Posts Tagged ‘television shows’

I’ve written about this before several times in some way or another, but every now and then I feel the need to shout out to the Internet, “HEY CREATORS OF HORROR, this is one of your students, one who is coming up in your world. Please, for the love of Edgar Allen Poe, STOP DOING THESE THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE GODDAMN STUPID AND REALLY DETRACT FROM THE STORIES YOU’RE TRYING TO TELL!” I especially feel this need when I think of the Friday the 13th remake, which is a piece of pornographic, drug-overloaded, cliche-ridden piece of crap from the bum of Michael Bay (figures!).

So with that exclamation and obligatory slam on my least favorite horror remake, I think it’s time to list what needs to be scaled back on or just get kicked out of the horror genre all-together.

Too much gore. Ooh, this is a turnoff to me. Excessive gore isn’t scary, it’s disgusting. If you’re going to use gore, it should be used sparingly. It should add to the terror by being sort of like an accentuation, an additive that adds flavor to the movie or novel’s total fear factor. If you’re relying entirely on gore for your scares, then you’re probably doing something wrong. Look at some of the best slashers out there! Yes, they have gore, but they don’t just rely on it. There’s suspense, surprise, terror, a guy coming out of a dark corner when you least expect him and just scaring the crap out of you before he chases the victim and then pushes them through a window and killing them on broken glass. Now that’s scary.

Too much sin factor. Smoking, drinking, getting high, having sex, swearing like a sailor. A lot of horror films, particularly in the slasher sub-genre, are big on punishing people for their sins. I get it. It’s fun to root for a villain and seeing people getting punished for throwing their lives away.But when it’s so excessive that you wonder if you bought a ticket for a horror movie or if you’re watching one of those teen movies where everyone’s stoned and trying to get laid and there’s a ton of unnecessary swearing involved. Seriously, if you need to spice up things by filming a ton of footage involving sex or drugs or whatever, you might need to get your script looked at by a third party.

The stereotypical man’s man and the believing girlfriend. I hate these sort of characters because they’re so predictable. The former is a normal guy who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural except what’s taught in church, and maybe not even then. The latter’s either a housewife or in a menial job stereotypical for women, and she’s the first to come to the conclusion that something’s weird that happens (unless she has kids, who will recognize the weird before even she will). She tries to convince her husband with his father-knows-best attitude that something’s weird, but he won’t believe it. And even when faced with indisputable proof of the supernatural, he’ll still be somewhat skeptical, and would rather use his tool box or his fists rather than search for a supernatural solution or refer to a specialist. In the end he has to believe his one-dimensional wife or end up dead. It’s been done so often, it’s gotten rather annoying.  Please, switch it up a bit, because it’s so stale we’ll have to throw it out if it doesn’t find a way to become fresh again.

Cheesy effects. I don’t care what your budget is, I’ve seen some amazing things done with effects bought on a budget of only a couple million, or even just ten-thousand dollars. About a month and a half ago I saw this late-night horror film that started out promising. Sadly it didn’t work out that way, and part of it was that the special effects were terrible, and the filmmakers seemed to revel in that by displaying their cheesiness at every second. If they’d tried to at least make it difficult to see what the wolves looked like, it would’ve improved the story so much more (and the film could’ve used the improvement, with that shoddy script). The moral is, even if you can’t use expensive special effects, there are ways to do amazing things with it. You never know what you’ll get.

 

Horror is well known for its tropes and cliches, and often fans of the genre will defend those tropes, saying they actually allow for more flexibility and creativity. However, occasionally these tropes are more problematic than they’re worth and, like the ones above, need to go.

What things in the horror genre would you like to boot entirely? What would you like to see more of?

Sorry it’s coming a little late, but you know, my crazy life. And I wanted to watch it taped so I could fast forward through the commercial breaks.

Anyway, I liked this season of AHS much better than Coven last year. In terms of tone it was closer to the first season, though it had some more lighthearted moments than Season 1. Also, the show’s creator Ryan Murphy -incorporated a few musical scenes, so he’s either testing the waters for a crossover with his other show Glee or he’s just trying to keep things fresh. I definitely think it’s the latter. But like I was saying, this is some pretty good horror. Like previous seasons, you can’t tell where the story is going, and no one’s safe from death. Unlike previous seasons, nobody comes back to life or dies twice (shocker!) and the final episode of the season doesn’t just feel like filler with minimal scares to wrap up loose ends, but an actual episode that is kind of terrifying and very entertaining. There are a few loose ends, but I think we can assume what happened based on what happens in that episode.

Also, this is the first season to connect with another season (Asylum), and apparently all the seasons connect, so I’m wondering how they’re going to connect that in upcoming seasons. Minor detail, but it’s important to talk about.

Anyway, back to the review. What I really liked about Freak Show, besides the final episode actually being pretty good, is that the writers were able to tell a really beautiful story about people on the outskirts of society, and while also keeping things scary and interesting. Everyone has their own story, their own darkness, and their own potential to be evil. In fact at several times many characters cross the lines from good folks to villains and then back again. It’s very hard to pin down a central villain, especially during the first six episodes or so. I guess it shows that in an imperfect world, where most of the characters are scared or in trouble with the authorities, you’ll do what you have to in order to survive.

I also like how the story twists and turns, taking us in directions we couldn’t see, and still keeps things within reasonable bounds of imagination. And I loved the guest stars: Neil Patrick Harris and Jamie Brewer as Chester and Marjorie the Doll, Wes Bentley as Edward Mordrake (my favorite minor character) and quite a few others. But the main cast! Whoo, were they amazing. Sarah Paulson playing a pair of conjoined twins and did it so convincingly, I forgot it was acting and CGI! And Finn Wittrock as Dandy Mott deserves an award, playing the most horrific serial killing chameleon I’ve seen outside of Hannibal. And I loved Jessica Lange as Elsa Mars, who is just as evil and as tragic as any character in this show, but with quite the theatrical flare. Plus all the actors playing the freaks! Some actually have certain conditions, others are actors, but all are amazing in their roles.

Finn Wittrock, the man who played Dandy Mott. I hope he comes back for Season 5, he was definitely my favorite actor this season.

The one thing I did not care for is that Twisty the Clown, who appears in the first four or so episodes, is given an intellectual disability and his mental illness as the reason for which he kills. I swear, I’m tired of people with mental retardation being portrayed in these things as serial killers! I’ve known people with intellectual disabilities. At the worst, they can be difficult to handle in a bad mood, but they are normally sweet and kind. Why they’re portrayed over and over this way, I’m not sure. Honestly, the only times I’ve been okay with it is the Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchises, but only then. (Please see my article on tropes that need to be retired for more on this subject).

All in all, I’m giving American Horror Story: Freak Show a 4.5 out of 5. Scary, entertaining, beautiful, and a great 4th season for the anthology series with wonderful performances by all the actors in the show. I’m looking forward to the next season (which has been ordered). I hope it’ll be as dark as Asylum. I wonder what they’ll do for Season 5. I heard a rumor that it might be magicians, and there’s reasons to believe that might be it. Other contenders could be a prison season (though that might be too close to Season 2) and one taking place at a summer camp (a favorite of horror fans everywhere). And there’s always the chance of a high school filled with evil, I guess.

Well, that’s all for now. I’m heading to bed. Friday’s a shorter day for me, so I want to be wide awake for it. Goodnight, my Followers of Fear. I’ll try to write tomorrow or the day after if I can. See ya then!

A while back I posted on character tropes and cliches that needed to be retired from literature. Some of my Followers of Fear thought that maybe the trope of “The Chosen One” could stand to be retired. I’ve been thinking about this since I wrote that post, and I thought I’d discuss it in contrast to what I call “Someone Who Grows Into a Hero.” If I had another name for that character trope, something a bit shorter, I would use it. Maybe I’ll think of one in the course of this post. Or maybe you’ll give me one (please?).

So, let’s talk tropes. The Chosen One is, in essence, a character who is basically chosen by some higher power–God, Fate, some powerful wizard, the President, the Force, that kooky neighbor down the street, etc.–to take on some great evil and defeat it. Sometimes this choosing takes place pretty early in life, sometimes years or ages before the Chosen One’s birth. A good example is Harry Potter being chosen to defeat Lord Voldemort (funnily enough, I’ve been listening to Harry Potter audiobooks while I’ve been working lately. Already on Book 3. You can always get something new from these books no matter your age, I find). It’s been used hundreds and hundreds of times throughout history, since possibly before the Greeks and Romans started telling stories involving oracles.

Now, this trope has a good reason for being used so much. The character who is the Chosen One–usually the protagonist–is usually a good person, selfless, kind, somewhat charismatic. They’re often presented with insurmountable odds, but through their own ingenuity, goodness, and the help of their allies they overcome and become victorious. We want to be that person, who is good and destined to be great as well, to save everyone and to have the best group of friends around them. To be a messianic or godlike figure.

However, there are some problems with this trope. For one, it’s been used so much that we know it by heart. Harry Potter, Eragon, Mila Kunis’s character in Jupiter Ascending, Gregor the Overlander, Emma Swan, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader (with Luke’s help, I guess), Neo, Buffy, Po the Panda, Thomas from The Maze Runner and many, many more. These characters are everywhere. And they seem to all have similar personal stories. They grow up in simple circumstances–programmer, abused nephew, farmer, teenage girl, etc.–but are thrust into extraordinary circumstances that change their lives and center events on them. They’re told they’re special, that there are things that only they can do. At first they might be reluctant, or not have the confidence to do what they are told to do. But as time goes on and they somehow make it through the most dire circumstances, they become confident and settled in their roles, and they do end up destroying the ultimate evil (except if you’re the Slayer, in which case it never ends) once all is said and done.

trelawney 1

These sort of stories also say something about how the universe works, namely fate vs. free will. In some circumstances, the way these stories work is that no matter what, the Chosen One is to win against the ultimate evil. So personal choice isn’t a factor. The universe must work to get the Chosen One to win. Remember when I said I was listening to the HP audiobooks? In the 2nd, when Harry stabs the diary, and I remember this clearly, Harry doesn’t think when he sees the fang and the diary. He just acts. Perhaps the universe intervened so that Harry could someday take on the full mantle of his destiny? And in the case of Buffy, no matter how much she tries, the duties of a Slayer force her back into the world of darkness and away from anything resembling a normal life. The universe (or the writers) seem to have no care for Buffy’s choices, apparently.

So the problems of this trope is not only that it’s overused, but that it’s predictable, and that it takes the freedom of choice out of the equation to a great extent, sometimes even totally. There are ways to change up the trope, but it’s rarely done. Katniss Everdeen could be considered a slight variation on the theme, as she kind of stumbled into the role of Chosen One by an act of defiance, but from that point on her life is controlled by others. Heck, even Peeta manipulates her by forcing her into the relationship and pregnancy ruses. Still, I’ve been open about my disdain for the Hunger Games trilogy, so I’ll say it’s not the best example. I’m trying to think up a better one, even if I write it myself, so I’ll let you know if I think of (or write) something.

The other trope is the Accidental Hero trope (I did find another title for this trope). This is one I like a bit more, because you can do so much more with it and there’s a growing number of examples of this kind of character. This is a character who, rather than by fate, is made a hero through circumstances and their own choices. They may not be hero material, they may not want to be heroes, they may rather go home, but they rise to become heroes by their own merits. For example, Nathaniel from the Bartimaeus books wasn’t chosen to be a hero, and never set out to be a hero. In the first book, he was seeking revenge for personal reasons, the second book he did it because of his job and because of political reasons. In the third book he does it after a lot of self examination and because he’s scared of the demon uprising.

one does not simply 1

Another example is Teen Wolf (the awesome TV series, not the very bad 80’s movie). Scott McCall became a werewolf by accident, and because of the threats to his family, friends and his town, he has to rise to become a hero and save the day. No fate, no gods, no prophecies. He becomes a hero (and later a very special form of werewolf) because his personality, the events in his town, and his love for the people close to him mold him into a hero.

And there are many more examples. Chuck from the titular series never asked for the Intersect, and he wasn’t supposed to have it. It could’ve been taken out ages ago. But he chose to keep it, use it for his friends, and save the people he cared about. Through that he becomes a spy and a hero. In Doctor Who, the Doctor only wanted to travel and see the universe. He is a hero of his own choice. Lelouch Lamperouge from the anime Code Geass received his powers through luck, and later chose to use them for his own ends and to get his revenge (more antihero I guess, but whatever). It’s a trope with a lot of wriggle room in it, and even better, it’s still underused, unlike the Chosen One trope. So perhaps many more authors should write less Chosen One stories and more Accidental Hero stories.

Of course, there’s no way that this post will cause less Chosen One stories to be written. For better or worse, that trope is popular and will stick around for a long while. Still, I’m hoping for more Accidental Hero stories. I figure most of my stories will feature them. Reborn City and Snake‘s protagonists become heroes (or in the latter’s case, antiheroes) through choice and circumstance. Heck, I might try and find ways to subvert the Chosen One trope while writing Accidental Heroes. We’ll see what I can do.

Which trope do you prefer? What’s your favorite example?

What is a way that one could change either trope so that either one could be a bit more original?

As a Jew, Christmas isn’t really my thing. In fact, I’ve been referring to it in a half-joking manner as my month-long headache. But sometimes Christmas surprises me, as it did last night.

After watching The Interview on Christmas Eve and sleeping in much later than I had meant to, I’d pretty much been a couch potato all day, catching up on the shows I’d missed out on this semester. Since I was planning on watching the Doctor Who Christmas special, I went out for a walk and stretch my legs. And what a walk it was! The air was actually much warmer than last year, there wasn’t any rain or snow, and there was hardly any traffic! Hardly any at all! You could walk right into the middle of what would normally be a very busy street and just dance! Which I did, by the way. Several times! And nobody gave me a weird look at all…not that there was anyone really around to look. And I probably wouldn’t care what anyone thought if there was someone there, anyway.

After stopping off at the local donut shop for an after-dinner snack (and for what became this morning’s breakfast), I decided to go for a walk on campus. And it was unlike anything I’d ever experienced before. Everything was so quiet, so empty, and there was a slight mist in the air. It gave everything a strange, magical air, and I kept expecting to see something magical pop out at me (more than usual anyway). With my earbuds popped in, I ended up dancing on the Oval to some of my favorite uplifting party songs, just because I could. I then stopped by Mirror Lake, which at this time of year is lit up with Christmas lights. I don’t normally care for all the lights, but tonight it was enchanting and I really enjoyed myself.

It was at that point that I decided to head home, especially if I wanted to take a shower before the Christmas special began. And it was also at that point that something that I’d been waiting for finally happened: if you recall back in May during my study abroad trip, I began a short story called The Murderer’s Legacy that was inspired by some of the things I’d seen and read about while in London. The story was about a nobleman living in a version of Victorian England where magic is commonplace. The nobleman is being sentenced to death (or at least a very horrific version of it) for the murder of his wife, whom he did not murder. At the end of the story it’s revealed who actually murdered her and why, but by then it’s too late for the nobleman.

Something like I saw last night. You can see how inspiring it is, can’t you?

 

I thought at the time that it was a pretty good story, and that it had a lot of potential. I still do. But I felt that the version I had in the first draft wasn’t sufficient, and I had to do some major editing and rewriting in order to make the story work. This became more apparent to me as time went on, especially as some of the lessons from all the creative writing I did this last semester began to sink in, namely don’t plunge the reader into a fantastic world with a million different parts and pieces to it if you have only ten-thousand words to do it and tell a story set in that world. My first draft felt like starting Harry Potter in Book 4 or 5 and being plunged into this great big established universe, rather than being slowly introduced to that world in Book 1.

The problem was, I didn’t know how to fix this story so that it was not only simpler, but flowed better and actually told a story rather than introducing the reader to a complicated world they couldn’t take in slowly. Try as I might, I couldn’t think of a way to approach this story and edit it. Until last night, that is, when standing by Mirror Lake, something just clicked and inspiration flowed. I finally figured out how to make this story work, how to tell it in a creepy way while keeping the basic idea behind it alive. Not only that, but I had all the research materials I needed at home, so looking up what I needed for this story would be a cinch.

You can imagine the size of the smile on my face as I walked home that evening. I had all the inspiration I needed to rewrite The Murderer’s Legacy into a good story. Then I realized I have no time to work on it, with a thesis and classes to deal with. Oy vey, the life of a writer in college. It’s never easy.

Well, who knows? There may be a chance for me to still work on this story before May. I’ll have an easier workload this coming semester and that means more time for homework and writing. Maybe I’ll be able to finish Rose early and work on this and all my other projects. We can hope, right?

Well, that’s all for now. I’ve got plenty of work ahead of me, so I’m going to try and get that done. Have a good weekend and (if I don’t post again before December 31st) Happy New Year, my Followers of Fear.

Trope: a common recurring literary and rhetorical device, motif, or cliche. When referring to a character, it often refers to a common or well-known character archetype of stereotype that is instantly recognizable (ex. the noble hero, the avenging antihero, the slightly clumsy socially awkward girl in a romantic comedy, etc.)

There are hundreds and hundreds of these different tropes, each with their own special qualities and characteristics that are recognizable to many different people. Some of these tropes have even become staples in our own culture and in the stories we tell. However, there are a few that are, for many different reasons, just unusable these days. Maybe they’ve become so overused they’re a cliche, or maybe just the way society is or what psychology tells us makes such a character hard to believe in. In any case, there are character tropes and archetypes, not just in literature but on TV and in the movies as well, that just have to be retired, and I list some of them here.

I’d like to thank the people who helped to contribute to this list, including Pat Bertram for her many suggestions (though I have to disagree on serial killers. Sure, they’re overused, but there’s plenty of different ways to write them. Case in point: Snake).

So without further ado, let’s take a look at who/what needs to go:

The orphan who grows up with a heart of gold without any adult intervention whatsoever. Whether it’s Oliver Twist or Harry Potter, this character trope is pretty much the same wherever you go: a kid who grows up in an abusive environment, has never received a smile or a word of kindness from anyone, and yet still grows up with virtues to make statues of angels weep for joy. I don’t buy it. Although it’s possible for a kid to grow up that way (and usually, based on these stories, it’s a boy), it’s very unlikely. Without parental love and affection, kids can grow up to be distrustful and try to find other ways (sometimes really unhealthy ways) to replace the bond they should’ve had with their parents. Like I pointed out the other day, Harry should’ve grown up with some insecurities and trust issues, if not full on sociopathy (I might’ve written him that way anyway).

The drunk, possibly depressed cop. I’m sure there are cops who are drunk and/or depressed. But there seems to be a plethora of them in literature, and they are either meant to be tragic, comical, or go on a spiritual quest where they find the meaning in life, stop drinking, and maybe even get the girl. Unless someone finds a new slant on this trope, or it has got to go.

The killer with an intellectual disability. While I disagree with Pat on the need to get rid of serial killers, there is a strain of that sort of character I think we could do without. This strain are characters who would be classified as mentally retarded, and that’s somehow hinted by the writers (and in film and TV, the directors and actors) to be linked to their violent killing sprees. Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an example, and so is a certain character in the current season of American Horror Story (not saying who, because you know, spoilers). It’s actually rather saddening and disturbing to see this trope constantly resurfacing, because most people with intellectual disabilities are really sweet and wouldn’t harm a fly unless under extreme stress. If you’re going to create a killer with a brain problem, make it someone who kills for their own sick pleasure, rather than suggesting that it might have something to do with some intellectual disability they may have. Not only would I thank you, but I’m sure that many people with intellectual disabilities and their friends, family, and caretakers would thank you as well.

The dystopian dreamboy. I think you could actually extend this to a lot of YA stories as well, but I’m not familiar enough with the genre to make that sort of inference, so I’ll just keep it to dystopia fiction. In any case, this character shows up a lot in dystopian/YA fiction, particularly stories trying to portray a strong, female character (whether or not they do depends upon the story and personal choice). The dystopian dreamboy is very one-dimensional, their whole point is to be a romantic interest, and they have hardly any other aspects to them besides being very handsome, props the heroine up when she’s feeling down, and maybe fights or demonstrates some other helpful skill. Other than that, not much to fill that Wikia page. I’d like to see these characters either more developed or just gone.

The damsel in distress. Like our last entry, this character has very little character development or point besides being a male lead’s romantic interest. Of course, there’s a rich history of this character in literature, so it’s hard to get rid of such an archetype. However, in a world where women are taking breaking the glass ceiling in so many ways, the damsel in distress is the sort of character that we could stand to lose, because all it says is that women need a guy to save them and are otherwise helpless. Either that, or it needs a total revamping, where the damsel is at least somewhat proactive (like Allison from Snake).

The bitch who just needs some love in her life. Again, in an era where women are working hard to break the glass ceiling, this trope could be retired. Not tweaked. Retired. This trope basically says that there’s an ambitious, job-driven woman who is at the top of the business world. But she’s a little lonely, pretty stressed, and more often than not kind of bitchy. That is, until she meets this awesome, handsome guy who is sexually stimulating. And then she realizes as fulfilling as her job is, this guy is what she truly wants, and he makes her a better person, and given a choice between him and her job, she’ll take him. I don’t know, it might just be me, but I think plenty of women can be in business and find fulfillment without a guy. Or have a guy (or girl) and not have to choose between the two to get happiness. I’ve seen it plenty of times. Like my boss.

The barely-Jewish Jew. This is the one that gets my goat. Rachel Berry, Noah “Puck” Puckerman, Howard Wolowitz, Willow Rosenberg, John Munch, Dr. Chris Taub. These TV characters  are all Jewish, but if you looked only at them to form your idea of what a Jew is, you’d think that a Jew is someone who just says a bunch of Yiddish words but isn’t that different than anyone else.  Really, that’s only a small–really small, actually–portion of the Jewish population. I’d really like to see more Jewish characters eating kosher, maybe being involved in synagogue activities or doing Israel activism or something. Show some Hasidic Jews or some modern Orthodox or Conservative Jews who like the Ramones and go to day school (I had a friend or two like that). And for more than one guest episode, thanks! The only character who bucked the trend was Ziva David on NCIS, but the actress who played her left the show, so what’s left?

What are your thoughts on these choices?

What are some character tropes and archetypes that you need to be retired? Any you want to be resurrected?

I come from a family where it’s typical for most of us to obsess over certain TV shows, books or movies. One of those things that we love is Harry Potter. Around my mother’s house you will find copies of each book (sometimes more than one), the movies on DVD or VHS, a couple of wands and my mother’s acceptance letter to Hogwarts (apparently you can get those), and a few other knickknacks. Plus two very strange cats. When I told my mom that on Pottermore I’d been sorted into Slytherin, she considered not talking to me for a while (but does that choice surprise any of you?). And at some point soon, my mom and her partner, my stepmom, will be heading down to Florida, where my mom plans to visit Harry Potter World.

But that doesn’t mean that we’re above poking fun at the thing we love or pointing out the flaws. For example, my family is pretty much in agreement that the fact that Harry grew up with the Dursleys and was such a good person despite the abuse and isolation he suffered is very improbable. As I finished the conversation one evening after a long car-ride discussing HP, “At the very least he should have some self-esteem and trust issues. At the very worst he should be a full-on sociopath to rival Voldemort in evil.”

“I grew up in a broken home. Don’t mess with me, baldy.”

One of these days I’ll have to revisit the trope of the righteous orphan in literature, but now is not the time or the place.

The point is, this small flaw is one of a few that people could point out and make a big deal about in the HP series. In fact, if you look at many different works of literature, TV shows, and movies, you’re bound to find something that doesn’t make sense if you really think about it. Even if you don’t count the prequels, there’s some stuff about the Star Wars films that don’t add up (*cough* Princess Leia’s adoption and royal status *cough*). All of Frozen could’ve been avoided if the King and Queen had actually tried to help their daughter instead of trying to shut up her growing powers (but where would the fun in that be?). And don’t get me started on some of the stuff that happens in some comic books and superhero films. Or Hunger Games.

And there are people who LOVE pointing out these flaws to audience, sometimes making it difficult to enjoy these things ever again. How It Should Have Ended, CinemaSins, Nostalgia Critic, so many more. These guys love deconstructing these things and pointing out their flaws. It’s enough to make you want to root out every plot hole you can find in your story so that you don’t get caught in the web of these guys. Or you might just be too afraid to write at all.

The thing is, no story is perfect. Harry Potter is one of the bestselling franchises in the world, yet it’s not free of flaws. And look at Doctor Who! I’m a huge Whovian, yet I’ll admit that it sometimes  falters in the stories it tells (honestly, I thought I’d throw a shoe at the TV after I saw Kill the Moon. What an awful story that makes no sense!). Heck, I’ll admit I have stories that aren’t problem-free. The latter half of Snake has been criticized in the past of being slightly a little hard to justify (though not outside the realm of possibility). And if I learned one thing from my creative writing class, my short stories “Evil Began in a Bar” and “What Happened Saturday Night/Frauwolf”, will need several drafts. Heck, the latter is going to need one more draft before I can even think about submitting it somewhere. Don’t even get me started on the former.

What you have to keep in mind is that you can’t stress over the teeniest, tiniest detail and hoping there’s not something some blogger or YouTube producer or whatever is going to seize upon and make it into a reason to destroy the book. First worry about the big stuff. For example, if you have a plot that basically goes “In a world everyone has a gun but no one uses them, until someone does”, people are going to definitely look at that one and be like, “Say what?” Hash out the big details first. Then worry about the smaller ones. And know that you won’t get them all. Just try and make sure the ones you don’t get are ones that won’t really matter in the end.

“You are of questionable royal lineage and you will need to undergo a blood test. Take her away!”

Sure, Princess Leia’s adoption would probably draw some questions, maybe even the attention of the Empire. Doesn’t mean that it has to draw the attention of the Empire and Leia’s real father Vader. Or that Star Wars isn’t still one of the most awesome stories in the universe (and I count even the prequels, though I’m a little iffy on Episode III).

Keep that in mind for your own work as well. Nothing’s ever perfect, but it can still be great.

That’s all for now, my Followers of Fear. Hope you enjoyed this slightly-rambling post. I’m taking the rest of the night off. You have a good one, and remember to check out my big holiday sale. All books are marked down till December 31st, so check them out now while you got the chance.

Pleasant nightmares.

I’ve come to this decision after only a little deliberation but with a heavy heart. Ever since I entered college, and maybe for a few months before, I liked watching new TV live, rather than watching it the next day or as reruns. I didn’t watch a lot of new TV live growing up, mostly because it was on late and I had to get my sleep for school or whatever else was going on the next day for me. When I got to college, I found it simple even with a full schedule of classes and work to fit in TV in the evenings and watch shows I liked. And if perchance I missed them, most were on Hulu or other websites the next day.

That’s changing this semester. Because in addition to five classes–all of which hand out homework, and a lot of it, usually–I’m writing a novel for a thesis, which takes up a considerable amount of time. Add in shifts at work four days a week, and my time is filled up with work, work, and…did I mention work?

So as much as I love all my shows (and I love a lot of them, believe me), I’m drastically reducing how much TV I watch so I can get through my workload with more ease and less pressure. I don’t want to, but I have to make my studies a priority in all circumstances, so it’s something I have to do if I want to keep my grades up and not get piled under a mountain of homework.

And on the bright side I have DVR, so I’ll be able to hopefully catch up on most of my shows over winter break or whenever I’m actually free from assignments, whichever comes first. Hopefully nobody spoils my shows in the meantime, which would give me cause to put a curse on them. And I’m quite capable of doing that too.

He’s screaming about my TV reduction plan AND my curse threat.

In the meantime, the only shows I’ll keep up with are The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (I can watch it during breakfast), Sailor Moon Crystal (airs every other Saturday or so, and yes they rebooted Sailor Moon. Believe me, that franchise is never going away), Doctor Who (you know why I’ll be watching that), and Saturday Night Live (you can guess why on that as well).

I’m also going to have to cut back on the movies I watch. Which makes me sad, there are so many good horror movies coming out this October! I don’t want to wait until they’re on DVD!

Whatever happened to the days when life was simple? Oh yeah, that’s right. They never existed.

Well, that’s enough of me griping. Just know that I’m staying focused on my main priorities, I’ll leave the entertainment for another day, and I’ll try and continue to blog at least once or twice a week.

In the meantime, I’m heading to bed. It’s late, and I’ve got a full day tomorrow. Goodnight, my Followers of Fear. Pleasant nightmares.

Every now and then I look to do a post musing on the mechanics or subtleties of writing fiction, and today is one of those days. And as you can tell from the title of this post, I want to talk about unreliable narrators, those strange voices in the books we read (and occasionally in the films and TV shows we watch) whom we can’t always trust.

According to that awesome source of usually-factual info that is Wikipedia, an unreliable narrator is a narrator, usually in some medium of fiction or another, whose veracity has been called into question. Usually this happens very early in the story, where the narrator may make a plainly false or delusional claim, or it may happen elsewhere in the story, perhaps near the end where a twist in the story turns everything we thought we knew upside down or slowly through hints that are given to us in the narration. Stories with unreliable narrators can feature a single narrator, or multiple narrators giving their own versions of events, or even a supporting or side character who tells a story in such a way that we question whether or not they’]re being entirely truthful about what happened.

A great example of an unreliable narrator is Patrick Bateman from the novel American Psycho. As a man suffering from psychoses and the occasional hallucinations, Bateman makes a great unreliable narrator. Other examples include Nell from Wuthering Heights, most of the characters from the Japanese movie Rashomon, and Ted Mosby from How I Met Your Mother (according to show creator Craig Thomas, anyway). Oh, and any story that has children narrating it could possibly have unreliable narrators, because kids sometimes remember things incorrectly.

(If you want to think about it though, every one is an unreliable narrator, because no matter how they see events, they are biased, they may mis-remember details, and they may cover things up in order to make themselves look good or to hide their own guilt. But let’s not get too philosophical about this. Otherwise we’ll be here all evening)

One of the characters in my thesis project, the antagonist, is an unreliable narrator. Because of his mental problems and his infatuation with protagonist Rose, he sees things through a very certain light, so when he tells a story it is often through that lens, which probably won’t reflect reality too well. As I’ve never written a story from the point of view of an unreliable narrator, so exploring the device through this character should be interesting. (Or have I used unreliable narrators before? Technically, any time I tell a story from the protagonist’s first-person point of view, it could be construed as unreliable, but i’m not sure if it counts. Oh darn it! Now I’m an unreliable narrator of my own writing career!)

But why are unreliable narrators used so much? And why do they appeal to readers and writers alike? It’s a very difficult question, and I’m not sure I have an answer. Perhaps for writers, it’s the chance to tell a warped version of events. When we tell a story, especially through the lens of an omniscient or almost-omniscient third-person narrator, it’s almost expected that the story being told is what actually happens, one-hundred-and-ten percent factual. Even when the story is limited to the viewpoint of a single character, that third-person narrator’s portrayal of events is assumed to be accurate. Heck, even when we read a novel told in the first-person, we tend to see the depiction of what happens as true. Especially if we like the character.

An unreliable narrator allows the writer to break from that, to tell a story that might not be accurate, and that the reader and maybe even the writer will have to guess how true the story is or how much we can trust the narrator to tell the truth. In fact, maybe that’s what the reader gets from these sort of storytellers: they have to figure out how trustworthy the storyteller is, or where the line between truth and the storyteller’s own delusions or beliefs is laid down. It’s like solving a mystery or a puzzle, in a way, and the only way to really solve it is to read on until you finish the story. And even then, you might not be able to tell how reliable the narrator is (which is why there are e-forums to discuss these issues).

In any case, I’m going to enjoy exploring the antagonist’s own unreliable stories and seeing how much we can or should believe him. It’ll make for an interesting discussion point when talking about my thesis with my adviser during the next semester.

What do you think of unreliable narrators?

Have you ever used them in your own writing? How did it go?

This morning I woke up to a very interesting article, about a female volleyball player who was being criticized for “being too beautiful to play”. Sabina Altynbekova of the the women’s under-19 volleyball team of Khazakstan, has come under fire recently because her looks are too distracting. At a tournament in Taiwan, fans becae infatuated with her, and caused an Internet sensation that’s spread to the rest of the globe, with videos of her doing the simplest things gaining hundreds of thousands of views. As her coach, Nurlan Sadikov*, said to the press, “It is impossible to work like this. The crowd behaves like there is only one player in the championship.”

Sabina Altynbekova before a game.

*Just in case you can’t figure it out from the name, Sadikov is male.

If the photo I’ve attached to this post doesn’t make it obvious, Ms. Altynbekova is a very beautiful young lady. in fact, if I were standing right in front of her right now and I thought I had even a sliver of a chance, I’d ask her out. However, what irritates me isn’t that she’s pretty. It’s that she’s being criticized for it.

For years, female athletes have been held to a much different standard to their male counterparts. Males athletes have to be able to stay athletic and be good at the games they play. At the same time, the female players are expected to be athletic, good at their sport of choice, and feminine. In intervies, men are asked about what they do to stay good at the game, where they see themselves and their teams going this year, and what they hope to do if and when they retire. Heck they might even get a question about politics or religion. The women get asked about how they stay fit or what they look like in a bikini or if they have boyfriends or plans to marry and have kids.

And when a man has huge legions of screaming fans, regardless of sex, it’s considered a plus, that they’re the epitome of manhood and that’s just something that comes with the game. Apparently when women like Ms. Altynbekova have that problem, it’s considered a distraction and takes awa from the game and the players. To a female athlete, her status as woman means she must be held to a different standard. She must be pretty, but not too pretty, good at the game but not too good and let it not be suggested that how good she is should be the thing we focus on, lest we give women the idea they are just as good as their male compatriots. Otherwise, she is neither an athlete nor a woman.

Even a guy who is unable to care about sports outside of Buckeye football like me finds this treatment appalling. And you know what else? This attitude isn’t anything new. In fact, one could even say this attitude that the sports industry has towards women–that they are inferior, and only as good as their ovaries and what they must do to get men and children–has been going on since the ancient Greeks, when women were barred from the Olympics and all participating were required to play naked to make sure this was an all-boys club.

It’s no coincidence these figures are male.

And this is just the tip of the problem. There is all sorts of denigration of women in the sports industry, from constant jokes about women’s sports teams being wastes of times unless someone flashes a side boob or that they should waitress instead to the emphasis that women can never be as good as men at sports (considering my stepmom taught me how to play soccer and softball in our backyard, I’ll disagree on that one), and moreover, they shouldn’t.

Occasionally this spills over to the realms of domestic abuse. In May, Ravens’ running back plead not guilty to aggravated assault after being arrested for beating his fiancee and dragging her unconscious body out of an elevator by the armpits three months previously. What did the NFL do about this? They gave him a two game suspension from playing football. You read that right. He’s not allowed to play for the Ravens for two games.

Stephen A. Smith, whose comments have caused a huge storm among viewers.

The suspension, as expected, has caused a flurry of controversy. Unfortunately, some of that controversy has been less than helpful. Stephen Smith, a commentator from ESPN’s “First Take”, said last Friday on the show that women should be aware of “the elements of provocation”, basically saying that women are partly to cause for the abuse they suffer, which is what their abusers would want them to believe. He apologized for it on Monday, saying that it was the most “egregious error of his career”, but the fact is, when he said that women were partly to blame for their abuse, he said it to millions of men across the nation. Some of whom may see it as justification for their own abusive ways and would have shrugged off the apology as something Smith’s bosses or the liberal media or whatever wanted him to say.

At least Keith Olbermann over on ESPN2 had the right idea of it. As he said on a recent segment of his show:

“By some tiny amount each one of those things lowers the level of basic human respect for women in sports. And sooner or later, there are so many tiny amounts that the level of basic human respect is gone altogether…Eventually after all the b-words and ho comments and penis remarks and nudity demands and waitress jokes, the most powerful national sports league in the world can then get away with suspending a wife-beater for just two games.”

Olbermann speaks the truth. And luckily there are ways to fight against this sexist attitude in the sports industry, and in other places as well where sexism pervades. First, we can stop with the comments that put women down, saying that they’re inferior or bad athletes or that they focus on being pretty. At the same time, we should focus on not giving power to the myth that men, in order to be men, have to be strong, dominant, and sometimes even violent. This idea turns men into monsters, not men, and we should work to stop it.

And the best way to do that is to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. One of the ways we can show that is to be an example to other men and women. Show that you are not that kind of guy by being respectful to women, by outright saying that these harmful jokes and stereotypes aren’t funny or okay and also teach those who can be changed and taught the right way to go about things. It’s not much, but it’s a start.

What do you think of these problems in the sports industries and other places? What do you recommend to fix them?

When I was a kid, I read the Goosebumps books, as did a good number of other kids in my generation. Some of us even watched the TV series based on the books. Back then, they were, although not traumatic, pretty scary. When you look back at them now though, you realize that not only do they seem somewhat tame, but the stories have plot holes that only a kid would miss (like why haven’t the authorities figured out there’s a theme park that is being run by homicidal goblins and called in the National Guard?). Still, one tends to have fond memories of those books.

Which is why when I heard recently that there is a movie being made based on those books with Jack Black set to play author R.L. Stine (who happens to be from Columbus, by the way), I got a little excited. In fact, here’s an interview with Jack Black from San Diego Comic-Con on the movie, about a week or so after filming ended.


I’m certainly going to look forward to this movie. I’ll probably laugh at most of it rather than being scared, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something in the movie made me jump out of my seat. And when you add in the news that CBS Films had bought the rights to the Tales You Tell in the Dark books with the hope of producing a movie based on them and that MGM is developing an animated Addams Family movie, it gets me excited.

But these are kids stories. Why should any of us care? Most of my readers (I assume) are past Goosebumps age, and if any of them do like a good horror novel or movie or TV series, they’re more likely to read a Stephen King novel or see As Above, So Below when it hits theaters or try and guess what’ll happen in the new season of American Horror Story (I have a feeling most of that speculation will be wrong).

Expect this freaky mask, plus Slappy the dummy and a few others to make it into the new movie.

Remember in the video above, how Jack Black was talking about how his kids like being scared but they don’t like blood or any of that other stuff? We were all like that once. We wanted to be scared, but we didn’t want to have our heads messed up too badly (though mine was plenty messed up to begin with). Goosebumps, Tales You Tell in the Dark, or even Are You Afraid of the Dark?* were all like gateways into the world of horror for youngsters, allowing them to be scared while also allowing them to have fun. And getting a love of horror through kids horror is way better than a first exposure through a King novel or through watching Scream. Even when you’re an adult, those stories can turn you off from the genre if they’re too intense.

Heck, those books even helped me out a little. I remember once in third grade our teacher reading to us a story from Tales You Tell in the Dark that had me terrified and excited all at the same time. And later on when I got really into Goosebumps, they may have been getting me ready for when I would sit down and read Interview with the Vampire and later It, which were key to me deciding to become a horror writer.

So when Goosebumps (and Tales You Tell in the Dark and Addams Family, if they ever get past the development stage) reaches theaters, adults with or without kids will go to see their old favorite stories come to life on the silver screen. And if any of them have kids, they’l come along to, maybe leading to another generation of horror lovers. And maybe even the next generation of horror writers and filmmakers.

Well, that’s all for now. Join me tomorrow though, because then I plan to reveal what my next big project–which also doubles as my thesis for my senior year–will be. Should be exciting. Have a good night, my Followers of Fear.

*That last one I’ve watched a few episodes of recently. It’s actually got some pretty solid stories in that show. A few even resemble Stephen King short stories in the way they’re told.