But I'm trying. Has it really been a month since my last post? Yeesh. I'd promise to do better, but let's face it: I'll probably do this again. I'm hoping this short post (because it will be short) will kickstart me into posting regularly again.
First off, the news: I sent my middle grade novel into the Utah Original Writing Contest and it passed all the basic formatting checks, so I'm in on that. I'll hear results in September and will report them to you, my readers. All 12 of you. I also attended the Books for Young Readers Symposium and met writers like Maggie Stiefvater and Nathan Hale. It was a good two day conference that didn't drain me but exposed me to what some good writers had to say about their craft. And, like always, I got inspired to write more.
I haven't gotten angry over books lately, except for the whole Fifty Shades of Grey thing. I'm against book burning; I think that although no book is perfect the vast majority of books have some redeeming value (Twilight included). However, should the zombie apocalypse come and I'm in need of toilet paper, I have my option picked out.
That was rude. But I meant it. Stay tuned for future rant.
Anyway, today is July 31st, otherwise known as Harry Potter's birthday. I went to a party celebrating it at a local restaurant and had a pint of butterbeer (it comes in pints).
(It didn't look this nice, but it tasted great)
So, here at least, there is a real party celebrating the birthday of a fictional character. J.K. Rowling, please accept my awe and admiration.
So here it is: instead of talking at you, like I normally do, I want to ask you why you think Harry Potter has made such a splash. Is it cross-cultural details (aka, Americans finding boarding school life fascinating), the development of a world (Quidditch, butterbeer, and other elements that can be pictured and recreated in our world, along with jargon like "muggles"), the characters, the plot, and politics...what is it? Every time I think about it, I have a new idea. Please, if you want to weigh in, post your thoughts below. If we can figure out what is working in the Harry Potter books, I think we'd all become better writers.
Hello again! I hope you had as awesome a week as I did. I spent a lot of time revising my novel for the contest, and I'm feeling pretty good. I had a plot point that required my protagonist to act in a way that was very much not in his character, but I figured out a way that he could act like himself without ruining the plot point that needed to happen. I am worried that I'm revising this novel to death, as it has changed a lot since I last worked on it. But I have it with readers, and I'll see what they think. Gotta love writing.
So, as the title of this post implies, I saw How to Train Your Dragon 2 this past weekend. Twice. The first time in 3D, the second in regular 2D. And I loved it. Here is my review.
No story is perfect, and neither is every movie. I felt that the ending of HTTYD2 lacked the resonance the first movie's final scene had. But it should tell you something that this is the worst criticism I can level against the film.
Before I go on, I should list out what I want in a story, be it on paper or on screen: I want a story about a person. Epic battles, large-scale destruction, witty banter, etc. are all well and good and I like them all in their place (large-scale destruction to a lesser amount), but what I always want is a story about a character's personal growth and his/her actions and responses to things around him/her. I want to meet and sympathize with a character to the point that I feel what they feel and I want them to succeed, regardless of the circumstances. I once read a story by one of my students about a child who wanted to catch a fallen, red leaf. That's all. Small circumstance, but I have never wanted a kid to catch a leaf so badly because of the way the writer showed me why it mattered to that one child.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 did this very well. Yes, they battles were larger and more intense than those in the first movie, and the animation was beautiful. But what struck me was how good the writers were at making me care about Hiccup and the things he goes through. This happened in the first movie, too, and seems to me to be the first thing that gets lost in a movie sequel. Not here. This movie does a great job of having large stakes for the world of the film, but also for the hero. By the end, I was emotionally absorbed because what mattered to Hiccup mattered to me.
I'm deliberately avoiding spoilers in this review. But I will say that if you are the kind of person who cries at movies, you may cry during this one. I didn't, but I'm not the kind of person who cries at movies. One thing I've learned about writing is that you think of the worst possible thing that could happen to your hero, and then you make it worse. How to Train Your Dragon 2 did it. Bad got worse. But it wasn't gratuitous; that moment (that I will not discuss) pushed the characters to behave in ways that moved the story along.
One of the things I love about this franchise is how active the characters are. They don't sit around and wait for things to happen. They go out and do things, even though those things sometimes are mistakes. I love that. I also love that characters behave in character, and this continues on to the second movie. The characters have changed, but not so drastically that they've stopped being the characters we loved in the first movie.
HTTYD2 avoided the trap many sequels fall into: the plot and jokes and hallmarks of the second film are exactly the same as those of the first. This time, the sequel is its own movie. It builds on the first, but the plot is its own and the characters grow in new ways. It adds to the story, not rehashes what we have already. And all new surprises are, of course, foreshadowed. No shocks that don't feel right, like they belong to the natural flow of the story.
Last note, and then I'm done: HTTYD2 expands Toothless as a character. I love this. Not just because I love Toothless (and who wouldn't? Look at him!)
but because in the sequel you see a lot more of Toothless's personality. He's not just an animal; he's a character. Dreamworks does such an amazing job with the dragon, maintaining and animal feel while making him as intelligent as Hiccup and an equal partner in fighting to save Berk.
Overall, I give this movie an A. Visually lovely, music as good as ever, and an excellent move forward in a larger story. Plot and characters handled so well, making me the viewer emotionally engaged. That last bit is the sign of a good movie to me. If you don't care about the characters enough to root for them, then what does it matter what else happens?
I'm going to buy the DVD when it comes out. You can count on that. But until then, I'm just going to have to reread the books and hope the last one comes out soon.
Sorry for the delay in posting; I had a lot of revision to do and I went on vacation. But I'm back and ready to rant. First, I heard Maleficent wasn't a great movie. I heard it's cliche and weak. I haven't seen it yet, but based on what people with similar tastes as mine have said, I won't be for a while. I just want a real anti-hero, not a villain who's misunderstood and good inside. I liked what Marvel did with Loki; he's evil, no doubt about that, but you sympathize because you see and understand what caused him to be like that.
My personal preferences should be set aside, however, today. This time I want to discuss the "X Factor," as I call it, that seems to separate the award-winning films and books and plays from the rest. This may be a long, rambly post because, frankly, I have no idea what it is. I do know what it looks like when I see it, as I think everyone might, as shown by this trailer for every Oscar-winning movie ever:
This parody video nails it. Every movie that wins an Oscar looks like this. I think the same goes for plays (my family has decided that edgy works win Tonys for Best Play/Musical) and for books. I can't tell you how many times someone has recommended a book to me on the basis that it made someone cry. I don't think that's valid proof that a book is a solid work of literature. I've read books that made me cry too, but I was crying in pain.
This is the part of the post where I allow that one of the definitions of literature is that literature strikes us where we're most human. It discusses what it means to live and love and hurt like human beings. I agree with this. Maybe this is the X Factor. But personally, I've seen plenty of films and read plenty of books that do this but are definitely not award-winner material. For example, Titanic is a movie that wins awards. And it's a stupid story with flat, obnoxious characters. Wreck-It Ralph, on the other hand, has a sold plot and really well-developed characters, as does Tangled. I would be shocked if either won major accolades.
The best literature can find this X Factor without beating it to death (which I think some books and movies do) and explore it in a well-told story with great characters. I thought Wonder by R.J. Palacio did this. I think what made Shakespeare great was that he could do this. He explores in his plays the heights and depths of human nature and the human condition, but the characters feel real and the stories are interesting. There's a lot of murder in Hamlet.
So what are we to do? I still have no idea what the X Factor really is, but I'm going to do my best to analyze it based on some of the more hackneyed, award-scrounging works I've seen and read. The X Factor seems to incorporate:
1. Tragedy. For some reasons, comedies rarely win big awards or get remembered in history. How many times did you read Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet in high school? Did anyone read The Importance of Being Earnest? Anyone? If so, you're lucky. Despite the potential for spectacular characters and creative social critique in comedies, they rarely rise above the ranks. High school English was a depressing 4 years.
2. Edginess. I think we've been trained to think that high art pushes the envelope. So it's no surprise that the works we hail as great are somewhat edgy, dealing with taboos of society and harder characters. WARNING: This element of the X Factor can be a cliche trope. Edginess is fine in aid of plot, characters, and meaning of a work. But throwing it in a story that works just as well without it to look artsy is kind of pathetic. It becomes a "sex sells" thing, when the story alone should have the power to compel based on its ability to connect to humanity. Everything should be in aid of the story and the characters that move it.
3. Current societal trends. Yes, this matters. I swear. Watch the video above for the parody of the social connections. Whatever disease or war or financial scandal is happening today, I promise you will see it reflected in the works that win awards nowadays. On the one hand, this seems like a pandering to mass culture and not the timelessness that classics have. However, awards aren't given by eternity but by a panel of judges right now. Humans also respond more to the things that speak to them right now. Horror stories, the best ones, do a great job of this. Dracula was a monster that directly terrified the Victorians, and Frankenstein's monster was horrific to the Romantics. What made them last was the fact that they still terrify us on a deeper, human level.
I'm going to call it here. If you have other elements you see that I missed, please put them in the comments. I could also add good writing, heavy focus on the characters over plotting, symbolism, etc. But these seem to rise and fall, while the above seem pretty constant. I also want to add that genre (mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, horror) rarely gets the nod. That angers me. The quality of crafting the story should matter more than it does.
Why do I care? Well, the Tonys were last night, and I'm getting sick of the self-congratulatory nature of awards shows in general. Also, I'm entering a writing contest (which me luck) and I spend too much time calculating my chances. I'm not altering my story to fit this formula or ranting about the unfairness of the system, I promise. I'm just thinking about what separates different kinds of stories.
Last, if there is a formula for the kind of books and movies and plays that win awards, we as writers need to know about it. It may give us an insight into the kind of stories that resonate with people most, which can boost the power of our writing. But it can also hinder us if we start using the X Factor's elements as a way to gain cheap recognition. A book isn't good just because it can make you cry. It might just be emotionally manipulative. The more knowledge we have, the better our writing will be because we can make conscious decisions to craft it the way we want it to be.
First: the Agents of SHIELD finale. SO GOOD! I'm satisfied, but also really excited to see where they go in the next season. Second: life's good. I'm writing a lot, reading a lot, and taking long walks to the library both to get more books to read and to take time to let my mind wander over the stories I'm writing.
So, a few weeks back I find this blog post, "Flaws Only a Protagonist Can Have." I spent a little time laughing over it with my sister. It's too ridiculous! But it's funny because it's really not: I see these kind of flaws all over the YA scene. I can't stand it anymore, which might be why I'm gravitating to MG and adult lately. Clumsiness is not a flaw, unless it directly impacts the protagonist's ability to act. Flaws are also irrelevant if they relate to appearance, unless they directly impact the protagonist's ability to act.
I don't like the word "flaw" when used in character development. It reminds me of "strong female character," and you know how I feel about that from a past post. When a writer sits down to create a character, it can be crippling to feel like you need to make them flawed but still likeable. Hence flaws-that-are-not-real-flaws. The thing is, flaws actually contribute to a likeable character because readers can relate. The character isn't a perfect angel, but human like us. When they fall, we know how it feels and root for the character to get up and try again.
No, I don't like "flaw." I prefer the term"weakness" or even better, "hamartia."
The word "hamartia" is Greek and is most famously from the Poetics by Aristotle. It is usually interpreted as "fatal flaw" or "tragic flaw" because this is the thing, Aristotle says, causes a tragic hero to fall. But the word itself means "a missing of the mark" or "sin" and can cover accidental, purposeful, and mistaken wrongdoing. I like this word because it means that a "flaw" doesn't always have to be bad or actively rebelling. A character doesn't have to be evil to make mistakes or get so blinded (Oedipus, anyone?) to the truth that they act in a way that gets people hurt or harms their objective.
Case study: Frozen. Yes, Anna is clumsy and that is not a real flaw, but she's also super-eager to get out and find romance and because of that, she falls for a sociopath (oh, if you don't know that yet...). This is the flaw that matters, the hamartia. She "misses the mark" on both Hans and Elsa (who, she thinks, would never hurt). Anna's weakness is her naivete in understanding people and her trust in them that they don't deserve. And it hurts her. We, the audience, feel for her because we can relate with her mistake and we want her to fix things. She does, and we are thrilled.
Case study #2: Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix. According to Hermione, Harry has a "saving people thing." This is very true, because Hermione said it. This character trait causes Harry to miss that Voldemort might be trying to use him, and Harry runs off to save Sirius, thus leading to Sirius's death. If Harry had done nothing, everything would have been fine. The flaw moves the story along, and helps us emotionally connect to Harry.
I think I should point out that eagerness and trust and a desire for heroism are not in themselves bad and flaws. But in context, they are. Most of the best stories have characters whose virtues become their flaws. Boromir just wants to save his people, so he's tempted by the Ring. LOTR is a good example of good people falling to weaknesses that really aren't evil.
That's why I like "weakness" and "hamartia." I think perceiving character weaknesses like this allows for real character development. Who is this character? What is he/she like? How can his/her character traits be used against them and their objective? What might he/she miss because he/she's so focused somewhere else? Let us stop this plague of clumsy girls who don't know they're beautiful.
The title of this post is meant to be a clever play on my topic today, why conflict matters in a story. It has nothing to do with "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" and certain feelings I have toward a certain character. I'm not all that conflicted, actually. I want him dead. But it's a Whedon production, so I have a lot of pain to get through before anything like that can happen.
Anyway, conflict. I started my last class of college, a class on writing YA/MG novels. Everyone in the class has to lead a pedagogy exercise. The first one was about conflict and why it's important in telling a powerful story.
This was interesting to me, especially as a genre writer. I've read some criticism of genre that it focuses too much on plot and conflict and not enough on character, and that's a fair point. However, I think that conflict and character go hand in hand. This may be my way of rationalizing conflict in with my overriding philosophy that without good characters, a story won't work as it should.
I do think that a story needs good characters. If the reader's going to spend so much time with them, they have to like them, sympathize with them, relate with them, or just root for them for some reason. I've read books where I either hated the character or felt nothing for them, and I finish the book feeling either meh or cheated, depending. But if we have a character people can root for, they, of course, have to be struggling against something. You don't root for the guy who's doing nothing and has everything going well in his life; you root for the person who has one heck of a battle ahead of him.
Could be to drop the One Ring in Mt. Doom, could be to finally get a new job. But it's got to be hard, relatively speaking, for the character. The best conflicts I've seen have been ones where the conflict seems like just a little (or a lot) more than the protagonist can handle. This may be action (12 men against 1), or it could be mental or emotional. Maybe it takes everything your protagonist has to tell her boyfriend she loves him. Depends on character, depends on what they need to grow and their weaknesses. I've read that the best way to hurt your characters is to hit them where they're weakest. Conflict can come from there, too.
The girl who taught the class on memorable, meaningful conflict asked us to think of stories that had conflict we liked and some that we didn't. The Fault in Our Stars was a top favorite, along with The Lord of the Rings and The Giver. These stories have conflict that is compelling to the reader (think, ouch) and are meaningful in how they impact the reader and the characters (more ouch, but personalized). Stories that didn't make it were Nicholas Sparks romances and action movies, where there's a lot of action but no real feeling of urgency.
She ended with a list of questions for writers to keep in mind when writing conflict, and I'm going to list them here. They were really good and help to think about conflict and characters and how the two interplay to create a compelling story.
1. Why do you (yes, you, the author) care about the conflict?
2. Why should your reader care about the conflict?
3. What does the character want? Can she get it easily? What stands in her way? Should there be more adversity in order for the conflict to feel important?
4. What will she give up in order to obtain her desire? Are these things internal or external?
5. How will getting what she wants affect those around her? Will it hurt them? Help them?
6. What's at risk? How high are the stakes? What will happen if she doesn't get what she wants?
7. Are there issues of time/placement/back story/character clashing that can make this "the perfect storm" (without feeling contrived)?
8. What information does the reader need to see/know in order to understand the weight of the conflict?
9. What failures need to happen before the climax? Successes?
10. What does the character need to learn/become in order to get what she wants? Are there people she needs to meet? Skills she needs to learn? Character flaws she needs to embrace or overcome?
These questions were really useful for me, helping me see some additional pain I could put my character through to heighten the conflict in his story. More conflict, more pain, leads to a more interesting story when it's done well. I guess I can't fault Whedon too much.
Let us begin with contextualization. I watched Atlantis late Saturday night with a roommate who had never seen it before. This needed to be rectified. As we were finding it on Netflix, I commented that most people I know have never seen it, or only saw it once a long time ago. And, as we watched, we realized that it is one of the best geek movies of our time.
So, with no further ado, the reasons:
1. Joss Whedon worked on the story. That would be Joss Whedon, of Buffy, Firefly, and Avengers fame. He worked on the story. Which may be why the film kind of resembles an animated, underground Firefly. All the Whedon trademarks are there:the brilliant writing, the fantastic ensemble cast, the thrilling heroics...and the somewhat convoluted plot, though this one isn't as bad, probably because it's really a kid's movie.
Also, this:
The Shepherd's Journal from Atlantis
Shepherd Book from Firefly
Get it? Shepherd book?
(I am far too amused by this)
2. The movie is a overflowing fountain of nerd joy. Yes, beyond the Whedon connection. The linguist who developed the Atlantean language in the movie also invented Klingon and Vulcan. Leonard Nimoy is the voice of the king of Atlantis. Although I personally have not seen this movie, I have been told Atlantis shares some plot points with Stargate. I'll leave that to my readers to verify.
3. It, along with Disney's Treasure Planet, is steampunk. Well-done steampunk, with all the awesome that comes with it. Great big machines, subterranean landscapes with monsters and enormous sculptures, adventure, exploration, a culture with a language and customs at the center of the earth...everything Jules Verne-approved for maximum wish fulfillment. The story's style mimics the popular stories of the time the movie is set in (1914), which is kind of awesome, if you think about it.
4. For a Disney movie, it gets dark. It deals with some serious matter, like loss of culture and genocide (you know, for kids!). This adds matter to the story, which causes real thought and real feelings about the story and characters. This movie also is not afraid to kill characters off (see reason #1, above).
5. My favorite reason: Milo Thatch is basically, as my roommate put it, "skinny Steve" from Captain America. Let me explain. The moment in Captain America where Steve Rogers jumps on the dummy grenade as every other soldier runs for cover is the moment when you see that the reason Rogers is a hero has nothing to do with physical strength and combat ability. Here's the scene, below:
What's impressive about Milo in Atlantis is that he, too, is a hero for reasons beyond the physical. Atlantis goes further than Captain America, though, as Milo never gets good at fighting. Even at the end, Milo succeeds by dodging a lot and by being clever. I love this, because it breaks tradition and doesn't break character.
Milo gets to go on this awesome adventure because of his intellectual skills, but I want to make something clear: in the climax and the build-up, Milo is most heroic when standing for what is right. He goes after the villain because "it's the right thing" after convincing the other members of the team that what they're doing is wrong. He has a moral code and he never wavers from it. Ever. And that's super admirable for any character in any movie. It's his integrity that wins him friends to help him and gives him the grit to go into mortal danger to save the girl and the day, not really his intelligence and certainly not his physical skills.
So there. Awesome writer, awesome setting and plot, geekness all over the place, and a hero that is impressive not for amazing skills but for an unyielding belief in doing the right thing.So go watch it. Atlantis is waiting.
This is a short post. I got shown this video on YA novels, and I had to share it. So that's all today, just this video. Will be back next week with a new rant or review, but this week I'm working on a novel and wondering if it's sane to fangirl over one's own characters.
Yes, this is Dr. Doofenshmirtz from Phineas and Ferb. Yes, he apparently has his own web series. And yes, it is addicting. Don't judge me.
