will write this down for you
So you can read it
I will hold my breath for you
Till you can feel it
You don't have to see me this way
Cause this way I'm ok
I will write this down
I will write this down
Oh Love, I'm tangled up again
Oh Love, when does this twisting end?
I will write this down for you
So you can read it
I will hold my breath for you
Till I can't feel it
You won't have to see me this way
Cause this way I'm ok
I will write this down for you
So you can read it...
Sure, it's cheesy to say but it really is how I feel right now. How I feel a lot of the time. Next one will be more productive but for now, I need my therapy. Peace.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Professionalism
In December I wrote my first post here in many months. I hadn't written anything in a long time. Because of Anne. Then I created that post. Because of Anne. The post was about Anne.
And maybe that wasn't very professional. When I started this blog, I stated that its purpose was for me to post some of my creative material and also some of my insights regarding the writing process and what my life is like as a "struggling author". Then I went and had a personal crisis, like all of us do at one time or another and I let it get in the way of other things, including my writing. And then I blabbed about it here.
I won't do that again. But I've also decided to leave the December post intact and on this blog for anyone to read at any time. Because writers don't live in a bubble anymore than anyone else does. We aren't insulated and protected from the outside world and our writing is affected by what happens in our lives. So I'll leave it up and unchanged.
I don't know if anyone ever reads this blog - but when I started it, I knew there was at least one other person in the world who would. She probably doesn't anymore but in any case, I won't throw her name around or use her as an excuse to vent my frustrations. From now on, this blog will just be about what I originally said it would be. What goes on here will continue to be affected by what happens in my personal life but no longer will I drag all that out into the open here. I promise.
I love you, Anne. Thankyou for believing in me as a writer. At least for a little while.
And maybe that wasn't very professional. When I started this blog, I stated that its purpose was for me to post some of my creative material and also some of my insights regarding the writing process and what my life is like as a "struggling author". Then I went and had a personal crisis, like all of us do at one time or another and I let it get in the way of other things, including my writing. And then I blabbed about it here.
I won't do that again. But I've also decided to leave the December post intact and on this blog for anyone to read at any time. Because writers don't live in a bubble anymore than anyone else does. We aren't insulated and protected from the outside world and our writing is affected by what happens in our lives. So I'll leave it up and unchanged.
I don't know if anyone ever reads this blog - but when I started it, I knew there was at least one other person in the world who would. She probably doesn't anymore but in any case, I won't throw her name around or use her as an excuse to vent my frustrations. From now on, this blog will just be about what I originally said it would be. What goes on here will continue to be affected by what happens in my personal life but no longer will I drag all that out into the open here. I promise.
I love you, Anne. Thankyou for believing in me as a writer. At least for a little while.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Character list PART TWO
So read PART ONE first for the rules. Besides that, this isn't a top ten or anything like that - there's no particular order and I don't know how many there are going to be. OK. Moving on.
Ebeneezer Scrooge (creator: Charles Dickens. first appearance: "A Christmas Carol")
Even without his redemption, Scrooge would still make this list. He's so great as a heavily flawed "villain"-type but I guess his eventual 180 does add to his overall appeal. But for now, let's talk about "classic" Scrooge. Dickens gives amazing descriptions of this guy - I wish I had the book here so I could directly quote some of them. Paraphrasing will have to do with this wrenching, grasping, covetous old sinner.
It's said no one can stand looking him in the eye and that even dogs leading blind men know to lead their masters away when Scrooge is in their path. The guy is so cold on his own that no summer sun can warm him nor any winter wind chill him. He keeps his clerk Bob Cratchitt living in abject terror and working with only one piece of coal to fuel his pitiful fire. And don't get me started on the crappy salary this guy earns.
And let's not forget the man's own quotes: "Keep Christmas in your own way and let me keep it in mine." , "Bah! Humbug!", and the amazing "If they'd rather die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population." (!!!)
He likes darkness since "darkness is cheap", he tries to crack jokes when dealing with ghosts, he scares the hell out of carolers and freezes his jolly nephew out of his life. But you've gotta love him! There's always appeal to be found in a great villain and there's tons in old Scrooge as we find ourselves liking him for all his negative qualities. What makes Scrooge unique is that by the end of the book, he's reformed and become a new man. But that's great too and we're glad to see it happen. Because the story of Scrooge re-enforces the idea that there is good deep down in everyone and that it is possible to bring it out even if it's been deeply buried for a long, long time.
He also gets to do some pretty cool things like re-visit his past (although he can only watch), spy on his nephew and employee and hang out with spirits the whole while. OK, the final spirit was scary as hell but it all worked out in the end.
While Scrooge has been portrayed by tons of different actors and some of them very well, I can honestly say his inclusion on this list has not been influenced by any of that. I read the book every year (guess when!) and I never find myself picturing any specific actor. It's just "Scrooge" as Dickens writes him and that's just perfect.
Eponine (creator: Victor Hugo. first appearance: "Les Miserables")
If her last name is given somewhere in the 1500 page monstrosity that is Les Mis, forgive me if I forget it.
OK, so I am kind of cheating on this one. Sort of breaking one of my own rules. Let me explain: in my love for this character, I could very well be being influenced by her portrayal in another medium. But it's not a TV show or movie (hell, they left the poor girl out of the movie), it's...um, well, it's the musical. Eponine is far and away my favourite character in the stage musical and more than a little of it has to do with Frances Ruffelle playing her in the original version. But I'm still including her here. So, yeah, I love Ruffelle's voice and her parts in songs that obviously have NOTHING to do with Eponine in the novel but oh well.
Cause I still do love the Eponine of the novel and that's why she's here. She's not a main character. She has the unfortunate fate of being in love with Marius while he barely even notices her. He's too busy being in love with Cossette.
Not only does she have the unrequited love angle to work as a tragic character, she is also unfortunately the offspring of the wretched Thenardiers, who sure as hell don't give a damn about her. No big loss there though - they're pretty terrible people.
Although to date I have read too many books to even fathom, I do know that Les Mis is easily the longest of them. And I REALLY need to re-read it. So sorry if my Eponine details are lacking here. But I just know that I love her and empathize with her as she's in love with a man who only has eyes for another and yet she (Eponine) continues to do whatever she can to help the guy, eventually sacrificing her life to save his.
The line itself might not be in the book, but as she sings in the musical, "[the] world is full of happiness that I have never known" that's what you certainly glean from her if you read it.
Ebeneezer Scrooge (creator: Charles Dickens. first appearance: "A Christmas Carol")
Even without his redemption, Scrooge would still make this list. He's so great as a heavily flawed "villain"-type but I guess his eventual 180 does add to his overall appeal. But for now, let's talk about "classic" Scrooge. Dickens gives amazing descriptions of this guy - I wish I had the book here so I could directly quote some of them. Paraphrasing will have to do with this wrenching, grasping, covetous old sinner.
It's said no one can stand looking him in the eye and that even dogs leading blind men know to lead their masters away when Scrooge is in their path. The guy is so cold on his own that no summer sun can warm him nor any winter wind chill him. He keeps his clerk Bob Cratchitt living in abject terror and working with only one piece of coal to fuel his pitiful fire. And don't get me started on the crappy salary this guy earns.
And let's not forget the man's own quotes: "Keep Christmas in your own way and let me keep it in mine." , "Bah! Humbug!", and the amazing "If they'd rather die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population." (!!!)
He likes darkness since "darkness is cheap", he tries to crack jokes when dealing with ghosts, he scares the hell out of carolers and freezes his jolly nephew out of his life. But you've gotta love him! There's always appeal to be found in a great villain and there's tons in old Scrooge as we find ourselves liking him for all his negative qualities. What makes Scrooge unique is that by the end of the book, he's reformed and become a new man. But that's great too and we're glad to see it happen. Because the story of Scrooge re-enforces the idea that there is good deep down in everyone and that it is possible to bring it out even if it's been deeply buried for a long, long time.
He also gets to do some pretty cool things like re-visit his past (although he can only watch), spy on his nephew and employee and hang out with spirits the whole while. OK, the final spirit was scary as hell but it all worked out in the end.
While Scrooge has been portrayed by tons of different actors and some of them very well, I can honestly say his inclusion on this list has not been influenced by any of that. I read the book every year (guess when!) and I never find myself picturing any specific actor. It's just "Scrooge" as Dickens writes him and that's just perfect.
Eponine (creator: Victor Hugo. first appearance: "Les Miserables")
If her last name is given somewhere in the 1500 page monstrosity that is Les Mis, forgive me if I forget it.
OK, so I am kind of cheating on this one. Sort of breaking one of my own rules. Let me explain: in my love for this character, I could very well be being influenced by her portrayal in another medium. But it's not a TV show or movie (hell, they left the poor girl out of the movie), it's...um, well, it's the musical. Eponine is far and away my favourite character in the stage musical and more than a little of it has to do with Frances Ruffelle playing her in the original version. But I'm still including her here. So, yeah, I love Ruffelle's voice and her parts in songs that obviously have NOTHING to do with Eponine in the novel but oh well.
Cause I still do love the Eponine of the novel and that's why she's here. She's not a main character. She has the unfortunate fate of being in love with Marius while he barely even notices her. He's too busy being in love with Cossette.
Not only does she have the unrequited love angle to work as a tragic character, she is also unfortunately the offspring of the wretched Thenardiers, who sure as hell don't give a damn about her. No big loss there though - they're pretty terrible people.
Although to date I have read too many books to even fathom, I do know that Les Mis is easily the longest of them. And I REALLY need to re-read it. So sorry if my Eponine details are lacking here. But I just know that I love her and empathize with her as she's in love with a man who only has eyes for another and yet she (Eponine) continues to do whatever she can to help the guy, eventually sacrificing her life to save his.
The line itself might not be in the book, but as she sings in the musical, "[the] world is full of happiness that I have never known" that's what you certainly glean from her if you read it.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
2008
So ive been gone a long time. Wonder if anyone noticed. Sorry, but ive been distracted by the hell my personal life has become among other things. Things such as the cursed Facebook (which i have forsaken in every way) that siphoned off some of my creative offerings. Fuck Facebook. My creative offerings belong here. My personal life? Don't ask.
So I though i'd kick off 2008 (here in late May) with one of my favourite things - not to mention something easy - a list.
This list is called "Favourite Literary Characters Whose Original Incarnation (assuming any more followed) Was in Books". Don't i rock at titles? Ridiculously long even without the added bonus of a section in brackets. What can I say? It's a gift.
So Indiana Jones cannot be on this list. Yes, there are many novels with him but he started as a movie character. So Spider-Man is not on this list - he started in...duh, comics.
one little aside before i get to the list is that while I did briefly consider characters such as Decker in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lector, I realized as cool as those characters are in their original forms, it is their portrayal in (good) movies based on the books that made me really, really love them. I don't think I could enjoy Lector quite as much if I didn't have Anthony Hopkins to picture while I read him.
At this point (way too long in coming, as usual) you understand the rules and parameters of my list (unless you're a retard - political correctness be damned! also, there might be spoilers ahead)
So here you go:
Bruno Walton (creator: Gordon Korman. first appearance: "This Can't be Happening at Macdonald Hall!")
The famous Bruno of the acclaimed "Bruno and Boots Books". The...um, yin or yang to Boots's yang or yin depending on which one is the fiery, enthusiastic one. Cause that's what Bruno is - enthusiastic. Often dangerously so. Possessing a school spirit that goes beyond sanity (except when it comes to actually studying and working hard scholastically), Bruno is constantly dragging his reluctant pal Boots (and eventually many other students) into zany, possibly expulsion-worthy schemes, all in the name of his beloved MacDonald Hall. He'll take anyone on: a discipline-obssessed, computer-worshiping teacher out to "revolutionize" education, a beloved Hollywood heartthrob and his entire movie crew, even total bankruptcy!
All the while, doing his best to sidestep the attentions of the school's strict (but still loveable) headmaster, "The Fish". However, Bruno's trademark claim "I never get caught" is a little less than accurate. But he doesn't care. He'll wash dishes, pick up garbage or endure any other punishment with a smile so long as he can still labour to "save the Hall" in one way or another.
And he does it all with charm. How else would he get his somewhat less passionate friends to follow him into one debacle after another? Bruno's the kind of guy you'd follow into hell without ever really understanding why.
Drizzt Do'Urden (creator: R.A. Salvatore. first appearance: "The Crystal Shard")
With apologies to Legolas, there is no more badass elf in all the realms. Probably helps that he's a Dark Elf - a Drow. But this one isn't evil and he felt so strongly about not living in an evil world that he did everything he could to valiantly bust out of the EVIL city of his EVIL kin. It wound up costing him dearly but he endured it all: his family repeatedly trying to kill him after realizing they couldn't corrupt him, years of isolation and solitude and constant scrutiny and racism from the peoples of the surface. But he never gets bitter, never gives up. He just forges ahead, and, in doing so, proves his heroism and uncompromising morals over and over again. And he does a lot of it with two wicked swords.
Cause as noble and loyal and brave etc. as Drizzt is, one can't overlook the fact that he is badass. He's fought hordes of orcs, trolls, orges and goblins, fellow Dark Elves and even a few demons and he's beaten them all. He is grace and athleticism personified with phenomenal fighting skills thrown in. Once again with apologies to Legolas, he could kick Legolas's lily "light elf" ass. Fire all the arrows you want - you'll hit nothing but air. And no sword or dagger will keep those twin scimitars at bay for long - for most opponents, it's barely a few seconds.
Drizzt fights for what's right again and again in a world that mostly judges and condemns him for the colour of his skin. His intelligence, integrity and amazing fighting prowess make him one hell of a character. Hero, anti-hero, whatever - he is Drizzt Do'Urden.
Nick Andros (creator: Stephen King. first appearance: "The Stand")
Easily my favourite King character. The deaf-mute loner with the heart of gold, Nick is one of the survivors of the crazy "Captain Trips" superflu that wipes out something like 99% of the world's population. These survivors are basically "good" people who dream of Mother Abigail or "bad" people that dream of The Dark Man, Randal Flagg. Luckily for the "good" side, that's where he stands (ha, stands!)
From his letter to the police chief, we learn Nick had a pretty tough life even before everyone started croaking and you can only respect him for all the adversity he's overcome. An orphan and outcast, rarely bothered with and even more rarely understood. He goes on to show a fellow survivor, a man of somewhat limited...ahem, intelligence and maturity, unfathomable kindness and support in a world where many others would have simply abandoned him, labeling him as a hindrance. After that, despite his youth (twenty-two) and disability (although the term certainly doesn't apply in this sense), he emerges as one of the leaders of the "good" people and is instrumental in their survival as well as in their hope.
Nick is often frustrated by challenges such as people pre-judging him or his difficulties in communicating with others but he never wallows - he just tries harder until he succeeds.
He doesn't blow away bad guys or save kids from a burning house but his accomplishments are no less important and noble. Stephen King admits that the decision to have Nick killed three quarters of the way through the book was staggeringly difficult and emotional, but he saw it as necessary. It sure made an impression on me.
Here was a character that didn't really have dialogue - instead he is mostly voiced through interior and written monologues and everything he had to "say" just made me love him even more. Like Drizzt, he's another individual who is guided by his principles and won't make any compromises or accept any defeats. He'll do the right thing, or die trying. Ultimately, that's what ended up happening.
If the world ever does come down to a showdown between good and evil, I'd want Nick Andros there with us.
"Charlie" (creator: Stephen Chbosky. first appearance: "The Perks of Being a Wallflower")
We never get to know the kid's real name, so his suggestion of Charlie will have to do. The Holden Caulfield of the nineties, he drips empathy. I love him because I am him. Almost anyone who reads Wallflower can be him in some way or another.
His home life isn't completely tragic - but it's far from completely perfect. Just like any of us. He wants to gain love and acceptance, just like any of us. But how he goes about things may separate him from a lot of us. But still, so many of us can relate.
I think one reason I like Charlie so much is I truly do believe I can identify with him more than most. It comes down to feelings, sensitivity, perception. I don't think he ever actually says it, but one of the great tragedies, as well as virtues of Charlie is that maybe he cares too much. Feels too much. He thinks about other people probably more than most do. Whatever impact someone makes on him, however small, it affects him. He thinks about it. Feels it. Apparently he doesn't even know the person he's sending these letters to. Not personally anyway. He just heard some things about him (we know it's a him) and thought maybe he would understand better than most. I think I'm like that too. I often find myself thinking about various people in my life, many of them who are no longer in my life. I wonder about them. How they're doing. What they're feeling. I don't want to rush to them or try to get them back in my life or even talk to them - I just...care. Charlie strikes me as the same way.
To Charlie, the ultimate expression of feelings is in the form of a mix tape - don't so many of us feel exactly the same way? And he doesn't judge and doesn't pretend to be someone else. He just...is. But is he truly a wallflower? I don't think so. I think he just cares too much about people sometimes so he puts his own wants and needs aside. Honestly, most people really can't relate to that and the guy who deemed him a wallflower definitely couldn't. It's a label that didn't really fit. But Charlie doesn't argue it.
It's hard to pin down exactly what Charlie's personality is and I think that's because he's too raw - just a jumble of strong emotions. I think we can all feel that way sometimes. We don't know who we are but we know how we feel. Throughout the book, Charlie gets it down to an art. I sometimes wonder if that's what happened to me somewhere along the way.
Anyway, Charlie is one of my favourite literary characters because he really does touch my heart. Maybe I'm a jaded prick, but few characters or even real people do that for me these days. Because of peace, love, empathy and M*A*S*H (hell, even The Rocky Horror Picture Show) I love Charlie.
We'll call that PART ONE. Writing about characters I feel so strongly about is pretty draining. Let's hope we don't get to a PART THREE.
So I though i'd kick off 2008 (here in late May) with one of my favourite things - not to mention something easy - a list.
This list is called "Favourite Literary Characters Whose Original Incarnation (assuming any more followed) Was in Books". Don't i rock at titles? Ridiculously long even without the added bonus of a section in brackets. What can I say? It's a gift.
So Indiana Jones cannot be on this list. Yes, there are many novels with him but he started as a movie character. So Spider-Man is not on this list - he started in...duh, comics.
one little aside before i get to the list is that while I did briefly consider characters such as Decker in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lector, I realized as cool as those characters are in their original forms, it is their portrayal in (good) movies based on the books that made me really, really love them. I don't think I could enjoy Lector quite as much if I didn't have Anthony Hopkins to picture while I read him.
At this point (way too long in coming, as usual) you understand the rules and parameters of my list (unless you're a retard - political correctness be damned! also, there might be spoilers ahead)
So here you go:
Bruno Walton (creator: Gordon Korman. first appearance: "This Can't be Happening at Macdonald Hall!")
The famous Bruno of the acclaimed "Bruno and Boots Books". The...um, yin or yang to Boots's yang or yin depending on which one is the fiery, enthusiastic one. Cause that's what Bruno is - enthusiastic. Often dangerously so. Possessing a school spirit that goes beyond sanity (except when it comes to actually studying and working hard scholastically), Bruno is constantly dragging his reluctant pal Boots (and eventually many other students) into zany, possibly expulsion-worthy schemes, all in the name of his beloved MacDonald Hall. He'll take anyone on: a discipline-obssessed, computer-worshiping teacher out to "revolutionize" education, a beloved Hollywood heartthrob and his entire movie crew, even total bankruptcy!
All the while, doing his best to sidestep the attentions of the school's strict (but still loveable) headmaster, "The Fish". However, Bruno's trademark claim "I never get caught" is a little less than accurate. But he doesn't care. He'll wash dishes, pick up garbage or endure any other punishment with a smile so long as he can still labour to "save the Hall" in one way or another.
And he does it all with charm. How else would he get his somewhat less passionate friends to follow him into one debacle after another? Bruno's the kind of guy you'd follow into hell without ever really understanding why.
Drizzt Do'Urden (creator: R.A. Salvatore. first appearance: "The Crystal Shard")
With apologies to Legolas, there is no more badass elf in all the realms. Probably helps that he's a Dark Elf - a Drow. But this one isn't evil and he felt so strongly about not living in an evil world that he did everything he could to valiantly bust out of the EVIL city of his EVIL kin. It wound up costing him dearly but he endured it all: his family repeatedly trying to kill him after realizing they couldn't corrupt him, years of isolation and solitude and constant scrutiny and racism from the peoples of the surface. But he never gets bitter, never gives up. He just forges ahead, and, in doing so, proves his heroism and uncompromising morals over and over again. And he does a lot of it with two wicked swords.
Cause as noble and loyal and brave etc. as Drizzt is, one can't overlook the fact that he is badass. He's fought hordes of orcs, trolls, orges and goblins, fellow Dark Elves and even a few demons and he's beaten them all. He is grace and athleticism personified with phenomenal fighting skills thrown in. Once again with apologies to Legolas, he could kick Legolas's lily "light elf" ass. Fire all the arrows you want - you'll hit nothing but air. And no sword or dagger will keep those twin scimitars at bay for long - for most opponents, it's barely a few seconds.
Drizzt fights for what's right again and again in a world that mostly judges and condemns him for the colour of his skin. His intelligence, integrity and amazing fighting prowess make him one hell of a character. Hero, anti-hero, whatever - he is Drizzt Do'Urden.
Nick Andros (creator: Stephen King. first appearance: "The Stand")
Easily my favourite King character. The deaf-mute loner with the heart of gold, Nick is one of the survivors of the crazy "Captain Trips" superflu that wipes out something like 99% of the world's population. These survivors are basically "good" people who dream of Mother Abigail or "bad" people that dream of The Dark Man, Randal Flagg. Luckily for the "good" side, that's where he stands (ha, stands!)
From his letter to the police chief, we learn Nick had a pretty tough life even before everyone started croaking and you can only respect him for all the adversity he's overcome. An orphan and outcast, rarely bothered with and even more rarely understood. He goes on to show a fellow survivor, a man of somewhat limited...ahem, intelligence and maturity, unfathomable kindness and support in a world where many others would have simply abandoned him, labeling him as a hindrance. After that, despite his youth (twenty-two) and disability (although the term certainly doesn't apply in this sense), he emerges as one of the leaders of the "good" people and is instrumental in their survival as well as in their hope.
Nick is often frustrated by challenges such as people pre-judging him or his difficulties in communicating with others but he never wallows - he just tries harder until he succeeds.
He doesn't blow away bad guys or save kids from a burning house but his accomplishments are no less important and noble. Stephen King admits that the decision to have Nick killed three quarters of the way through the book was staggeringly difficult and emotional, but he saw it as necessary. It sure made an impression on me.
Here was a character that didn't really have dialogue - instead he is mostly voiced through interior and written monologues and everything he had to "say" just made me love him even more. Like Drizzt, he's another individual who is guided by his principles and won't make any compromises or accept any defeats. He'll do the right thing, or die trying. Ultimately, that's what ended up happening.
If the world ever does come down to a showdown between good and evil, I'd want Nick Andros there with us.
"Charlie" (creator: Stephen Chbosky. first appearance: "The Perks of Being a Wallflower")
We never get to know the kid's real name, so his suggestion of Charlie will have to do. The Holden Caulfield of the nineties, he drips empathy. I love him because I am him. Almost anyone who reads Wallflower can be him in some way or another.
His home life isn't completely tragic - but it's far from completely perfect. Just like any of us. He wants to gain love and acceptance, just like any of us. But how he goes about things may separate him from a lot of us. But still, so many of us can relate.
I think one reason I like Charlie so much is I truly do believe I can identify with him more than most. It comes down to feelings, sensitivity, perception. I don't think he ever actually says it, but one of the great tragedies, as well as virtues of Charlie is that maybe he cares too much. Feels too much. He thinks about other people probably more than most do. Whatever impact someone makes on him, however small, it affects him. He thinks about it. Feels it. Apparently he doesn't even know the person he's sending these letters to. Not personally anyway. He just heard some things about him (we know it's a him) and thought maybe he would understand better than most. I think I'm like that too. I often find myself thinking about various people in my life, many of them who are no longer in my life. I wonder about them. How they're doing. What they're feeling. I don't want to rush to them or try to get them back in my life or even talk to them - I just...care. Charlie strikes me as the same way.
To Charlie, the ultimate expression of feelings is in the form of a mix tape - don't so many of us feel exactly the same way? And he doesn't judge and doesn't pretend to be someone else. He just...is. But is he truly a wallflower? I don't think so. I think he just cares too much about people sometimes so he puts his own wants and needs aside. Honestly, most people really can't relate to that and the guy who deemed him a wallflower definitely couldn't. It's a label that didn't really fit. But Charlie doesn't argue it.
It's hard to pin down exactly what Charlie's personality is and I think that's because he's too raw - just a jumble of strong emotions. I think we can all feel that way sometimes. We don't know who we are but we know how we feel. Throughout the book, Charlie gets it down to an art. I sometimes wonder if that's what happened to me somewhere along the way.
Anyway, Charlie is one of my favourite literary characters because he really does touch my heart. Maybe I'm a jaded prick, but few characters or even real people do that for me these days. Because of peace, love, empathy and M*A*S*H (hell, even The Rocky Horror Picture Show) I love Charlie.
We'll call that PART ONE. Writing about characters I feel so strongly about is pretty draining. Let's hope we don't get to a PART THREE.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Anne
So i havent been here for months. I'm supposed to be writing but it hasn't been working. Fuck, I miss Anne.
I love Anne Publicover. Being without her feels like there's a hole inside me. Or that I'm just hollow. I'm trying here. I really am. I just wish she would somehow find her way back to me. She is my true love. I should have treated her like it. I'm sorry.
I love Anne Publicover. Being without her feels like there's a hole inside me. Or that I'm just hollow. I'm trying here. I really am. I just wish she would somehow find her way back to me. She is my true love. I should have treated her like it. I'm sorry.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Who wants a hug?
For many years, I've wanted to give Mats Sundin a hug. I'm not embarassed to admit this although I do know it is kind of silly. Despite the fact that the guy has been making millions of dollars his entire adult life for playing the game he loves, has legions of fans and hundreds if not thousands of women vying for his attention (apparently, some women mail him pictures of themselves in their underwear along with their phone numbers - he throws them out), I sometimes get the crazy notion that he deserves a hug. A hug from me - one of his diehard fans. I realize it's silly. Sure, he hasn't won a Cup yet and there are tons of people who criticize him as a player and captain for no good reason but I doubt he's all that broken up over it. If he really needs a hug, he's got friends and family for that. His teammates hug him on an almost nightly basis.
But still I want to hug him. For all that he's done for me personally. For all the times he's brought me to my feet, yelling and cheering. All because of how he plays a game. I've wanted to hug David Usher too, for the way his music has made me feel all these years (I'm pretty sure Ive hugged Jeff Pierce on at least one occassion).
Then it occurred to me I've never really thought about hugging a writer. I tried to puzzle this out. Surely, there must be a writer whose work was as much a comfort to me as Sundin's on-ice heroics or David's (I can't refer to him as "Usher" now can I?) voice, lyrics and music? And I suppose maybe there is. But it's not the same, for some reason. I grew up reading a lot of different books by a lot of different authors. Gordon Korman's books entertained me again and again with their wacky characters and funny plots. But do I feel the need to hug him? Shake his hand, yeah, sure. But not hug him. Nor do I think about hugging any other author whom I grew up reading.
I read Jurassic Park when I was ridiculously young. So young that some of the language was beyond me and the content a little too mature for me at the time. But it was a book about dinosaurs and so it had to be read - that's how I saw it back then. I probably had to read it a few more times as I got a little older to really absorb it properly and fully appreciate it. I've read Crichton's work with regularity ever since and can always have a soft spot for him in honour of his taking a subject that meant so much to me when I was young and weaving it into a smart, exciting, well-written story that almost single-handedly brought dinosaurs back into pop culture (what with the eventual release of the movie) But I've never thought of meeting Michael Crichton and giving him a big ol' hug.
Is it because I fancy myself a writer? I can't be delusional enough to think of someone like Michael Crichton, or any published author for that matter, as a colleague. In my wildest dreams, I couldn't do what Mats Sundin or David Usher do - but will I ever be half the writer that any on my list are? I doubt it. And even if I somehow equal one or more of them, would that make me feel the need to hug any of them? I don't think so. But I don't know why.
I've spent so many hours reading, completely wrapped up in the world these people created for me and I respect and admire them endlessly. But if I met any of them, I think I'd be more shy than meeting a sports or music hero. Maybe that's it. After blathering about how I'm such a fan of their work, I'd eventually look down at the floor and mumble "I'm somewhat of a writer myself; that is, I'm trying to be," and who knows what any of them would say. What are they supposed to say? Are they supposed to get excited by this, as if they've never heard it a thousand times before and take a fanatical interest? Ask me to send them some of my material so they can maybe help me get it published?
If I ever meet Mats Sundin and have enough time to have a proper conversation with him, I imagine I would hug him almost right away if he was ok with it, then bombard him with praise and memories of some of my favourite feats of his. I did meet David Usher, briefly. I stammered that his music had meant a lot to me over the years and that I hoped he would continue for a long time to come. He was very gracious. I wanted to hug him but people literally mob the guy and it didn't seem the right thing to request at that moment.
There are lots of writers I wish I could meet. Lots I'd like to personally thank for inspiring me and filling me with awe and wonder etc. But the only one I think I'd ever care to hug is Stan Lee and that's more because of his persona than his actual work, I think. The guy invented freaking Spider-Man but others since have done a better job on him.
I never aspired to be a hockey player or a musician. Not seriously, anyway. They were more "wouldn't it be cool if" scenarios I'd sometimes play out it my head when I was likely supposed ot be paying attention in class or listening to my mother. Mats Sundin represents a team that I've loved passionately and irrationally for most of my life. David Usher represents music that was always there for me at various points in my life when I felt alone. Stephen King represents everything I aspire to be and maybe that's why I could never hug him. Writers aren't a touchy-feely group of people, anyway, it seems. So maybe it's all for the best.
But still I want to hug him. For all that he's done for me personally. For all the times he's brought me to my feet, yelling and cheering. All because of how he plays a game. I've wanted to hug David Usher too, for the way his music has made me feel all these years (I'm pretty sure Ive hugged Jeff Pierce on at least one occassion).
Then it occurred to me I've never really thought about hugging a writer. I tried to puzzle this out. Surely, there must be a writer whose work was as much a comfort to me as Sundin's on-ice heroics or David's (I can't refer to him as "Usher" now can I?) voice, lyrics and music? And I suppose maybe there is. But it's not the same, for some reason. I grew up reading a lot of different books by a lot of different authors. Gordon Korman's books entertained me again and again with their wacky characters and funny plots. But do I feel the need to hug him? Shake his hand, yeah, sure. But not hug him. Nor do I think about hugging any other author whom I grew up reading.
I read Jurassic Park when I was ridiculously young. So young that some of the language was beyond me and the content a little too mature for me at the time. But it was a book about dinosaurs and so it had to be read - that's how I saw it back then. I probably had to read it a few more times as I got a little older to really absorb it properly and fully appreciate it. I've read Crichton's work with regularity ever since and can always have a soft spot for him in honour of his taking a subject that meant so much to me when I was young and weaving it into a smart, exciting, well-written story that almost single-handedly brought dinosaurs back into pop culture (what with the eventual release of the movie) But I've never thought of meeting Michael Crichton and giving him a big ol' hug.
Is it because I fancy myself a writer? I can't be delusional enough to think of someone like Michael Crichton, or any published author for that matter, as a colleague. In my wildest dreams, I couldn't do what Mats Sundin or David Usher do - but will I ever be half the writer that any on my list are? I doubt it. And even if I somehow equal one or more of them, would that make me feel the need to hug any of them? I don't think so. But I don't know why.
I've spent so many hours reading, completely wrapped up in the world these people created for me and I respect and admire them endlessly. But if I met any of them, I think I'd be more shy than meeting a sports or music hero. Maybe that's it. After blathering about how I'm such a fan of their work, I'd eventually look down at the floor and mumble "I'm somewhat of a writer myself; that is, I'm trying to be," and who knows what any of them would say. What are they supposed to say? Are they supposed to get excited by this, as if they've never heard it a thousand times before and take a fanatical interest? Ask me to send them some of my material so they can maybe help me get it published?
If I ever meet Mats Sundin and have enough time to have a proper conversation with him, I imagine I would hug him almost right away if he was ok with it, then bombard him with praise and memories of some of my favourite feats of his. I did meet David Usher, briefly. I stammered that his music had meant a lot to me over the years and that I hoped he would continue for a long time to come. He was very gracious. I wanted to hug him but people literally mob the guy and it didn't seem the right thing to request at that moment.
There are lots of writers I wish I could meet. Lots I'd like to personally thank for inspiring me and filling me with awe and wonder etc. But the only one I think I'd ever care to hug is Stan Lee and that's more because of his persona than his actual work, I think. The guy invented freaking Spider-Man but others since have done a better job on him.
I never aspired to be a hockey player or a musician. Not seriously, anyway. They were more "wouldn't it be cool if" scenarios I'd sometimes play out it my head when I was likely supposed ot be paying attention in class or listening to my mother. Mats Sundin represents a team that I've loved passionately and irrationally for most of my life. David Usher represents music that was always there for me at various points in my life when I felt alone. Stephen King represents everything I aspire to be and maybe that's why I could never hug him. Writers aren't a touchy-feely group of people, anyway, it seems. So maybe it's all for the best.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Adam Brody and the creative process
The other day I found myself reading a New York Times article via the imdb site. It was about actor Adam Brody, with the focus being his upcoming movie, In The Land of Women. I don't really know a lot about the guy. Just that he played a geek-type character on The O.C. (a show I saw about two episodes of by virtue of everyone I knew in Sydney seemed to watch it).
I found I rather liked Brody based on some of his quotes in the article. At one point, he describes himself as a "fake intellectual" - referring to the misconception most people have of him based on his characters in television. He admits he's not particularly well-read and is at times uncomfortable with people thinking that he is. I've got to respect the guy for his honesty. Plus, his acting ability is obviously pretty good if his geek character in Orange County was deemed cool enough for him to have a hot girlfriend on the show - this seeming believeable to the audience, I suppose. Now, certain scripts define certain characters as an "Adam Brody type" - that is, a somewhat low-key, loveable loser type who's actually pretty cool while still being true to his geeky roots. Quietly going about his business and getting the girl. It seems he's playing a very similar character in the movie and once more, he gets the girl(s).
It was probably inevitable that an actor would make geek culture hip and mainstream at some point but props to Brody for allegedly being the first. (he's the new Zach Braff!)
The other quote of his that really struck me went something like "I'm not really that creative (original?) I just know how to take things that I like and repackage them in a slightly different way." This struck me because maybe that's what I'm like. I want to write. I write. But so far, have I come up with anything particularly original? Not yet. My current effort is basically me standing on the shoulders of giants, my personal heroes, and trying to build on what they've shown me without completely ripping them off.
Really talented people sometimes get me upset as I don't think of myself as overly talented anyway and I've got a boatload of confidence issues besides. One of the main things that upsets me about talented people is they usually are good at more than one thing. I find myself thinking this is unfair even if the things are related. Case in point, I'm jealous of say, Ben Folds (whom I adore more than I could ever really be jealous of) because not only is he a phenomenal pianist, but he's also amazing at song writing, arranging AND the guy can sing really well. It all just seems to click with that guy. Which, don't get me wrong, is a great thing. I always wish I was better at piano. But if I was, I still couldn't write decent songs. But oh well. I'm musical, sure, (hell, ive even got an Outstanding Musician Award) but it's not really my arena.
So take any number of great writers I look up to. They all have the ability to come up with great ideas for stories and then tell the stories in really great fashion. Here's where I feel wanting - I think I really have the ability to write well. To write convincingly, to create mood, to present realistic and interesting characters, to set up action, suspense, etc. I'm still learning but I'm getting better all the time. I really do believe that. But here's the thing - the idea. Oh, the idea! So far, I'm not so hot at that. I want to write for Marvel someday. But why? Do I want to create new characters for them? Not really. I want to take characters invented by others before me and tell stories with them. I want to weave tales involving Spider Man, the X-Men and Moon Knight. And I think I could do it too. But could I really show everyone something they haven't seen before? I don't know. But I want to.
So maybe I won't be too hard on myself as I write V World, which, admittedly, is not an overly original novel. I'll write and create and weave and try to be original and different, but at the same time I won't put a ton of pressure on myself to reinvent the wheel. There's still time for my idea making chops to improve, after all.
For now, I'll try to take a page out of Adam Brody's book (I wasn't going for any sort of pun here but here we are) and just try to be happy with who I am and where it's got me so far, creatively speaking. If I focus on my strengths, the rest will come in time. Here's hoping anyway.
I found I rather liked Brody based on some of his quotes in the article. At one point, he describes himself as a "fake intellectual" - referring to the misconception most people have of him based on his characters in television. He admits he's not particularly well-read and is at times uncomfortable with people thinking that he is. I've got to respect the guy for his honesty. Plus, his acting ability is obviously pretty good if his geek character in Orange County was deemed cool enough for him to have a hot girlfriend on the show - this seeming believeable to the audience, I suppose. Now, certain scripts define certain characters as an "Adam Brody type" - that is, a somewhat low-key, loveable loser type who's actually pretty cool while still being true to his geeky roots. Quietly going about his business and getting the girl. It seems he's playing a very similar character in the movie and once more, he gets the girl(s).
It was probably inevitable that an actor would make geek culture hip and mainstream at some point but props to Brody for allegedly being the first. (he's the new Zach Braff!)
The other quote of his that really struck me went something like "I'm not really that creative (original?) I just know how to take things that I like and repackage them in a slightly different way." This struck me because maybe that's what I'm like. I want to write. I write. But so far, have I come up with anything particularly original? Not yet. My current effort is basically me standing on the shoulders of giants, my personal heroes, and trying to build on what they've shown me without completely ripping them off.
Really talented people sometimes get me upset as I don't think of myself as overly talented anyway and I've got a boatload of confidence issues besides. One of the main things that upsets me about talented people is they usually are good at more than one thing. I find myself thinking this is unfair even if the things are related. Case in point, I'm jealous of say, Ben Folds (whom I adore more than I could ever really be jealous of) because not only is he a phenomenal pianist, but he's also amazing at song writing, arranging AND the guy can sing really well. It all just seems to click with that guy. Which, don't get me wrong, is a great thing. I always wish I was better at piano. But if I was, I still couldn't write decent songs. But oh well. I'm musical, sure, (hell, ive even got an Outstanding Musician Award) but it's not really my arena.
So take any number of great writers I look up to. They all have the ability to come up with great ideas for stories and then tell the stories in really great fashion. Here's where I feel wanting - I think I really have the ability to write well. To write convincingly, to create mood, to present realistic and interesting characters, to set up action, suspense, etc. I'm still learning but I'm getting better all the time. I really do believe that. But here's the thing - the idea. Oh, the idea! So far, I'm not so hot at that. I want to write for Marvel someday. But why? Do I want to create new characters for them? Not really. I want to take characters invented by others before me and tell stories with them. I want to weave tales involving Spider Man, the X-Men and Moon Knight. And I think I could do it too. But could I really show everyone something they haven't seen before? I don't know. But I want to.
So maybe I won't be too hard on myself as I write V World, which, admittedly, is not an overly original novel. I'll write and create and weave and try to be original and different, but at the same time I won't put a ton of pressure on myself to reinvent the wheel. There's still time for my idea making chops to improve, after all.
For now, I'll try to take a page out of Adam Brody's book (I wasn't going for any sort of pun here but here we are) and just try to be happy with who I am and where it's got me so far, creatively speaking. If I focus on my strengths, the rest will come in time. Here's hoping anyway.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Why I do this
I recently visited Charlie Huston's site because I hadn't been there in ages. I was basically looking for Moon Knight and/or ComicCon news but didn't find any. However, one of his more recent posts was sort of about a life-changing experience that he had when he was fifteen. That experience was first reading Stephen King. Oddly enough, that first book he read was Firestarter - a book I've always assumed to be one of the lesser offerings from King and haven't even personally gotten around to reading myself. Huston's site is pulpnoir.com and I strongly suggest you go there not just to read that post but also to take a look at a guy I'd really like to emulate.
Some of that emulation starts right here.
I don't remember how old I was when I first read a Stephen King novel but I'd been aware of him for years, basically as "the horror guy" - a label I'm sure used to drive him crazy back in the eighties - I doubt he much cares anymore. If people really want to go on thinking the guy can only successfully write one genre then that's their problem.
So the first book...I'm not sure. I read at just as frenetic a pace ten years ago as I do now so it's pretty hard to keep track of what Ive read, at least as far as the order in which Ive read it. I also have a history or reading and the rereading the same books for years despite the fact that I'm always trying to fit new things in.
Anyway, I think I'd read about two King books before I got to the one that changed it all for me - The Stand. Maybe that's cliché - if it is, that's ok because even the best writers work in cliché. There wasn't one single thing about the book that affected me - it was everything. The sheer size and scope blew me away in ways other long books hadn't because I couldn't find any boring parts. Absolutely zero parts where the book dragged. Everything thrilled me and interested me. Some parts feeling like the equivalent of having glass thrown in my face immediately after taking the roundhouse kick that sent me to the floor. Years later I would read the revised edition with the extra content, bring the book's fantastic lenghth up even further and I lapped all that up too. You see, it wasn't the first really long book I'd read. It was simply the first really long book I'd read where I understood WHY it was so long. Everything needed to be in there and none of it could be rushed.
I love backstory - I love knowing a character's history even if they are only a minor player. King excels at this. I love him for giving me little sketches and vignettes of characters who would only appear in one chapter. It just adds all this depth and realism that just brings me so much further into the story. Now, for some people, it has the exact opposite effect, but for me, it makes everything more real. Because King didn't (and doesn't) give you the wrong parts. He knows what to give and what to hold back. I realize I can't just throw a ton of info about a minor character at the reader and expect them to love me for it. It's a delicate balance and one Ive been trying to perfect through practice. V World will put this to the ultimate test as I struggle with a large cast and gigantic supporting cast. I'll have to figure out what should be included and what should be left out.
Maybe I haven't done such a hot job of explaining this. So here's another example. In 1996, Onslaught took the Marvel universe (that's universe 616 for those of you who don't know) by storm. He affected EVERY SINGLE TITLE. But anyway, in a comic that I believe is an Unacnny X-Men (I actually now own this comic but I'm too lazy to go digging for it right now), just one of the many angles of the massive Sentinel attack on New York City is presented. It's obviously one of the most important angles, as it features members of the X-Men, Avengers and Fantastic Four all working together to stop the giant robot invaders. But it's not this angle that struck me. It's the opening.
I was reading this comic sometime in late 1996 in my friend, Ryan's bedroom (it was his comic, obviously) and I didn't say anything to him about the little epiphany I had because I didn't really know if it meant anything at the time. I wondered if maybe I was just too easily impressed. I realize Ive done an awful lot of talking without actually getting to what this opening comprised of - it will most likely disappoint you now after all the hype.
The comic opens with a scene at an apartment in New York. There is no X man there. No Avenger. No other Marvel Super hero, major or minor. Nor is the character presented related in any way to any hero. He's just a guy. The narration tells us this man's thoughts as he's dragging himself out of his bed in the morning. He thinks the landlord is an absolute crook - he still can't believe how much rent he's paying for such a small, shitty apartment. It's cramped and it's dull and it's way up on a very high floor. As he reaches to open his curtains to shed some light on his darkened bedroom he reflects the damn place only has one thing going for it: the view. As the words, "the view" are revealed in the next panel, the curtains are drawn aside and this guy finds himself face to face with the, uh, face of a giant sentinel robot. The next panel is an entire page - it's the title page and it's a wide shot of New York with hundreds of Sentinels swarming all over the place from the streets between the massive skyscrapers, the bridge, the harbour and even Ellis Island and the Statue of liberty. THEN we get to the heroes and what they're up to.
I realize now that this kind of opening is pretty standard stuff. But at the time, my twelve year old self was absolutely blown away. I think it was again a question of scope and magnitude. Of perspective. One thing that always made me prefer Marvel to DC was the interconnectedness ( a real word?) of it all. So now you know one truth about me: when I'm being told a story, I want to see it from all possible angles. I absolutely eat up that "meanwhile, back at the ranch" type approach and it's reflected in my favourite books, comics, movies and TV show episodes.
Getting back to King and the Stand. Besides the fact that it was a massive, sprawling narrative with dozens of characters and points of view that all combined into one story, another thing that hit me about it all was the amazing simplicity. I know you're probably thinking that completely contradicts everything I was just talking about but what I mean is, nothing in the book that happens is especially clever or intricate. And King can do clever. This book was more about black and white, good and evil and King didn't pull any punches in this one about that stuff.
Flagg is a wonderful character for a lot of reasons but I think what Ive always liked best about him is the fact that he is essentially very simple. King just made him as a representation of evil. He is not complex. We don't have to guess at his intentions - the dude's fucking evil and that's all there is to it. How he goes about his evil is also very simple. Basically, King told us, wherever there was evil, Flagg was there. From sketchy behind the scenes stuff to the most blatantly obvious, Flagg was there, being evil.
I think I loved that because when I was younger, I used to believe that if I was going to be a writer, everything I wrote would have to be clever. Pretentious to the point where people would read it, recognize it as obviously pretentious, and then actually decide it WASN'T because I must have been trying to be ironic. Hence, I am clever and a good writer. But you don't need that bullshit and I think it really took King and The Stand to teach me that. At the end of the day, it's about telling a good story and that's exactly what I plan to do.
Some of that emulation starts right here.
I don't remember how old I was when I first read a Stephen King novel but I'd been aware of him for years, basically as "the horror guy" - a label I'm sure used to drive him crazy back in the eighties - I doubt he much cares anymore. If people really want to go on thinking the guy can only successfully write one genre then that's their problem.
So the first book...I'm not sure. I read at just as frenetic a pace ten years ago as I do now so it's pretty hard to keep track of what Ive read, at least as far as the order in which Ive read it. I also have a history or reading and the rereading the same books for years despite the fact that I'm always trying to fit new things in.
Anyway, I think I'd read about two King books before I got to the one that changed it all for me - The Stand. Maybe that's cliché - if it is, that's ok because even the best writers work in cliché. There wasn't one single thing about the book that affected me - it was everything. The sheer size and scope blew me away in ways other long books hadn't because I couldn't find any boring parts. Absolutely zero parts where the book dragged. Everything thrilled me and interested me. Some parts feeling like the equivalent of having glass thrown in my face immediately after taking the roundhouse kick that sent me to the floor. Years later I would read the revised edition with the extra content, bring the book's fantastic lenghth up even further and I lapped all that up too. You see, it wasn't the first really long book I'd read. It was simply the first really long book I'd read where I understood WHY it was so long. Everything needed to be in there and none of it could be rushed.
I love backstory - I love knowing a character's history even if they are only a minor player. King excels at this. I love him for giving me little sketches and vignettes of characters who would only appear in one chapter. It just adds all this depth and realism that just brings me so much further into the story. Now, for some people, it has the exact opposite effect, but for me, it makes everything more real. Because King didn't (and doesn't) give you the wrong parts. He knows what to give and what to hold back. I realize I can't just throw a ton of info about a minor character at the reader and expect them to love me for it. It's a delicate balance and one Ive been trying to perfect through practice. V World will put this to the ultimate test as I struggle with a large cast and gigantic supporting cast. I'll have to figure out what should be included and what should be left out.
Maybe I haven't done such a hot job of explaining this. So here's another example. In 1996, Onslaught took the Marvel universe (that's universe 616 for those of you who don't know) by storm. He affected EVERY SINGLE TITLE. But anyway, in a comic that I believe is an Unacnny X-Men (I actually now own this comic but I'm too lazy to go digging for it right now), just one of the many angles of the massive Sentinel attack on New York City is presented. It's obviously one of the most important angles, as it features members of the X-Men, Avengers and Fantastic Four all working together to stop the giant robot invaders. But it's not this angle that struck me. It's the opening.
I was reading this comic sometime in late 1996 in my friend, Ryan's bedroom (it was his comic, obviously) and I didn't say anything to him about the little epiphany I had because I didn't really know if it meant anything at the time. I wondered if maybe I was just too easily impressed. I realize Ive done an awful lot of talking without actually getting to what this opening comprised of - it will most likely disappoint you now after all the hype.
The comic opens with a scene at an apartment in New York. There is no X man there. No Avenger. No other Marvel Super hero, major or minor. Nor is the character presented related in any way to any hero. He's just a guy. The narration tells us this man's thoughts as he's dragging himself out of his bed in the morning. He thinks the landlord is an absolute crook - he still can't believe how much rent he's paying for such a small, shitty apartment. It's cramped and it's dull and it's way up on a very high floor. As he reaches to open his curtains to shed some light on his darkened bedroom he reflects the damn place only has one thing going for it: the view. As the words, "the view" are revealed in the next panel, the curtains are drawn aside and this guy finds himself face to face with the, uh, face of a giant sentinel robot. The next panel is an entire page - it's the title page and it's a wide shot of New York with hundreds of Sentinels swarming all over the place from the streets between the massive skyscrapers, the bridge, the harbour and even Ellis Island and the Statue of liberty. THEN we get to the heroes and what they're up to.
I realize now that this kind of opening is pretty standard stuff. But at the time, my twelve year old self was absolutely blown away. I think it was again a question of scope and magnitude. Of perspective. One thing that always made me prefer Marvel to DC was the interconnectedness ( a real word?) of it all. So now you know one truth about me: when I'm being told a story, I want to see it from all possible angles. I absolutely eat up that "meanwhile, back at the ranch" type approach and it's reflected in my favourite books, comics, movies and TV show episodes.
Getting back to King and the Stand. Besides the fact that it was a massive, sprawling narrative with dozens of characters and points of view that all combined into one story, another thing that hit me about it all was the amazing simplicity. I know you're probably thinking that completely contradicts everything I was just talking about but what I mean is, nothing in the book that happens is especially clever or intricate. And King can do clever. This book was more about black and white, good and evil and King didn't pull any punches in this one about that stuff.
Flagg is a wonderful character for a lot of reasons but I think what Ive always liked best about him is the fact that he is essentially very simple. King just made him as a representation of evil. He is not complex. We don't have to guess at his intentions - the dude's fucking evil and that's all there is to it. How he goes about his evil is also very simple. Basically, King told us, wherever there was evil, Flagg was there. From sketchy behind the scenes stuff to the most blatantly obvious, Flagg was there, being evil.
I think I loved that because when I was younger, I used to believe that if I was going to be a writer, everything I wrote would have to be clever. Pretentious to the point where people would read it, recognize it as obviously pretentious, and then actually decide it WASN'T because I must have been trying to be ironic. Hence, I am clever and a good writer. But you don't need that bullshit and I think it really took King and The Stand to teach me that. At the end of the day, it's about telling a good story and that's exactly what I plan to do.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Writers I admire and try not to rip off
Stephen King
R.A. Salvatore
Agatha Christie
Frank Miller
Doug Moench
Gordon Korman
Clive Barker
Charlie Huston
Tennessee Williams
Hunter Thompson
R.A. Salvatore
Agatha Christie
Frank Miller
Doug Moench
Gordon Korman
Clive Barker
Charlie Huston
Tennessee Williams
Hunter Thompson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)