The Graduation Experience for 2020 Graduates

Folks, I feel bad for the 2020 graduates.

Two of my siblings were cheated out of their college graduations by COVID-19, and now we have many other colleges and high schools going through the same thing.

This is a rite of passage that many students look forward to, or at least accept that they will have to pass through, and although many schools are finding new ways to make the experience special for the 2020 grads, and although these graduates can certainly claim a unique experience that no other classes can, I'm sure many students also feel cheated.

So, today, inspired by the videos of people creating their own, at-home, Disney rides, as someone who has passed through three graduation ceremonies, I'm going to give you a guide to creating your own at-home graduation experience.

1. Set up a chair outside in your backyard. Pick a sunny spot, with no shade. The hotter the day, the more authentic. You may want to include a water bottle, to be left outside by the chair as the day warms.

2. Put on a graduation robe. If you don't have one, a bathrobe will do, as long as it has long sleeves. If you don't have a bathrobe, wrap up in the shower curtain. Include the plastic water guard if the curtain itself seems too breathable.

3. Find and wear the stupidest-looking hat you own. Know that you don't look good in it. Know that no one will ever look good in it. But remember, this day isn't about looking good, it's about looking like a scholar.

4. After the chair has reached peak warmth (around noon to 2 pm), march slowly around your yard to Sir Edward Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance."

Be certain to march for roughly 5 minutes before sitting down. Play the music for another half hour before stopping the music.

5. Reset music player to play recordings of crowds cheering, loudly, to go off at random every 3-5 minutes. Length of cheers can range from one second to three straight minutes, to be set at your discretion. If you can't find recordings, this is something your friends and family can do.

6. Complete the following template and enjoy the speech, read or spoken aloud by a friend or family member:

My fellow students, it has been said [enter common quote about the future here, such as "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" or a line from Oh, The Places You'll Go. This is your graduation theme]. We have seen how true this is through our years at [school] and now, facing our future, we see it better than ever.

Our times at [school] have been some of the best years of our lives. We have laughed, loved, worked, and studied diligently to arrive where we are now. And we've also [enter inside joke about teacher/professor, or about school's sports team]. [Add small pause, and laugh]

I know we're all apprehensive for the future. Who knows what it will bring? But I know that as we live by the values instilled in us during our journey here at [school], we'll be more than prepared to take on the hurdles ahead of us, climbing every mountain of struggle with hope and optimism for the future. We are smart, strong, powerful people, and we can make it!

I know that I will always remember my time at [school] and I know you will, too. Although we leave the safe nest that was [school] to spread our wings, we take with us the lessons we learned here. Not just the ones we learned in our classrooms, but the lessons we learned about how to be people. How to hope, and love, and never take ourselves too seriously. As we journey into our future, we will carry [school] with us in our hearts.

Indeed, we will honestly say we can [return to graduation theme quote]. Wiser words have never been spoken.

So, to the class of 2020, hats off! We did it!

[thunderous applause]

Read or listen to this speech or variations of it (if you feel like being creative) at least seven times.

7. Read your school or college directory. Very, very slowly. Increase rate of cheering recording to 1-2 times a minute.

8. Drink your water. It's hot outside.

9. When you reach your own name, stand up, circle the yard, and return to your seat. If you have friends or family helping you, one of them can hand you a piece of paper and shake your hand before sending you back to your chair. Extra authenticity if your friend calls your name for you, mispronouncing it.

10. Finish reading the directory.

11. Listen or read that speech one more time.

12. Play "Pomp and Circumstance" one more time. Stand and march slowly around the yard, for the same length of time as before.

13. Take a zillion pictures with your family before finally shedding the hat and shower curtain.

I hope this has been helpful in giving you a guide to creating your own graduation experience! Granted, not all experiences are the same for every student, so you can experiment with having it inside, outside in the rain, or somehow, both. Or whatever you want.

Or you can skip this particular experience and figure out your own way to make the day special. For my siblings, we did a photo shoot and then dinner. Some people may choose to call friends and family they haven't seen for a while. While it's devastating to miss the traditional graduation experience, there may be something to say for, in this decidedly non-traditional year, finding another option that celebrates the accomplishment of graduating in a new and personal way.

And hey, it may save you from heatstroke.

Congratulations to the class of 2020, whoever you are and wherever you graduated from. You should be proud of your accomplishment and I hope you're being honored, in some way, this year. Especially since you're graduating in the middle of a pandemic. If nothing else, know that I'm happy for you and would happily cheer at an inappropriate time for you during your ceremony.

When the Writer Was a Little TOO Angry

Let's talk about anger.

We all feel it. Right now, with everything going on in the world, you're probably feeling higher levels of it. I'm no psychologist, and what I know about anger comes mostly from my own experience and how in the movie Inside Out Anger is described as caring about "what's fair."

Which makes sense to me. We get anger when we think we or someone else have been wronged. This wrong can be real and perceived, and in a world with lots of unfairness, there's a lot of reason to feel angry.

What does this have to do with writing? Well, writing comes from powerful emotions, and anger is a powerful emotion. It's stirring, and it feels so good to be angry about something we see as a good cause. It feels righteous and good to write a story using anger as a driving motivation, to address an unfairness we see in the world.

Okay, good. Lots of great writing has come out of anger, I'm sure. Get upset about something, and watch the realistic emotions roll down to the page. Let that anger become constructive and do what you can to fix the problem.

But I think anger can become dangerous to a writer. Sure, sometimes anger causes the writer to look deeper and find a story they need to tell, to either fix something in the world or simply remove the burden from themselves. After all, we all have things that irk us that aren't really major societal issues, too. However, there comes a point when the anger becomes a hindrance and the writing becomes Bad Writing. And there is no excuse for Bad Writing, especially when it's supposed to be used to fix a problem.

(Bad Writing solves nothing. Bad Writing undermines author and intent and might not even get read. The best action is always Good Writing.)

So, here's a list of ways you can tell that the author may have been a little TOO angry when writing, and that anger has turned to destructive, Bad Writing:

1. The Whole Story is Revenge Porn

Now, we all like a good revenge story. There are lots of great ones out there. We relish justice and when a story is about a hurt party taking revenge on their attackers/oppressors/just garden variety jerks, we love it. It can be empowering and cathartic.

I'm a fan of the TV show Leverage (Which is coming back!), which uses a lot of the tropes of a revenge story. Some big, powerful scum-of-the-earth wrongs an innocent party, using wealth or status, and the Leverage team absolutely annihilates that guy and gets justice for their clients.

It's a great show. But here's the thing: it focuses first on story and character, and it keeps the cathartic element in place. The characters who are taken down are large and powerful, and they're hurting people indiscriminately. When we the viewers see the ending, we feel good because what happened is just. These people needed to be stopped, and since they'd built their empires on suffering, of course those empires had to fall or be taken away, too. It's justice.

It also doesn't hurt that every so often, it complicates the theme of "bad guy deserves to go down hard" because hey, that's Good Writing.

Anyway, that's when it's done well. When a writer was a touch too angry, the story can become revenge porn. This is when the story is not about justice, or even about the characters at all. It's about making someone pay.

This is destructive "lashing out" through fiction: someone made the writer angry, and since this is the writer's sandbox, they'll rain down pain on this person, to the detriment of the character and story.

So, here's an example. We have a Leverage-esque story where a wealthy CEO fires and humiliates an employee simply because he's rich and he can. Go ahead and imagine any motivation you like here. So the employee uncovers the CEO's darkest secret and uses it to undermine the CEO's credibility and gets him fired.

And then the employee burns down the office building with people inside, framing the CEO for the arson. The employee also takes personal reparations from the CEO's personal bank account, leaving his whole family destitute. And then...

You see what I'm getting at? This story ceases to be a narrative about someone getting revenge on someone who deserves it. The collateral damage stacks up, so now employees who did nothing wrong are endangered and killed, just to get back at the CEO. The CEO's family, who are likely innocent, are attacked as well, simply for the crime of being associated with the CEO.

This is every revenge fantasy taken to an extreme. To the reader, the protagonist starts to seem worse than the villain, although the ethical questions here are never asked. We're just supposed to believe this is all fine because the hero is the "good guy" and was wronged that one time.

This can also be characterized by a removal of normal narrative conventions to facilitate the revenge fantasy: no try-fail cycle, no character development, no anything other than the revenge. The author is living out a fantasy, and by golly, nothing's going to stop them.

I don't see this story very often on shelves, but I have seen it in student work and in tales on the internet. It always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Aren't we supposed to like the protagonist?

So, in short: if the story becomes more about the author living out an extreme revenge fantasy, the author may have been too angry to write well. The anger undermines the character, and we lose the ability to relate to him or her.

2. The Characters are Flat Caricatures

I have seen this one in books I've read. The author has an Axe to Grind, and as a result, they create a story that is all about that Axe. It's not about characters, so there's no reason to have characters who are deep and complex. Might as well paint them with a broad brush, especially if they're our villains.

Here's an example of this. I read a YA fantasy book not too long ago that had a feminist message. Not too bad, but, as a result, every single man in the story was a sexist, violent predator.

Every.

Single.

One.

Let's step back from a moment on why that's not great, and then look at the women in the book. As a result of being oppressed by these men, every woman was submissive and scared, resigned to their fate.

Every.

Single.

One.

(With the exception of the protagonist, who only is submissive and scared until the very end when she realizes her true power.)

Okay. This is not good writing, and here's why.

The problem here is that the Issue is being recast as characters, with no concern for realistic character development. The men became the Problem, and that left the women to be the Victim. They had to all act the same way or they weren't really showing the issue. Think of this on a smaller scale: high school. Every jock is a brainless jerk because they're the Problem, and therefore the Victim, the nerds, have to act in the same way. Because that's what the Issue looks like.

By painting every member of a group with the same brush, not only are you stereotyping your characters, both good and bad, you miss the nuances in the system. If you're trying to show sexism, like in the book I read, you can have a deeper, more interesting story when some men are violent and predatory, but maybe others are more patronizing, carrying the "don't worry your pretty little head" opinion about things. Or maybe other men sympathize but aren't willing to lose face in front of their friends by helping the women.

 
As for the Victim, you lose the different responses. With our high school example, maybe some nerds take their beatings silently. Some others seek adult help. Others may fight back, and still others might straight up not care. That doesn't mean that all these solutions work. It just means you have humans acting like humans, exploring lots of options.

Of course, if you're writing an allegory, then nuance can go out the window. But only if you set out to write an allegory. If not, subjugating story to get a Message out there is never a good idea. It weakens its characters and can even undermine the Message, especially if that message has anything to do with not judging or stereotyping others. It also feels preachy, which brings me to...

3. It's Didactic

Aha, one of the general sins of writing. This is not limited to angry writing, by any stretch. This is something I tend to see in books that deal with Big Issues of Our Time, or in books for kids (since kids' books tend to require some kind of theme).

A didactic book is about teaching some lesson or proving a point. It's not about character or story, and if you read this blog (or even read this post this far) you know I think story and character should be the main focus. A good book lets theme grow out of itself, and this is often far more interesting than going in with, "I have something to say."

Not that "I have something to say" books are inherently bad. Many turn out very well. We have shelves of classics that "had something to say" (a lot of them are by Charles Dickens).

 
But that's because the author didn't just leave the story at the message. They went deeper and looked at how the issue affects people and what makes it anger-inducing. The story deals with realistic character and plot. It's not an angry rant thinly disguised as a narrative.

This is obvious in books when you can't go two pages without a character waxing eloquent about whatever point they're trying to make. Imagine reading a YA book with an introverted character who, at any point of dialogue, needs to explain why introversion is good and people should just let him be who he is. It's preachy and it breaks up story.

It's also totally unnecessary. A good story shows its theme through the plot and characters. It doesn't need to expound for pages on it.

Also, we can see it through plot and character, in unrealistic ways. Hero is the good guy and can do no wrong, and Bad Guy can do no right. The Hero is always wise and good and the Bad Guy is always despicable. Once again, characters flatten. Plot can also be used unrealistically to reward the Hero and punish the Bad Guy.

Personally, I find this writing insufferable, as characters who have flaws and nuances are far more interesting, especially in dealing with things that anger people. And, again, this can undermine the story's message by annoying the heck out of the reader.

4. The Story Wants to Hurt, Nothing More

There is a place for stories that sting. When people in power are too comfortable, they may not see the unfairness others find blatant, or maybe they choose to ignore it. Books that sting and hurt can raise awareness for things that frankly need awareness.

But when a writer is too angry, the point is no longer to fix the problem. It's to hurt others. It's to lash out.

What does this look like? The protagonist wins by realizing his/her inner power and using it to smash the crap out of every person who ever wronged him/her and leaves.

(I've recently read two books that do this. Both YA.)

The reason I hate this: what does this say about the author's intent? The character is doing literally the same thing they've been fighting against the whole book. This doesn't show the badness of the anger-inducing thing; it only shows that the hero has now bought into that philosophy themselves.

Yes, this can be an interesting story: the hero is brought down by their circumstances and become the monster, too. But don't expect me to cheer the hero if this happens.

And yes, stories where the hero achieves some power to fight back against what angers them (or the author) are wonderful to read. We want the hero to succeed. We're disappointed when they don't. But succeed in what? In hurting people the same way they've hurt?

Too often I read a book that ends with everyone hurting. The bad guys were dealt a blow by the hero, who apparently only learned that violence and hate answers violence and hate, but the system remains intact, and other people who are suffering are still in it, likely about to be harmed more as punishment for the protagonist's escape. Only the hero has escaped, but they've escaped by becoming what they fought against.

Again, this is a fine story, but don't expect me to feel triumph at the end.

Why not? If I'm supposed to feel like the hero was triumphant, the story's whole point was undermined. If this behavior is bad for one person to do, what makes it okay for the other person? If you don't want this kind of philosophy in the world, why reward another character adopting it?

Contrast this with a story that models good behavior. The hero rises above. They take power, but use it to protect themselves and others. Maybe dole out some needed justice, not revenge. They show the following: This is how to act. This how to be an ally. This is how to use power when you have it. And, this is how you heal after you've been hurt: not by lashing out, but by rising above.

I admit this last section has a lot of my personal preferences for stories. I prefer books written out of hope, not anger. Books that aren't blind to social issues or unfairness but seek to inspire fairness in the future. There's a place for the books that end badly, showing the flaws in society in bleakness so people flinch away from that kind of life. They're not my favorite books, but there is a place for them. When they're written well.


Too long, didn't read? Or you want the wrap-up? Basically what these 4 things boil down to are:

1. The author was so angry they ignored good plotting and characterization in pursuit of making a statement.
2. The author actually undermined their own message with their need to lash out.

Basically, the author forgot how to write well. Strong emotions should create better art, not debilitate the author.

If you have something you're angry about and you just need to write about it, never forget that you are a writer. You have power because you can craft stories and characters that move people. You can explore themes in cohesive ways without undermining yourself. Forget that, and you lose your power to do anything to change the thing that is angering you.

Agree? Disagree? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Eight Reasons Why You Should All Watch Tangled: The Series

Note on last week's post: Look, I'm a new D&D player and I'm a Ranger, so if I got some of the mechanics wrong, I apologize, I'm still learning, and please be kind.

Also, some news: this Friday, May 1st, at 7 pm Central time, and 6 pm Mountain time, I'm going to be doing an interview with Kim Ventrella (author of the MG book Skeleton Tree). It will be on Facebook Live, so come and watch! Information is on the picture below, but if it doesn't load for you, you can access the interview at facebook.com/kimventrella.

Okay, so today, I'm giving you another recommendation for TV show to watch, and that show is Tangled: The Series, or, after its name change at season 2, Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure.

I know a lot of you might be surprised that I'm advocating a Disney Channel animated TV show marketed toward younger girls. Others, who read this blog more, probably aren't surprised at all. And, I was thinking of doing a blog post on why Tangled, the film and show, is better than Frozen (and I still might), but instead, I'm going to do a spoiler-free review and recommendation for this TV show.

1. It's a movie plus three seasons of 20-minute episodes

Let's be honest, time is something we care about. This show is a pretty short binge, all things considered. The show kicks off with an hour-long movie that bridges the film to the series and sets up the major characters and plot points of the TV show. It's IMPERATIVE you watch the movie first, but since each season is about 22 episodes long, and again, there are only three, this isn't much beyond what you'd expect from the series. The movie is titled Tangled: Before Ever After.

2. All three seasons are on Disney+ and yes, the series has ended

No nasty hiatuses for you, you lucky dogs! And yes, you have no idea how lucky you are. All three seasons, plus the original 2010 Tangled film and Before Ever After, are already on Disney+, so if you have that streaming service or a friend who is willing to let you use theirs, you have access to it all.

And with that, let's stop talking about convenience and talk about why you should even watch this in the first place.

3. Same voice actors, writers, etc. as the film

If you loved the 2010 Tangled movie, good news: every voice actor is back. Mandy Moore is back as Rapunzel, Zachary Levi is still Flynn Rider/Eugene Fitzherbert, and so on, even through the minor characters like the Pub Thugs.

Also, the film's writers are back to create the TV show. Chris Sonnenburg is the producer, again. All of this contributes to Tangled: The Series being less of a spin-off and more of a sequel to the film. Voices and writing feel the same as the film, in natural succession.

Oh, and did I mention Glenn Slater is still the lyricist and the man-myth-legend Alan Menken still composes the songs?

4. The music!

Oh my gosh, the music! This show is a musical! Don't expect every episode to have a song, but they do appear every so often. Major episodes always have musical numbers. These songs range from goofy to deeply serious and poignant, and honestly, it's amazing quality. Like I said, Alan Menken of original Tangled and Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and The Little Mermaid as well as so much more, is the composer. It's truly stunning.

The cast is also stunning. Aside from Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi, the cast also includes Jeremy Jordan (the original Jack Kelly from Newsies on Broadway), James Monroe Iglehart (the original Genie from Broadway's Aladdin), and last but certainly not least, Eden Espinosa (Idina Menzel's stand-by for Elphaba in Wicked, as well as Maureen Johnson in Rent) as new characters. And yes, they're major characters and sing multiple times through the series.

They're stupidly talented, and so the music in this show feels like Broadway. I am currently relistening to the soundtrack for this show. To contrast, I haven't felt like listening to the Frozen 2 soundtrack since January.

Here's a sample of the music. Yes, you only get the audio. No, it's not tied to any major plot arc. No spoilers, remember?

Oh, and the songs get better in every season, in my opinion. They start great and become truly incredible. There is one in season 3 that, in context of the story and characters, may very well be one of the best things Disney has rolled out in the last ten years, or even ever. It literally (and I use the word correctly) took my breath away.

I wish I could share it with you now, but you really should come to it in your own time.

5. Animation is lovely

The style of animation, though different than the film's, is charming. Look at it!

6. The storytelling is amazing

This is a writer's blog, so you had to know I'd get to the storytelling here.

This show is very well-written. The story covers the time between the 2010 film and the short Tangled Ever After, where we see Rapunzel and Eugene get married.

(By the way, I know you all might call him "Flynn." It's hard for me to do that after 3 seasons of hearing him called "Eugene.)

But the show has a real story, with depth and intrigue. It's not filling time, or presenting a bunch of little vignettes of Rapunzel's life in Corona, though you do have plenty of fun episodes that do that. There's an overall story with lore that deepens Rapunzel's connection to the healing flower and something darker and a bit more sinister.

I really don't want to give too much away. But I'll say this: this story is a sequel, and it does everything a good sequel should do. It opens the world up and explores more implications not addressed in the film. It creates a new story instead of rehashing the old story.

Also, the story isn't afraid to get deep or go to dark places. You see the king's trauma over losing his daughter once, and you see the effect of anger and guilt and hate in some pretty interesting ways.

7. Character. Development.

Rapunzel is not a static character in this show. She's grown after the film, but there's a lot she has to learn. For the first time, she's out of her tower and back with parents who love her and want her to be safe. This causes some tension, actually. She's also pretty naive at first and needs to learn more about how to be a person and a royal (read, leader) in her kingdom. This show is about how she learns and becomes.

You see Rapunzel in her bright, bubbly self that we all know, but we see that tested. We see her doubt herself and have to make hard choices, and we see her annoyed with other people, including her loved ones.We see her hurt, and fear.

And it's not just her! Every major character has a character arc. Eugene has an arc: what's a former thief to do, when his only skill is stealing and he doesn't do that anymore? Who is he now? And the other characters, the new ones, also have their own arcs.

These character arcs are fully in-character. They make sense, and never blindside the viewer. You watch as the characters develop in realistic, though not always good ways. On a side note, this show has the kind of villains I wish other writers were brave enough to try. Honestly, if you think Disney's idea of a "villain" is Hans from Frozen (who is so mustache-twirling hamfistedly written they had to tell us three times in Frozen 2 that he was, in fact, the villain) or even coldly depraved Scar or Maleficent, you've got a good surprise coming for you. Can you say "understandable motives while still doing awful things"? Can you say "nuanced"?

By the end of the series, I was satisfied. Characters had developed, without suddenly becoming entirely different people. It never seemed forced or faked, just real people developing in realistic ways.

8. This is a hopeful, wholesome show

Guys, it's Tangled. This is a show about a girl who made instant friends with a bunch of thugs and who sees the best in people and situations. The music and story drive toward hope and how, together, people can do amazing things despite very difficult times. This music ties into the inspiring message well, and hey, don't we all kind of need that narrative right now?

Beyond that, get ready to see healthy relationships, romantic and platonic, portrayed, the Power of Friendship, the infectious nature of seeing the good in others, and lots of other wholesome, cheerful subjects, all handled with excellent storytelling.

So, yeah. Watch this show. You don't know what treat you have ahead of you.

A Typical D&D Meeting

Hello, I'm back!

It's been a good hiatus; I've been hard at work adjusting to quarantine and teaching online, finishing out the semester, and starting a new project that, frankly, I'm just thrilled about and get more excited the more I work on it.

In other news, I have ARCs of THE EXPLORER'S CODE!

Here's the Goodreads summary for the book: "Macmillan/Imprint has bought The Explorer's Code by Allison K. Hymas. Reminiscent of classic middle-grade mystery-adventures such as The Westing Game, the book invites readers to solve hidden codes and puzzles along with three young guests as they work to uncover the secrets of the legendary Idlewood Manor."

The book is available for pre-order on Amazon, if you're interested.

Okay, so I was thinking about doing a post about quarantine and things to do while in lockdown, or how I've been handling it, or something, but I thought, how about instead I do a post about my Dungeons and Dragons group and the typical shenanigans we get up to every week?

A little over a year ago, I did a post about the typical Mario Kart Monday experience I had. Today's post is pretty much the same thing. I can't speak for every D&D group, but this is more or less what our typical session goes like.

Oh, and don't worry, right now we're meeting virtually.

Let's meet our cast of characters:

DM - The Dungeon Master
Ranger - Me, the halfling ranger
Druid - My husband, the dwarf druid
Cleric - The elf cleric
Rogue - The human rogue
Wizard - The dragonborn wizard

Honorable mention: "G-Unit" - Graash, our adopted NPC wizard apprentice orc, who Ranger and Rogue love very much.

All characters align as Neutral Good except for Rogue and Wizard, who are Chaotic Good. Also, for those who don't play D&D, the game relies on dice rolls. The higher the roll, the better your chance of success. 1 is the lowest and 20 is the highest.

Let's begin.

*Meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 at Ranger and Druid's house*

Druid: Where's Cleric?

DM: Late. What else?

Wizard: *Shows up 10 minutes late with noodles* Hello, peasants!

Druid, Ranger, and DM: *Lay out dice, pencils, papers*

DM: *Prepares screen, papers, dice, and most importantly, music*
 
*Actually begins at 7:20 once everyone arrives*

DM, to Druid: You ready?

*Plays epic music*

Druid, in a hammy announcer voice: Last time, on D&D! Leap...of...Faith! With only Zombies and Skeleton Archers in the courtyard the Electric Mayhem Band [that's us, by the way] and the armies of the dwarves and the elves maneuvered into position to take out the rest of the undead....

*Music uncannily reaches its climax and conclusion as Druid wraps up his summary of the prior week*

*Music turns spooky and muted*

DM: After last time's battle, the room is cleared. What do you want to do now?

Rogue: I investigate for loot.

DM: Nothing much here except for a bunch of skeletons...

Rogue: Ew.

DM: You find about 50 gold, some old knives, and an iron ring.

Rogue, visibly excited: Ooh, a ring?

Ranger: Is it cursed?

Rogue, already in possession of and deeply attached to an obviously cursed ring: Cursed? Why would any ring I find be cursed?

 DM: Cleric, make a religion check.

Cleric: *rolls low*

Ranger: You have got to be the worst cleric we've ever heard of.

Cleric: Ah, but you have heard of me.

Druid, in gruff character voice: Let's leave the ring behind. We don't need any more trouble with any more curses.

Wizard: No! It could be useful. We could give it to G-Unit.

Rogue, Ranger, Cleric and Druid: What if it's cursed???

Wizard: Then we'd know.

*Debate ensues for 5 minutes about whether to take the ring*

DM: Wizard, make a religion check.

Wizard, using virtual dice on phone: *rolls high* Whee!

Ranger: Why does our wizard know more about religion than our cleric?

Wizard: Because I have all knowledge!

DM: It's an old ring, a sigil of a death cult. Roll an arcana check.

Wizard: *rolls decently*

DM: You sense no magic on it.

Rogue, disappointed: It's just an old ring, then. Let's go.

Druid: Let's keep it. It might be important.

DM: *grins angelically, which is somehow worse than evilly*

Ranger: Yeah, let's do it. And we should probably get out of here.

Druid: Yeah. We have to save the prisoners from the necromancers.

*************

(The party encounters an old woman)

DM, as NPC woman: It's so good of you to come save me! Would you like a meal before we go?

Druid: I don't trust her.

Ranger: You don't trust anyone.

Cleric: What's her name?

DM, who didn't plan one: Um, Sarael.

Rogue: Sure, ma'am, I'll have some of your stew. *drinks stew*

DM: Rogue, make a wisdom saving throw.

Rogue: Dang it. *rolls very poorly* Dang it!

DM: You feel a warmth and you relax as the witch's mind control potion takes over your mind. You decide that this is one very nice woman.

Rogue: She seems great, guys!

Ranger: I try to intimidate the old woman by throwing a table.

DM: Roll strength and intimidation.

Ranger: *rolls well on strength, poorly on intimidation* Dang it.

DM, laughing: You throw the table and it shatters against the wall, but the witch is just so amused at seeing a tiny halfling throw a table she's not scared at all.

Ranger: I AM BUT A CUTE HOBBIT

Wizard: Let's throw the hobbit at her!

Ranger: I will yeet you, Wizard!

Druid: *readies shillelagh* Guys, I don't like this woman and I don't like how Rogue is acting. I think we should fight.

Ranger and Cleric: Agreed.

DM: Roll initiative.

*Battle commences*

*********

(In the midst of battle)

DM: Okay, so you managed to break the potion's hold on Rogue. Druid, it's your turn.

Druid: I cast Moonbeam.

DM: Roll damage.

Druid: *rolls decently*

DM: The witch is singed as your moonlight shines down on her. Cleric?

Cleric: I hit her with my hammer. *rolls a nat 1* AHHHH, MAN!

DM: You swing, but she dodges and your hammer whiffs through the air.

Ranger: Are you drunk again, Cleric?

Cleric, always sober out of character: *huge, comical hiccup*

DM: Wizard?

Wizard: How big is this room?

DM: About twenty feet square.

Wizard: Hmmm...how about....?

Druid: Don't cast Fireball. You'll hit us, too.

Wizard: Oh, you'll be fine.

Druid: *glowers and shakes head*

Wizard: Okay, fine. I guess I'll cast Scorching Ray. *rolls decently*

DM: Okay, the witch is not happy. It's her turn. She casts a ray of dark energy at Wizard.

Wizard: What? Why me? She should attack Cleric. Or Druid.

DM: You're the one currently attacking her, and you're a spellcaster. *rolls* She hits. You take seven damage.

Wizard: *grumbling*

DM: Ranger?

Ranger: I shoot arrows at her. [Literally my best move, every time.] I shoot two.

Druid, out of character: You can also cast Hunter Mark and do extra damage.

Ranger: Oh, yeah. I cast Hunter's Mark. *rolls well*

DM: Arrows hit. Witch is looking bloodied. Rogue?

Rogue: Is she in melee?

DM: Yes, with Cleric.

Rogue: I use sneak attack. *rolls for half an hour, does a stupid amount of damage*

DM: That's...not quite enough to kill her. *party groans* Druid?

Druid: I hit her with my shillelagh, and she takes damage from Moonbeam.

DM: Yep. *both Druid and DM roll* How do you want to kill her, Druid?

Druid: I hit her on the head.

DM: Okay. Battle ends. You look around the room, and then a smoke rises out of the witch's body and forms a figure.

Ranger: What's its name?

DM, prepared now: It says, "My name is Vangar, Destroyer of Many!"

Cleric: I Channel Divinity and cast Sacred Flame!

*Party holds breath*

Cleric: *rolls a nat 20*

DM: Okay, you blast the entity with a shining beam of divine light. Radiant flames sear through it. It falls apart in the middle of its monologue.

Druid: Sorry, DM.

DM: *shrugs*

Ranger: *finds gif of Syndrome from The Incredibles about monologuing and sends it around*

Rogue: I investigate the room for loot.

*************

Okay, scene end. I'm sorry that was so long; D&D sessions go on for hours. I cut out most of the debates, puns, and pop culture references. Honestly, not all battles and scenes go like this, but these things happen in SO MANY of them I had to include them. These particular moments didn't actually happen in our campaign, but they are based on things that did.

I'm also sorry that I used so many D&D terms. That's honestly how we talk. I simplified things, conflating rolling dice with our modifiers. But, if you'd like more context, here's a spell list.

And, party? Thanks for being so much fun every week. If you're not happy with how I portrayed you here, please know I still love you! Although I fully intend to one day yeet the wizard.

What is this Rubbish???

I'm coming out of hibernation because something needs to be said.

When I was in 6th grade, the Artemis Fowl series was new, on its first book. I bought it at a Scholastic Book Fair and read it, and subsequently loved it and read the whole series. I have the final book in the series signed by the author, and I thought the whole series was a great story full of great stories.

So, when I heard that Disney was adapting Artemis Fowl for film, I was excited. And when I saw the first teaser trailer, way back last year, I was excited. It seemed to capture the feel of the books.

But then this morning I woke up and I saw their new trailer. Artemis Fowl fans, I apologize for what you're about to see.

Excuse me.

But WHAT.

IS.

THIS???

WHAT IS THIS???

This is NOT the movie I have been waiting for YEARS to see!

As soon as I saw this trailer, I was bummed, then angry, and now I'm furious. Because dang it, Disney is doing it again.
 
What makes me so angry about this trailer is that once again, we're getting a film adaptation of a book that has stripped the story of everything that made it special and gives us, once again, the same canned storyline Hollywood keeps feeding us.

The story in this trailer is unrecognizable from the beloved book. The characters bear a resemblance to their book counterparts, and you have crime and fairies, but that is it. Beyond that, what do we have? Yet another story where a child learns that his parent has some secret and that he must now step up and fight evil.

We got this story. We got it in Spy Kids. We're getting it now in Locke & Key on Netflix. Heck, we got it in Harry Potter and even Star Wars! It's a pretty common tale. I'm sure, given a few minutes, you'll think of many more stories that have this exact plot (feel free to share them in the comments).

You know what's not common, though? A story about a preteen boy who is so smart and criminal that he's able to outwit an ancient, technologically advanced race who has magic to boot!

That's what Artemis Fowl is about! Artemis is not the hero. He's the protagonist, but he's the hero. He's a Bond villain. He was designed to be a Bond villain. This is a story about a child criminal who is brilliant enough to win against a people that have everything on their side, apparently. It's a high-action chess game between Artemis and the fairies, where the fairies have the law on their side and Artemis has his huge brain and a bit of desperation.

That's not what we see in this trailer. This trailer gives me no reason to believe Artemis is a genius, or that he's a "criminal mastermind." It's the same old "your father lived a secret life" story we've seen a million times, and I don't even see in the trailer the signature sarcastic humor that made the book such a joy to read.

Long time readers of this blog should know that I'm forgiving to movies that don't follow the book exactly. Heck, one of my favorite movies is How to Train Your Dragon and it's very different than the book. But the book isn't about the plot; the book is about how Hiccup is a not-great Viking who loves dragons and how he learns how to be a hero "the hard way." And that was kept in the movie.

With Artemis Fowl, the story is gone. The characterization is gone. The themes of complex villainy and character growth from villain to hero seems to have followed it. What is left? The same old story we keep getting.

And this is why I'm angry. Disney just did this to us with A Wrinkle in Time. They took a book with a huge fanbase and essentially turned it into the same old coming-of-age fantasy adventure they always tell, with no consideration for what made the story resonate with people.

 
They gave us the same old canned adventure "chosen one" story in The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, something that could have easily been avoided if they'd done a modicum of research and read E.T.A. Hoffmann's story.

 
Now, they're doing the same thing to Artemis Fowl---stripping it of everything that made the story unique and giving us a bland adventure tale.

(Side note: I'm not mad at all of Disney right now. Tangled the Series people, I want you to know that you're doing great, sweeties. Excellent work on the finale.<3)

Why bother adapting a book to film if you're not going to look at why people liked it in the first place? Why give us the same old story when you can do something unique like show kids a child who is smart enough to outwit grown-ups? There's a reason people liked these stories enough to merit a movie studio's attention. Why claim a book's title if you're just going to toss out everything about it? Why not just write your own dang story?

(Disney, tossing out everything fans loved about a book.)

Maybe the idea of a morally gray child criminal didn't "test well." I mean, it "tested well" with me and thousands of other readers, but I'm not a filmmaker, so what do I know?

All I know now is that upon seeing this trailer, all my desire to see the movie has melted away. If this movie is going the same way as the others I mentioned, then it's not worth my time or money. I don't want to see a great book turned into yet another mediocre movie.

Okay, that's it. I'm done. I'm done with all of this. Allison out.

Upcoming Events

Folks, I know I haven't been posting as much lately. I have a lot going on in my life right now, and I'm saving some of my energy for things coming up.

For one thing, expect some writing analysis posts later, like in March.

But for another, I have a lot of writing events and activities coming up soon. Today, I want to share my schedule with you:

Feb. 13-15: LTUE

I'm taking part in Life, the Universe and Everything again this year, and I will be on three panels:

Thursday, Feb. 13, 5 pm: Children's Books for Adults
Friday, Feb. 14, 2 pm: Riddles in the Dark
Saturday, Feb. 15, 6 pm: Movie Adaptations that Don't Suck

Those of you who read this blog probably can guess that I'm REALLY excited for the last one.

I'm also doing a book signing at 6:30 on Friday. I hope to see you there!

Information about LTUE is here, at this link.

Feb. 28: BYU Reading Series

I will also be doing a reading and Q&A at BYU, in the Harold B. Lee Library, at noon on Feb. 28. I will read material from previous books, as well as some of my latest project. Information can be found here.

Sept. 23: Gothic Tales Revisited at Springville Library

I left summer empty, although there may still be events then, in the summer (I'm ready for some, but we'll see if I'm needed). But, in the fall, I'll be visiting Springville Library to discuss Robert Louis Stevenson's classic The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It's a bit far out, but I will, of course, give more information as we get closer.

Sept. 29: Publication Day!

Here's the big news! I've announced it before, but I'm saying it again. My next book The Explorer's Code, will be released on September 29th. I will release more information as I have it, but here's the Goodreads page about it. The book is an adventure puzzle book, so if you're fond of Chasing Vermeer and The Westing Game, you may like this one.

Redemption Arcs: How to Make them Work

Long time no see!

I've been on hiatus for the holidays, and the rest has been great. My ideas for my current WIPs and future books have been developing well, and I've had time to think about writing as a concept. I also saw the new Star Wars movie and have been revisiting Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood.

And, as a result, I want to talk to you about redemption arcs. (For those of you who don't have time for the whole discussion, there's a tl;dr tag below for you to skip to.)

Everyone likes a redemption story. We love to hear about a bad guy seeing the error of their ways and becoming a good guy by the end of a story. Think A Christmas Carol. The whole story is all about Scrooge's redemption arc, and we love it!

That said, I don't think all redemption arcs work evenly. Some are excellent, heartwarming tales . . . that are super unrealistic. Some are very realistic but lack the right kind of punch, don't they? This guy is a good guy now, but before he was just kind of a jerk (I don't consider Steve Harrington's story from Stranger Things a real good example of this trope, for this reason - though I love Steve as a character).

We want our stories to be interesting, but we want them to ring true. If a character seems to change too fast, given what they've done, readers don't feel like justice has been served and that the author just wants them to accept the redemption. But if the change takes a long time for a small fault, it's not really redemption, is it?
And redemption is hard. Hey, I totally believe at any moment that a person can change their direction, but that's just it. It's a change in direction, not a total arrival at a new state of mind in a moment. Actions in the past have consequences, and people who change will still struggle with old mindsets and habits until new ones form.

Stories, though, don't always have the time to put into a full transformation. So they have to somehow balance the redemption with the realism. Let's look at a couple and see what they do to make the story work.

A classic redemption story is that of Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Scrooge is a horrible miser. He's cold and unfeeling and loves money more than people. In one night, he's subjected to multiple ghostly visitors who show him the error of his ways so that he changes to a man who is generous, loves Christmas, and helps those who need it.

Okay, an overnight change isn't very realistic. Miser to generous? That doesn't happen.

Yet this story works for so many people. It could be because it's just so gosh-darn heartwarming. Or it could work for the following reasons:

1. Scrooge is a small-scale sinner. A miser, yes, but hoarding money isn't the same as actively killing people or destroying lives (although the effect may be the same). Scrooge's sin is a blindness to the needs of the world around him, and, honestly, his own place in the world, and that's easier to combat than years of active evil.

2. He has people pushing him to make a change: his only friend's ghost, and then three supernatural powers that can show him where he went wrong, the present good he's missing and the consequences of his actions, leading to his own death. These are counselors; Scrooge wouldn't change on his own, but yeah, a silent ghost revealing the miser's own grave to him may do the trick.

3. It's important to remember that we only see the start of the change. We don't see later days when Scrooge starts to fall back on old habits and have to work to ignore them. Ending the book on Christmas Day keeps the arc intact and we can happily believe in the overall change.

Okay, another example. My favorite one: Prince Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Excellent redemption arc. Zuko begins the story as the main villain, a Fire Nation prince seeking the Avatar. He attacks villages and throws tantrums and is a pretty nasty guy. Nasty enough, at the start, for us to dislike him and root against him. He is unlikely to change on his own. But Zuko's arc works for a number of reasons:

1. He travels with Uncle Iroh, a wise, kind family member and counselor who teaches him how to let go of his anger and become a good man.

2. Zuko's no monster. Yes, he attacks villages in his hunt for the Avatar. But we don't see proof that he's a murderer, or that he enjoys these attacks. We also know he's driven by a desire to regain honor and a place with his family, and I, personally, can't blame these motives. Zuko's actions lay more in a belief in the righteousness of the Fire Nation's actions and anger at his exile. He's not seeking power or dominion, and we can believe that in time, his views may change.

3. We see positive traits in Zuko. We see his love for his uncle (and his uncle's for him) and we even see him rescue Aang from a worse foe. He's sympathetic in objective ways, and not just because the writers tell us we should like him.

4. It takes a long time. We see Zuko struggle with doing the right thing over the course of 3 seasons. And he struggles. When given the chance to go home, get everything he wants, he takes it and only after realizes it was the wrong choice. We see him figure out the right thing to do and be terrible at it.

5. And, when Zuko does change, the heroes aren't eager to accept him. They don't trust him and it takes time for them to warm to him.

This is realistic and has real impact. The heroes, the people Zuko actively wronged for months, have to struggle to believe that he has changed, and Zuko's path is not an easy one. We see him make progress, only to backslide. We see Iroh working with him time and time again. When Zuko's redemption comes, we truly believe it.

For those of you looking to write a redemption arc, this one's a good one to study.

But what do you do when your character is a monster? When they've committed mass murder and are very hardened?

Consider Scar's arc in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. 

 
Scar murders many, many people, and tries to kill Ed. This is out of revenge for atrocities committed against his people, which is something we can understand, even if we don't condone it.

Traits of Scar's arc include:

1. A mentor appears, an old teacher of Scar's, who cautions him against revenge. (I'm seeing a trend here with counselors in redemption arcs.)

2. Scar has a face-to-face encounter with a girl whose parents he killed out of anger and revenge, and sees her consider killing him. He is forced to see what happens when revenge goes unchecked, and he has to face that this time, he's the monster that committed an atrocity, and that begins to change him. (On a side note, he also sees forgiveness, and that affects him, too.)

3. Scar comes to realize who his true enemies are (not the people he's been killing) and he fights with the heroes against those foes. We also see other people not really comfortable with this.

4. Along with point #3, we see Scar's good traits. He's protective of others and will not kill anyone he hasn't targeted. Though skewed, his moral code is present. Scar acts with honor, even if it's his own standard.

5. It doesn't end. The show ends, but Scar still has restitution to make. He's done wrong and he's going to act to atone for it.

I like this arc because it lets a monster change but doesn't make it easy. Scar's change costs him a lot, and we're left knowing he has more to do to make up for what he's done. He might have more changes to make in himself.

But, if your character is beyond saving, consider pulling a Darth Vader: kill the guy.

Yeah, consider Vader. This guy is responsible for murder on a MASSIVE scale. He got his start by killing children, for crying out loud. This guy's cape is soaked in blood. Vader has committed genocide, and goes through subordinates like tissues.

What would it take to redeem this guy, realistically? A heck of a lot. Lucas didn't have that kind of time, so what happens? Vader does one good thing, at the very end, and saves his son from the Emperor. Then he promptly dies.

This cuts the arc off. We don't have to wonder if Vader "deserves" a second chance, because he doesn't live long enough to get it. But we can believe that maybe, in that last moment, he decided to turn to the light. (In fact, that's exactly what we're supposed to believe.) As a result, this makes the arc unproblematic. Don't believe he'd turn good? Well, he's dead. Who knows what he'd do?

I'm being a little dismissive, but honestly, sometimes this is all you have. It's not always believable that a character this depraved would just suddenly become good. But we can believe that he'd make one good decision, maybe even start the change, and then die before he can finish it (though in Vader's case, the redemption may take freakin' decades). The death, also, works as a form of justice: this character deserves to die. Maybe they redeemed themselves, in a way, but there are still consequences for torturing their own daughter.

TL;DR people, start here:

What does this mean for you? Well, you can start by reading between the lines here and see my thoughts on a certain other, recent Star Wars redemption arc and whether or not I think they did the right thing. But it also means that if you're writing a redemption arc you need to consider what reader will accept as a true redemption.

How depraved is this character? What have they done, and who have they done it to?

Thus, what will it take to change their hearts and minds? Will they need counselors to help them see the light? Will the heroes struggle to accept them or will they reject them? Is your character so far gone that all they can really accomplish is a final act of good before receiving the justice of death?

Like I said, redemption arcs are hard. It's not easy to change from bad to good, although the choice can be made at any moment, and good habits can begin to form immediately. We need redemption stories to remind us that we're not doomed to be the people we used to be, forever. That's why they need to be written well.

I'd love to know what you think. Have I missed some key points about redemption arcs? Do you know any really good, or really bad, arcs that might be worth studying? Comment about it!