A Writing Entry – Further Thoughts on Enthusiasm

I’ve already mused that enthusiasm isn’t enough to make it in the arts.  However, a lack of skill does not necessarily seem to be the hindrance I thought it would be.

I think artists become artists because they feel they have compelling ideas that they want to share with people.  I’m sure a ton of great art has been lost because those that produced it didn’t understand that it was a compelling idea to others.  To be an artist obviously is to be somewhat egotistical.  It’s not enough to say, “Hey, this is a really great idea.”  There has to be a follow up, which means the artist  says, “Hey, this is a really great idea and I think everyone else will think it’s a great idea too.”  The artist has to believe there is some value in their idea (and the artist may be wrong).  Therefore, the artist is enthusiastic about that idea.  While enthusiasm isn’t enough to make an artist’s idea a success (however that is defined), the artist must be enthusiastic about their idea(s) for it to have the best chance at success.

As a writer, the ideas I want to share are stories.  Now, if I had a spectacularly interesting real life I could spin into an autobiography that would rocket to the top of the bestseller list, I would absolutely sell that story for a quick buck (my soul goes for cheap).  But my life is not that interesting.  I have never assaulted Tom Cruise nor gotten mixed up with a drug cartel.  I spent a month working in an explosives laboratory and have nearly been run over by an airplane three times, but that is not as exciting as it sounds.  My real-life anecdotes are like that distant uncle that shows up only to Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner and keeps going on about taking down Charlie in Nam; and when you’re old enough to understand this could be an awesome story and finally listen to your uncle it turns out that “Nam” is some tiny town in Wyoming or Minnesota or maybe it was South Dakota but anyway Charlie was just his fishing buddy and by taking him down your uncle meant “catching a bigger fish.”  In short, the story had a good lead, but ultimately was lame.  So since my own life is not exactly a rich source of compelling stories to tell, I make up stories.

I have read a lot, and from a young age.  I’ve been forced to write through my public education.  I can’t pinpoint exactly when I thought what I wrote might be compelling enough to share with other people.  Honestly, the public education system in the U.S. can be a great tool for squashing enthusiasm for any art or science.  I had some great teachers, but I also had some pretty lousy ones.  The most humiliating writing experience was the result of a really good, but sorely misguided, teacher.  My junior high English class was given an assignment to write about what made us who we were.  I made the mistake of writing a rather honest assessment of myself.  My teacher really liked it and then she did the worst (but well-meaning) thing imaginable – she read my essay out loud to the class.  My soul (such as it was in junior high) was laid bare for 30 of my peers to mock mercilessly.  Even now as I write this, I cringe in horror at the memory.  At the time, I wanted the Earth to swallow me up whole (which it stubbornly refused to do) and I swore if I lived through that humiliation I would be more tempered in what I wrote.

The fall-out was less than I expected.  I was mocked, briefly, until my peers got bored and moved on with their lives.  I really can’t blame my teacher; she really liked my honesty and wanted to share that with the class.  But still, there are few greater embarrassments at that age.  I did hold back on my writing for anything I had to share with strangers after that.  I would still show my work to my parents or, rarely, their friends and occasionally my friends.  My parents encouraged me to keep writing but neither encouraged me to try to find commercial success (my literature teacher parent was in fact quite jaded on that subject anyway).  So I wrote mostly for myself, which was enough for quite some time.

I have no idea what changed.  I think college was definitely a turning point in my willingness to share my writing with others.  I had a larger group of friends and more common interests.  With encouragement, I started to feel more confident that maybe I really did have an interesting story to tell and maybe I should try to get published.  I didn’t leap into a novel.  I tried to publish short stories first, with a bit of success, but not a lot (although I got a nice mug out of the deal).  I met other writers, as mentioned before, and shared my experiences with them.  I don’t know why they thought they had stories to share either; I wish I had asked.  Now, I didn’t trust that everything my friends said was great really was.  I have a dear friend who still tells me everything I write is really awesome, and I’m grateful to him, but I’m not quite sure if he really thinks so or just wants me to do well.  At some point, I just decided I was going to try to make it as a writer.

I do think any writing (or any art) done because the writer wants to create the work is going to be better than something produced to meet a deadline (I also say this being a freelance writer who submits work on a deadline to a monthly e-zine).  Again, without skill, that enthusiasm for the work may still result is something that’s not very good, but it at least it might be compelling and interesting.  Writer G was really trying to be a professional author.  He had some stories he worked on for himself and others he was working on solely for the purpose of getting published.  I once asked Writer G why he tried to write stuff specifically to get published.  His answer was that once he got published he’d be in a better position to really write what he wanted.  This is probably true.  I countered that if he wasn’t really enthusiastic about the publishing-focused work that it might not be as good as his other works and therefore not stand as good a chance at being published.  I don’t recall he had a good counter to that argument at the time.  At this point I could counter myself and say writing something marketable is probably more important to commercial success than writing something you really want to write (my counter self is very cynical).

To try not to wallow in cynicism, I remind myself that two of the biggest commercial successes of the past few years (the “Twilight” series and the “Harry Potter” series) had some glaring execution errors, but the authors believed in the compelling nature of their stories enough to try to share them with the world.  Whether or not that’s a good thing depends on your point of view, I suppose.  Even the most famous of writers probably doubted their own work (such as the venerable Tolkien, and it was his good friend C. S. Lewis who  encouraged him to publish).

To sum up, since this is getting long and rambling – I write stories I like, and I will publish the stories I think other people will like.  If they like them, then that’s great!  If I can make a living off of writing stories (one day…), then that’s even better!  I really do think enthusiasm is key to a good story (or any work of art) even if lamentably the skill required for proper execution is not key to being a commercial success.

A Writing Entry – Killing off a Character

As a writer, this, to me, is not to be taken lightly.  I don’t do it often, and only if I feel the story requires it.  The purpose of a character death is either as a plot device, development of another character, or to cause an emotional reaction in the reader (or viewer if the death occurs in a visual medium).  My thoughts on character death concern how much the reader/viewer is expected to care about the dead.

1) Plot device – when the character’s death is central to moving the plot forward.
a) Specifically – For any sort of mystery novel, this is absolutely critical.  After all, if there’s no murder, there’s no murder mystery.
Do we care? – In this case, the reader/viewer may or may not be expected to have some kind of emotional attachment to the recently deceased depending on when in the story they get killed (i.e., the story starts out with a dead body, or someone in the story is killed).
i) He was dead at the time (the story starts) – In this case, there’s really no emotional attachment.  This is a cold open, and many murder mysteries start this way, especially in a visual media.  It’s kind of hard to be emotionally attached to Mr. Boddy.
ii) Hey, it’s that guy – In this case, we’ve had a chance to meet the characters and there are hints that something terrible is about to happen and we’re kind of hoping it’s that jerk who really has it coming and not that nice, affably clueless person.
A) Naturally, if the body turns out to be that jerk who had it coming, we’re not very sorry, and may have less emotional investment in determining who the killer is.  Although often in these cases, the nice, affably clueless person is wrongfully accused, which does encourage the reader/viewer to invest in the murdered being brought to justice.  We really don’t want Grady Fletcher to go to jail.
B) But if it the body turns out to be that nice, affably clueless person, then we are sorry and perhaps have a greater emotional investment in determining who the killer is.
b) Specifically – outside of mystery novels, character death as a plot device often involves an important leader dying/being killed.
Do we care? – Again, it depends on when the character dies, how they die, and what we’ve been shown of their character to this point.  Emotional attachments actually play out the same way as listed above.

2) Character development – when the death of one character prompts a profound emotional/character change in another character.
Do we care? – The recently deceased must have been a powerful enough character on their own that their death actually means something to the surviving character.  Common examples are the death of the wise mentor, respected parent, or love interest.  There is a distinct danger of falling into clichés with this kind of character death.
a) Stuffed into the Fridge – this is the worst example of a love interest getting killed for the purpose of developing another character.  It also overlaps with character death as plot device since lovers getting brutally murdered often provides motivation for the revenge sequence that follows.  This is not limited to comic books, of course.  Many many video games also start with this premise.
b) I really can love! – This is common when the main character rebuffs the love interest time and time again, claiming past trauma or other circumstances prevent them from truly falling for the love interest.  Then the love interest dies and it turns out the main character was in love all along.
c) Wise mentor – In many stories, the death of the wise mentor is almost inevitable.  They pass along all their wisdom to the main character and show the main character yes, they really can be a better person.  Sometimes they pass away peacefully, and sometimes they are cruelly cut down.  Either way, the main character knows that have to find that inner strength because wise mentor believed in them.
d) Respected parent – Often the same role as the wise mentor, although the respected parent, if cruelly cut down, the agent of death is some kind of disease or accident (whereas wise mentors are more usually cruelly cut down by ninja assassins or mob hitmen or Sith lords).

3) Emotional reaction – it is possible these deaths advance the plot or lead to further development in surviving characters, but the main purpose seems to be to make the reader/viewer have a strong emotional reaction, whether it’s anger, sadness, or even just confusion.
Do we care? – We’d better care, or the writer has not done their job correctly.  These kinds of character deaths are the most likely to break the fanbase.
a) Slow and lingering – if we know a character is terminally ill, or involved in the kind of situation they know they won’t get out of, and therefore we the reader/viewer know they won’t get out of, then at least they don’t feel like they just come out of nowhere.  The emotional reaction comes as the reader/viewer is pulled along in this hopeless journey, wishing there was a way for the main character to survive and at the same time readying themselves for the inevitable.  If a character doesn’t die after all this build up, that actually feels like cheap manipulation.
b) Slow, lingering, and pointless – this is when a character is involved in a train wreck of a hopeless situation that can only lead to their death but the reader/viewer is not emotionally invested (or as much as the writer wants) because they simply don’t understand why the character is being put through the situation.  The death feels like a cheap stunt, made worse because everyone can see it coming and no one can stop it.  Frankly, the “Death of Superman” felt like this to me, and actually a lot of comic book deaths can end up like this.
c) Heroic sacrifice – very, very common.  This is when the main character must die to save the day/ship/world/love interest, etc.  Whether or not the character that dies is a hero is not actually crucial to the emotional reaction of their death.  As long as it is a sacrifice that makes sense in the context of the story, even if a villain is the one dying, we the reader/viewer will feel that emotional punch when the death occurs.  Unless, of course, there hasn’t been enough time or too much lazy writing to really build up the character so that when they sacrifice themselves, it feels like a cheap dramatic trick (i.e., the wrong character is yelling, “Khaaaaaaan!!!”).
d) Anyone at any time – This is when a character (or a whole bunch of characters) is killed off unexpectedly.  At best, it provides an emotional punch to the gut of the reader/viewer as they experience this sudden death along with the characters (see also “Whedoned”).  At worse, this doesn’t seem to advance the plot (and in fact may seem to hinder it) and doesn’t build character development because there’s no one left to build up.  I may possibly be referring to a recent episode of a popular fantasy TV series based on a popular series of fantasy novels in which about a quarter of important (up to that point) characters were killed.  Not only can this easily feel like cheap emotional manipulation, these kinds of deaths can make the reader/viewer wonder if they should continue in the series (assuming that’s not the end) or continue with that writer (assuming that is the end of a series but they have others).  Readers/viewers do emotionally invest in characters and to have them killed for what appears to be no good reason except reader/viewer shock breaks the trust the reader/viewer had in the writer.  Also, while “anyone and any time” can be a bold narrative choice, in actuality, most readers/viewers really don’t want to see anyone get killed at any time.

As a writer, I try to make sure my reasons for killing off a character are sound.  It is difficult to write compelling characters and honestly after going through all that work I want to make sure there’s no other method besides death to achieve the end of the story.  If characters aren’t compelling, the reader/viewer isn’t going to care they’re dead.  Even if characters are compelling, deaths in stories can so easily end up cliché or overdone or trite.  Trite is dangerously close to mediocre, and I want to write better than that.  So, if there must be character death, I want to make sure it really means something.  I may not always succeed, but I will always try.

Fifteen-minute Movie: Star Trek

or, “This is an Alternate Universe and Anything Could Happen Damn it!”
or, “I am Not Spock“

The final frontier:
–A big hole in space complete with space lightning opens up near the USS Kelvin–

Captain – Space lightning?  Seriously?

Science Officer – Nope, space lightning.  But I’m acknowledging it’s impossible.

Lens Flare – Hi everyone!

–A mysterious ship emerges from the hole and blows the holy living hell out of the Kelvin–

Nero – What’s up?  I’m jamming all your transmissions and transporting.  Send your captain over or I finish blowing the holy living hell out of your ship.

Captain – That Romulan is totally going to kill me.

George Kirk – Wait, we know what a Romulan is?  I thought they were introduced a bit later in the original series.

Captain – If you’re actually going to compare this to anything that happened in the original series or the previous movies, you are going to be really disappointed.

Kirk – But their ship doesn’t look Romulan and since when do Romulans have tattoos?

Captain – Don’t think too much about this.

Kirk – Duly noted, sir.

Lens Flare – Me again!

Captain – Kirk, you’re in command.  Evacuate everyone while I buy us some time.

–The captain goes over to the Romulan ship where they conveniently speak Federation-lish.–

Nero – Give me Ambassador Spock and his little ship.

Captain – I have no idea who that old guy is or what you’re talking about.  What century are you from anyway?

Lens Flare – Cool!  Time travel and alternative universes.  That’s bold!

Nero – It doesn’t matter to you, only the audience.  And I’m going to kill you now. –does so–  Okay, blow up that ship.

Lens Flare – I’m over here!

Nero – Wait a minute, wait a minute.  Are you going to be doing this the entire movie?

Lens Flare – Pretty much.

Nero – Why are you here?

Lens Flare – To build dramatic tension!

Nero – But that’s what the script is for, and the actors are for.  Are you saying that instead of trusting in a good script and good actors to produce dramatic tension, the film-makers are going to opt for a cheap special effect?

Lens Flare – Pretty much!

Nero – *facepalm*  Fine, fine, let’s get back to the blowing up of things.

Lens Flare – Can do!

–in the meantime, Kirk has given the evacuation order, which includes his wife who is, in a wacky sitcom hijink turn of events, going into labor with their first child–

Kirk – Okay, if I just set this thing on autopilot I may still be able to get out of here… –the autopilot is broken–  “F@#&!  Even in the future nothing works!“  Self-sacrifice it is.

Mrs. Kirk – What?!?  ARRRGGGHHH!!  –Lens Flare helps give birth to little Kirk; the Kirks agree on a name before the Kelvin smashes into the Romulan ship–

Iowa (Really?  Looks kind of desert-y to be Iowa; damn global warming):
Li’l Kirk – “Head out on the highway, lookin’ for adventure…“

Cop – Hold it!  Hold everything!  I know that the filmmakers have to show Kirk is a badass.  I get that.  But how does “Kirk is a badass” get to the point of absurdity in which I am chasing down a ten-year kid who is driving a nearly three-hundred year old car!  There is so much suspension of disbelief required here I can’t even believe the filmmakers are asking this of their audience!

Li’l Kirk – I’m also about to wreck it spectacularly and not get so much as a scratch. –does so–  See?

Cop – I-I have no response to this.

Vulcan:
Vulcan Child – Hey, li’l Spock.  I’ll bet being half-human makes it easy to get you angry and violent, so I’m going to provoke you.  –this works and li’l Spock ends up beating the hell out of him–  Note to self: it is not logical to provoke an emotional being to anger and violence.

Li’l Spock – Dad, they said mean things about you and Mom.

Sarek – Because I am Vulcan, I will say something cryptic and unhelpful.

Vulcan (A bit later):
Venerable Council – Spock, you are accepted to the Science Academy.  Also, I will say this in the most dick-ish way possible.

Spock – How is it logical to be a dick for no good reason?

Venerable Council – You know, because.

Spock – Yeah, I think I’m going to join Starfleet.

Shady Bar (on a Utopian Earth?  Sure, Why Not?):
James Tiberius Kirk – Hey, you’re hot.

Lens Flare – You really are hot!

Uhura – Thank you for summing up my character in this film so succinctly.  Let me round that out by telling you to go to hell, you drunk frat-boy.

Kirk – If I was a drunk frat-boy, I’d be in a brawl by now due to my macho posturing.

Random Cadet – Hey, leave her alone.

Kirk – Oh, right, here we go. –”and the man in the back said everyone attack/and it turned into a ballroom blitz;” which is broken up by Captain Pike–  I would’ve had him if I hadn’t been blinded by Lens Flare over there.

Lens Flare – It’s my job!

Pike – Kirk, you can be a better man than this.  Your father was awesome and you have good test scores.  Clearly this means you’re meant to be a great leader.

Kirk – Seriously?  You’re giving me the generic wise mentor speech that we’ve seen in so many movies?  You don’t even know me.

Pike – It’s what I got.

–This is enough to cause Kirk to join Starfleet and he ends up shipping out with Uhura’s class; also Bones is there and probably drunk–

Starfleet Academy (three years later):
Kirk – I am so ticked off I can’t beat the Kobayashi Maru!

Bones – It’s supposed to be impossible.  Just get over it.

Kirk – Hell no! I’m James T. Kirk and I am always going to be winner!  –Kirk proceeds to be the smuggest dick imaginable as he cheats his way to victory in the test and wastes the time of all his friends and future fellow officers and Lens Flare–

Starfleet Academy, Board Room:
Board Member – Kirk, Commander Spock says you cheated in his test.

Kirk – I am going to act genuinely shocked that anyone would have thought I cheated even though I acted like the smuggest dick imaginable when I beat the test.

Spock – So you concede you cheated?

Kirk – Nope. I won.  I always win.  I’m James T. Kirk goddamn it!  You watch; I’ll get the Board on my side and they’ll graduate me.

Board Member – That will have to wait.  We just received a distress signal from Vulcan and as we have at least six ships docked nearby and apparently almost no other staff, you cadets are going out.

Kirk – Hey, my name isn’t on the list.  Even Lens Flare is getting on board.

Bones – Don’t worry, I’ll sneak you aboard because…well, you know what, I have no idea why but I do it anyway.

–After a brief error with the anachronistic parking brake, the Enterprise takes off–

Enterprise:
Kirk – Hey, that kid with the funny accent said space lightning!  It’s a trap!  I have to warn Captain Pike!

Lens Flare – Wait for me!

–Kirk manages to make his way to the bridge with Bones and Uhura trailing after him.–  It’s a trap!

Pike – Why are you even here?

Kirk – I have to warn you…

Pike – No, not you, Lens Flare.

Lens Flare – I’m building dramatic tension for you!

Spock – Security, escort this man off the bridge, and I mean Kirk.

Kirk – What, Lens Flare stays and I go?  Hell no, pointy ears!  I’m right like I always am!  This is the same thing that killed my dad.  That ship is waiting for us!

Uhura – I am only here to confirm his story?  Really?  Fine, yes, I intercepted a transmission two days ago that supports his crazy story.

Pike – Okay, let’s put up shields in case something bad is waiting for us, like a debris field of our former fleet and a ship that blows the holy living hell out of us.  –yeah, that–  At least the shields are up.

Sulu – Are you sure?  I thought was just Lens Flare again.

Chekov – What good are the shields even doing?  The debris is scraping our hull!  Also, there appears to be a giant drill thing drilling into Vulcan!

Nero – Hey, Enterprise, what up?  Send your captain on over, okay?  Laters!

Pike – Well, I’m going to die.  Spock, you’re the new captain.

Spock – I accept this assignment with all due dignity and lack of emotion.

Pike – And Kirk’s your XO.

Kirk – Awesome!  And I didn’t even graduate!

Spock – What the hell?!?!?  I mean, what, sir?  He’s reckless, he’s on suspension, he’s insubordinate, and this is highly illogical!

Pike – Just go with it.  Kirk, Sulu, Red Shirt, you parachute out of the shuttlecraft to the drill platform and destroy it.

Red Shirt – What can possibly go wrong?

Drill Platform:
–An exciting sequence follows in which Kirk, Sulu, and Red Shirt are in fact color-coded and plummet towards Vulcan and the drill platform with Lens Flare in tow; Red Shirt gets sucked into the plasma beam and Sulu is forced to cut his parachute before it retracts; then Romulans emerge and the fight starts–

Romulan 1 – Why am I fencing with you?

Sulu – Because it’s awesome and a shout-out to the original series!

Romulan 1 – Seriously, why am I fencing with you?  I have a gun!

Sulu – Oh.  Then I have no idea. –Kirk and Sulu dispatch the Romulans.–  Damn it, Red Shirt had all the explosives.

Kirk – Wait, what?  This was an extraordinarily dangerous task that could have killed all of us, albeit unlikely.  Still, if the explosives aren’t cumbersome, why didn’t we all have enough to blow this thing?

Sulu – I have no idea.

Kirk – Well, hell, let’s use these guns the Romulans dropped and blow it up old school tommy-gun style. –they do so–  I’m sure that won’t endanger us at all… –the platform disintegrates and Sulu falls off leaving Kirk to dive after him because apparently Starfleet has never heard of a back-up parachute– I’ve got you!  –his parachute promptly breaks–  What the hell?  Our tech sucks!

Lens Flare – Don’t worry, I’ll save you!

–Actually, Chekov saves them despite some technobabble about how it’s dangerous to beam them while they’re in motion–

Kirk – Ouch.  Well, at least we saved Vulcan.

Nero – –drops the itty bitty bomb–  Yeah, about that… No you didn’t.

Spock – Damn it!  Evacuate everyone!  I’m going to down to save the Vulcan Council at least.  –Only a few members get squished as they escape the cave–

Chekov – Don’t move or I can’t lock on!

Mrs. Sarek – Um, are you sure I can’t move to slightly more stable ground?  I mean, I know you’ll lose the lock but hopefully you’ll have a few more seconds to re-lock on me instead of me standing here hoping you beam me before the ground falls out from underneath me.

Chekov – Sorry, you can’t move.

Mrs. Sarek – Damn it.  –falls to her doom prior to Chekov saving everyone else although Vulcan is pretty much hosed–

Enterprise:
Kirk – We need to rescue Pike!

Spock – We need to meet up with Starfleet and work out a better plan.

Lens Flare – I’m here!

Kirk – You’re a jerk!  We have to rescue Pike and I’ll start punching people until I get my way!

Spock – And this clearly proves you are ready for command.

Kirk – Is sarcasm logical?

Spock – It’s not illogical.  Also, Vulcan neck pinch.  –Kirk takes a little nap–  Get him off my ship.

Turbolift:
Uhura – I’m really sorry. –kisses him–

Lens Flare – Hey, you two are actually dating?

Spock – Yes.

Lens Flare – But you were her teacher, and no place of academia allows a teacher to date a student, and now you’re her commanding officer, and no military allows this kind of fraternization with the subordinate staff.  I mean, I know this is supposed to be an enlightened century and all, but this still seems wrong.

Uhura – You can just shut the hell up while I tenderly comfort my man!

Not Hoth:
Lens Flare – Wake up!

Kirk – What the hell?  Did Spock actually throw me off the ship?  That jerk!  Just because I was insubordinate, violent, and unhinged doesn’t mean he actually had cause to discipline me!  Argh, so unfair!  –Kirk heads out and eventually runs from monsters in a sight gag that actually made more sense in Star Wars I and finally stumbles into a cave and is rescued–  Lens Flare, move.  I can’t see that guy’s face.

Lens Flare – Sorry!

Kirk – Yeah, that doesn’t help.  Who the hell are you?

Mysterious Man – You are James T. Kirk.

Kirk – I know who I am.  I don’t know who you are and I don’t know how you know who I am.

Mysterious Man – I’m Spock.

Kirk – Okay, trapped in an ice cave with a crazy man and Lens Flare.  This is shaping up to be one hell of a day.

Old Spock – Let me try telepathy; don’t worry, it’ll only trigger a flashback. –does so–

Flashback (Old Spock narrating) – 129 years from now, Romulus’ sun will become unstable.  I’ll promise to save them by using “red matter” to create a black hole to absorb their sun which in retrospect really just exchanges one problem for another.  I am, er, was, or will be, anyway, I didn’t get there on time and the sun exploded.  Nero happened to be there and chased me down.  I used the bomb to stop the sun explosion and ended up accidentally creating a hole in space-time.  Nero’s ship got through first and destroyed the Kelvin, then waited 25 years to capture me.  Nero took the remaining red matter and destroyed Vulcan as revenge against me.

Not Hoth:
Kirk – Okay, let’s assume all that made sense.  Now I know that Nero’s ship is over one hundred years more advanced than anything we have and he’s got this super-bomb stuff.  What do we do now?

Old Spock – First, don’t tell young Spock about me.  Time paradox and stuff.  Second, you have to be best buddies with Spock.

Kirk – We hate each other, so I don’t see that happening.

Old Spock – Damn it, you have to be best buddies!  There isn’t time to build up an actual emotional attachment between you two.  Okay, third, you have to command the Enterprise.  Make young Spock emotional.

Kirk – This is not going to make him want to be my best buddy here.

Old Spock – Worry about that later.  Finally, we’ll go find the Federation outpost which happens to have exactly the person we need to get out of here.

Federation Outpost:
Old Spock – Montgomery Scott.

Lens Flare – Hey, Scotty!  We’ve missed you!

Scotty – I know, right?  So I’m totally going to steal every one of the few scenes I’m in, okay?

Old Spock/Kirk/Lens Flare – Sounds good.

Scotty – Right, now, let’s try some highly experimental technology to beam onto a ship in warp that will never be used again!

Enterprise:
Spock – How in the hell did you beam aboard my bridge?

Lens Flare – Magic!

Kirk – You’re a jerk.  A jerky jerk uptight emotionless jerk who saw his mother and whole planet die and is acting like nothing’s wrong.  Boo hoo my planet is gone and I’m not sad at all.

Spock – KILL! –tries to strangle Kirk–

Kirk – Note to self: it is not logical to provoke an emotional being to anger and violence.

Spock – Oh, no, I am too emotional to be captain.  I will resign my command and leave the bridge.  –does so–

Kirk – Well, this makes me captain and we’re going to save Earth!

Lens Flare – Hi again!  I know what’s going on, but you don’t, and this guy just provoked Spock to make him step down so he could take over.  Doesn’t that seem suspicious to anyone else?

Everyone else – Nope.

–Nero’s ship puts down the drill into San Francisco Bay as the Enterprise hides in Titan’s atmosphere so they can sneak up on the ship to beam Spock and Kirk and Lens Flare over or sabotage Nero’s ship and stop the drill–

Nero’s Ship:
Lens Flare – Oooo, creepy!

Kirk – I’m going to kill Nero and save Pike!

Spock – I’ll stop the drill and then somehow we’ll get back to the Enterprise!  Hey, a ship in a ship that seems to recognize my voice commands.  Obviously we need to have a chat when we get out of this.  –Spock steals Old Spock’s ship and blasts his way out to destroy the drill–

Kirk – Nero!  Surrender!

Nero – Wait, really?  You’ve been nothing but brash and stupidly reckless this entire movie and now you decide to follow protocol and demand my surrender?

Kirk – It shows I’m maturing as a leader. –he is promptly disarmed from behind and some random Romulan starts to strangle him–  Note to self: maturity is overrated.

Nero – Ha!  Now you will witness my revenge!!!!

Kirk – Your revenge is lame.

Lens Flare – It is!

Nero – No, it’s awesome.  See, I imploded Vulcan and I’ll implode Earth too!

Kirk – Lame!  You have a ship that is more than one hundred years more advanced than anything in this time period.  You also know the exact day Romulus’s sun is going to explode because you were there!  Why the hell didn’t you go back to Romulus?  Your engineers could have taken this ship, reverse-engineered it, and given the Romulans a technological advantage so great they could have just conquered the Federation and everyone else!  And they could have started to try to save their sun or evacuate the planet since they have over a century to plan!  Instead you waited 25 years for Old Spock and now you’ve got the most powerful explosive in the galaxy, you still haven’t thought of going home to save your planet?!?

Nero – *blink blink blink*  You thought of all that?  Just now while watching the movie?

Kirk – Yeah.  It’s kind of obvious your revenge is totally lame.

Nero – Damn it!  I’m insane!  –notes Spock’s ship goes into orbit–  Follow him and kill that guy!

Romulan 2 – But he had a good point, actually. –Kirk kills him–

Kirk – Okay, you and me, cinematic fight!  –the fight is inconclusive but not in Kirk’s favor–  Yeah, I’ll go rescue Pike now. –this he manages to do as Spock rams his ship into Nero’s–

Enterprise:
–Against all odds, Scotty manages to beam out all three people to safety presumably using a refined version of the technique Chekov used earlier.–

Kirk – Okay, we’ll offer Nero and his crew another chance to surrender.

Lens Flare – Um, no one thinks maybe we ought to get out of here considering his ship is about to become a giant black hole?

Spock – It’s important for him to mature as a leader.

Nero – Go to hell!

Kirk – Okay, well, even though you’re going to die anyway, I’m going to open fire on you!

Lens Flare – But-but the black hole!

–Nero’s ship is imploded and destroyed–

Sulu – Sir!  The ship has turned into a huge black hole and is sucking us in!  I don’t think we can escape!

Lens Flare – Yeah, that!

Kirk – Scotty, you are contractually obligated to save the ship against impossible odds!

Scotty – Eject the warp core!  The explosion will push us away from the black hole and not tear us apart!  Probably!

–This works and the Enterprise and Lens Flare escape–

Earth:
Board Member – Even though you cheated on the test, stowed away on board the Enterprise, got thrown off the ship for mutiny, manipulated the captain into resigning so you could be captain, and in general behaved like a spoiled child who always gets his way, we’re graduating you with honors, the rank of captain, and giving you the Enterprise to command.

Kirk – Like I said, I am always right and I always win.

Earth, A Bit Later:
–Old Spock meets young Spock–
Spock – You’re me.

Old Spock – Yes.  Obviously I can’t talk to you too much, but here’s what you need to know.  I manipulated Kirk and you two need to be best buddies.

Spock – That is beyond illogical.

Old Spock – Damn it, be best buddies!  Trust me, it works out fine, or at least it did in the original six movies.  Live long and prosper and all that.

Space, The Final Frontier:
Old Spock – These are the reboots of the Starship Enterprise.  Its continuing mission is to exploit cheap dramatic tricks, seek out new lens flares and new CGI action sequences, to predictably go where so many movies have gone before.

–fade out–

A Movie/Writing Entry – Sherlock Holmes

or, “A Brief Discussion about Adapting Literary Characters to a Different Media Looking at a Specific Example.”

I am a fan of Sherlock Holmes.  I’ve read all the stories at one time or another.  I’ve seen a lot of (but not all) television and movie adaptations (also, I think Benedict Cumberbatch is probably the most quintessentially British name in the history of British names).  Some I have liked, and some I haven’t.  I think because a character like Sherlock Holmes has such strong personality characteristics, the amalgam most people have is probably quite similar.  Here are the defining characteristics as I see them:
1) Knowledgeable
2) Observant
3) Easily bored
4) Talented
5) Logical
Now, the details of those characteristics is where there are differences in the amalgam.  Some adaptations I think have made too much of his cocaine habit.  Some completely ignore that.  Some don’t go into his love of music at all.  I also think this should make him easy to adapt to film.  I think there have been some quite good adaptations of Holmes, such as the television version played by Jeremy Brett.  I don’t think the most recent movies with Robert Downey Jr. are very good adaptations.  I understand what the film-makers were going for, but it didn’t work for me.  There was the problem of Hollywood, which I’ll explain in a second.

There are really only a couple of ways to adapt a literary character with a long span of stories, and this problem actually comes up with comic book adaptations as well.  Either the adaptation is of a specific story, it the adaptation is an amalgam of stories.  Since most of the Holmes’ stories are quite short, most of the movie-length adaptations have been of the novels.  However, some of the television adaptations I quite enjoyed were direct adaptations of the short stories.  The most recent movies have been the latter example of adaptation – an amalgam of stories.  Comic book movies usually take this route as well.  Even for being an amalgam, I still don’t think the recent movies were good adaptations because I think the characters were off.

While I think it’s fairly easy to adapt Sherlock Holmes, I have seen very few good adaptations of Watson.  Unfortunately, a lot of Watsons seemed to be too old or too stodgy or too stupid.  Holmes was brilliant, true, but Watson was no slouch.  He was a medical doctor who served in the military and was the same age as Holmes.  The stories also make a point of stating that Watson kept himself in good shape.  Holmes relied on Watson for back-up if he suspected he’d need some muscle or a good shot.  Oddly, while I didn’t like the most recent movies’ portrayal of Holmes, I thought the movies had one of the best portrayals of Watson I’ve seen.  Jude Law looked almost exactly like the Sidney Paget illustrations in The Strand.  That Watson also was the man of action Conan Doyle described.

I like the adaptations that are most faithful to the stories, particularly in the case of this character.  I don’t see much reason to try to add a twist to a character that’s already so strong.  But adaptations don’t occur in a vacuum.  Even strong characters are seen through the lens of culture.  The small-screen adaptations were more true to the stories because many of those were aiming to be live-action versions of the stories.  The recent movies were trying to bring characters to the big screen without telling a specific from the Holmes canon.  Hollywood also came into these latest movies.  In this, I mean that Hollywood wants to make money, and the easiest way to do this is give people pretty much the same thing they’ve already bought.  And Hollywood doesn’t think too much of the movie-going audience, so in adaptations, characters tend to reduced to charactures.  So, in the case of the latest movies, I think the film-makers saw an effective but troubled detective and a straight man (which is a horrible simplification of Holmes and Watson) and thought – hey, buddy cop!  At least that’s the impression that I got.  I got that I was watching a steampunk version of Riggs and Murtaugh.  Seriously, to me I was watching “Lethal Weapon: Victorian England.”

The other reason I didn’t think it was a particularly good adaptation was Irene Adler.  “A Scandel in Bohemia” is a title of a story published in The Strand magazine featuring Sherlock Holmes.  In the Western culture, the hero still needs a love interest.  Even though Watson says more than a few times that Holmes finds the idea of a relationship abhorrent because it would interfere with his ability to be a detective (I believe the phrase used is, “like grit in a finely tuned machine”), too many adaptations try to force Holmes into that romantic narrative.  It is important to note that Irene does only appear once.  It was also clear to me that Holmes’ feelings towards Irene were not romantic (anyway, he never properly met her and was only working the case for two days, I think).  She figured out Holmes’ scheme and had the audacity to let him know, and he didn’t catch on to her audacity at the time.  She was his intellectual equal.  That, however, doesn’t fit into the narrative, so Adler morphs into a former lover.

Some of these criticisms apply to comic book movies as well, but I find it more grating with Holmes because I think the characterization is both strong and consistent, so the adaptations should also be strong and consistent.  I don’t think this happened with the latest movies.  There was too much Tony Stark in Sherlock Holmes, too much of a Riggs/Murtaugh vibe, and too much summer blockbuster for stories that would be better served by being more low-budget and authentic.

A Movie/Comic Book Entry – The Strange Case of Dr. Pym and Dr. Pym

Buckle up, kiddos, it’s going to be a long ride today.

I’ve already ranted before on the possibility of an Ant-man movie and why I think it’s unnecessary, to say the least.  And yet there is an Ant-man movie in production.  As I pondered last time, are there really legions of rabid fanboys/girls calling for an Ant-man movie?  Are there whole cabals of Pym fans who have loved him in every costume and codename?  Does someone on the executive level at Marvel have a thing for Pym, which is why it appears he’s running a group of Avengers now?  Do the executives feel some measure of obligation to the character of Pym, who has been in the Marvel universe almost since the beginning (so it’s a matter of tradition, maybe [and if it is tradition, that doesn't mean it's worth it]).  Is there anyone out there who actually likes Henry Pym?  Seriously?  Anyone?  I kind of suspect many writers don’t like Henry Pym so I’m baffled how a fan possibly could.

Then again, there’s this (“Scientist Supreme?”  Really?  Only someone with a last name of “Richards” or “Von Doom” has any right to that title).  So someone must like Henry Pym, so I did a search for the term “Who wants an Ant-man movie?” to try to figure out what the hell is going on.  I got a quick hit about the writer for the movie who sees this as a comedy (his credit includes Scott Pilgrim vs The World which is one of my favorite movies) and apparently loves Ant-man.  So I read more.  The director wants to present Pym as a super-spy, and present that shrinking heroes are not always in peril.  That’s not all bad, I suppose, except Pym is not a spy!  He’s a scientist!  Those are two very different skill sets and generally do not overlap.  I am also incredibly confused that the director is regarding the Ant-man movie as a comedy.  I suppose growing and shrinking and talking to ants is kind of funny (wasn’t that the plot of Honey I Shrunk the Kids?) but I fail to see how a character with this kind of history is comedy gold.

Right now I think I stand by my last criticism as to why I have no interest in an Ant-man movie (with further expansion below).  I also have little interest in seeing the Wasp, either.  I know they were founding members of the Avengers.  So what?  Technically one of the first villains the Avengers fought was Namor and no one made a fuss that the we didn’t get to see the bikini-clad Atlantean as the main baddie in the movie.  Wolverine wasn’t on the first X-men team (in fact it took until the third movie to be introduced to Angel and Beast) and no one complained about his presence.  Staying true to the comics is hardly a reason to include certain characters and not others.  And there are what, nearly 200 Avengers and reservist Avengers to choose from?

I just have issues trying to see Henry Pym as a great hero of the Marvel universe.  Hitting his wife, actually, I think is one of the least of his trangressions since he was kind of insane at the time (and sadly he’s hardly the only Marvel male to smack his wife/girlfriend.  To me, the amalgams of the character are so wildly divergent as to make it difficult to reconcile the fact they come from the same source material (hence my reference in the title to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).  And I’m just fine with campy Batman and gritty Batman (but not this Batman), so I think I have a pretty good capacity for suspension of disbelief.

Sometimes I even have trouble seeing Henry Pym as a hero at all.  I described what I think a hero ought to be, and somehow Pym falls through the cracks of all my four descriptors (including the one I made up).  I’m going to have to borrow from a commenter on one of the threads I read about the Ant-man movie – Henry Pym is a weak hero.  In some ways, Peter Parker is a weak hero as well, so it’s not as though there isn’t precedent for this.  Still, to me, Peter Parker still falls more in the category of true hero for the reasons I described previously.  So, then, why is Henry Pym a weak hero, and why do I have no interest in a movie about him?

Here’s a link to a brief history of Henry Pym, which is appropriately in comic form.  For such an old character (for Marvel), he’s had a pretty hard time of it in the hands of writers.  Some writers clearly see him as on par with Mr. Fantastic as a great inventor.  Some writers see him as an egomaniac with severe mental issues that wants to be on par with Mr. Fantastic as a great inventor.  The range is fairly broad.  My amalgam leans heavily towards “egomaniac with severe mental issues” and there are a couple of reasons for this.
1) First of all, Pym tests his new technology out on himself.  This is not the mark of a good scientist.  This is the mark of a mad scientist, from which I imagine the creators of Pym stole from/were inspired by.  Remember, originally Bruce Banner wasn’t zapping himself with gamma rays (that came with the 1970s TV version).
2) Second of all, Pym has some insecurity issues (retconned from the original, but part of canon now) which lead him to try out various identities (Ant-man, Giant-Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, Wasp) and technologies (Pym particles to shrink, to grow, the ant communication helmet, the Wasp’s wings, etc.).  Maybe this is why he created Ultron.
3) Oh, third, Ultron is evil and has tried to destroy the Avengers multiple times.  Sure, sometimes science gets out of hand and maybe this can’t be blamed on any particular failing of Henry Pym – oh wait, except Ultron has Pym’s brainwave patterns.  Also, the original Ultron looked like this (although I’m unclear if Pym installed the brainwashing ray or Ultron built that into himself while Pym wasn’t looking).  Could this android turn out to be anything but evil?  I should also point out that Ultron has gone on to create several androids of his own based on other heroes’ brainwave patterns and every one of them has turned out good (or at least against Ultron).
4) Pym has also been written with various mental issues, some induced by experimenting on himself (Yellowjacket) and some that seemed to be retconned as just part of his personality (Yellowjacket again, only this time with bonus multiple personality Giant-Man).  He has been thrown out of the Avengers, manipulated by villains, and at one point decided the only way to save face with the Avengers was build a robot to kill them that only he could stop (yes, he was insane at the time; but he was insane lots of times).
In short, he has made a lot of mistakes and showcased poor judgment.  I’m not saying other heroes don’t do this.  I’m just saying that in my amalgam, I rarely have the acts of heroism that make up for the mistakes and poor judgment.  Unlike Peter Parker, Pym doesn’t have a “kick me” sign to the universe.  There’s no meta-explanation, unless the writers really don’t like him.  He’s a weak hero whose greatest mistake was so great that there’s an entire storyline where Wolverine (of course) goes back in time to kill Pym before he creates Ultron (and one would think the “Scientist Supreme” could fix that mistake on his own [incidentally, some comics claim that wasn't Eternity but just Loki messing with Pym which I can totally see, and to me gives more credence to my “egomaniac with insecurity issues” theory {“The embodiment of the universe thinks I'm awesome, so I must be!”}]).

Now I think I should clarify a bit about the movie.  I have a friend who would love to see an Ant-man movie and I had to ask him, “WTF?”  But he told me he wanted to see this movie precisely because he also felt Henry Pym was a weak hero, and a kind of dark, gritty character study of a movie would be appropriate to that kind of character.  He felt such a movie, done properly, could re-define the superhero movie genre.  So I thought about this, and I have to agree with my friend.  A gritty, realistic portrayal of a man who so badly desires to be a hero but just can’t seem to overcome his own flaws and in the end, barely saves the day (or has his much more powerful friends save the day for him), could be an interesting installment to Marvel’s movie universe.

Except that is not what Marvel will make.  Marvel kind of tried that with Ang Lee’s Hulk.  You saw that, right?  People wanted to see a giant green rage monster bust up tanks and what they got was a dark, gritty portrayal of a man so dedicated to science and so twisted in that dedication he was willing to experiment on his own son.  In short, the movie was more about Bruce Banner’s evil father and resulting paternal anger/resentment issues than a giant green rage monster smashing up tanks, and pretty much no one liked it.  So Marvel tried again with The Incredible Hulk, which featured a whole lot more tank smashing and a lot less angst and people liked it a lot better.  I could argue that Bruce Banner/Hulk may have been the wrong character to try to make a character-study driven movie with.  I could also argue, as my friend does, that Henry Pym is exactly the right character to try to make a character-study driven movie with.  And honestly, as I lay out my amalgam before you, I can actually understand and even agree with my friend’s desire for a gritty, character-study driven Ant-man movie.

But that’s not what we’re getting.  We’re getting a summer blockbuster, and that means a Pym-as-scientist/super spy comedy.  And I just don’t think that’s going to work.

A Comic Book Entry – The Sliding Alignment Scale

I have a planned rant on the unfortunately upcoming Ant-man movie, but then I realized that without some context, the rant would come across as baseless hating.  I prefer to criticize, not be hating on an artist/writer/etc whose work I dislike and/or think is not good.  I have some difficulty even thinking of Henry Pym as a hero, and this is why I have issues with the idea of a movie about him.

So, let’s start with what makes a hero?  Or a villain?  Or an anti-hero?  There is a lot of literary theory on this.  Joseph Campbell theorized all heroes are really the same.  I’m not really going to go into that because frankly a lot of literary theory is of no interest to anyone except literature majors.  So, in general terms, here are my definitions, which I apply not only to what I read but also what I write:
1) A hero – is someone who chooses right (the definition of “right” can vary).  A hero also understands that the ends do not justify the means.
2) A villain – is someone who chooses wrong (the definition of “wrong” can vary) and believes that the ends justify the means.
3) An anti-hero – is a bit complicated as the anti-hero can come from either the hero or villain side.  If coming from the hero side, an anti-hero is someone who chooses right but believes that the end justifies the means (like the Punisher).  If coming from the villain side, an anti-hero is someone who chooses wrong but doesn’t believe the ends justifies the means (like Deadpool depending on who’s writing him; this can also overlap with “even evil has standards”).  I understand the point of anti-heroes, although I think they are over-used.  I know some heroes have wavered between true heroism (as I define it above) and anti-hero (Batman, of course).  I know some villains have wavered between true villainy (as I define it above) and anti-hero (like Magneto or Dr. Doom).  Sometimes the distinctions are subtle.
4) None of the above, or “failed hero/villain/anti-hero.”  I’ll abbreviate this as “Nota.”  This is kind of a new definition for me, but I’m seeing this type of character appear more and more in comics especially.  This is a character that does not choose to do right or wrong but is primarily concerned with him/herself.  Any heroics or villainy that occurs is the result of the Nota’s generally selfish actions.  I suppose broadly this might fall under “anti-hero” but to me each of the three above definitions have made a choice regarding right and wrong.  The Nota isn’t concerned with that; the Nota is concerned with him/herself.

I understand that Silver Age style heroics (think the old Superman WWII shorts) have long since gone out of style.  This poses real problems for writers tasked with telling stories for those characters with origins in the Silver Age (as well as problems for artists tasked with trying to update their looks).  Honestly, Batman really came out of his origin era the best, because he was a much more flawed individual than his contemporaries (like Superman, Captain Marvel, Captain America, Wonder Woman, etc.).  I’m not going to argue that a hero needs flaws.  That’s what keeps any hero relatable to the audience.  Early heroes didn’t tend to have flaws, as such, but they did have very specific weaknesses, which made them both awesome and vulnerable.

With the problem of power creep, characters have gone from awesome to virtual gods (I’m looking at you, Superman) with almost no way to be beaten in a straight combat session.  Weaknesses linked to strange space rocks seem implausible so now many weaknesses are more normal human flaws.  That certainly can work, and story lines featuring heroes fighting with their weaknesses are dramatic.  The story lines where heroes lose their fight are often the most dramatic.  In general, a move from concrete, easily definable weakness (like kryptonite), to less tangible flaws is a good thing for the evolution of writing.  This also serves for the villains as well, because honestly a hero is really only as good as the villain they face (usually).  An omnipotent 5th dimension being with one very specific way to be defeated is fine every now and then, but that kind of villain is not sustainable in any long-term story arc.

But I think in the aftermath of Darkier and Edgier and the inmates running the asylum, and a more cynical audience in general, heroes have become less heroic and more likely to choose wrong.  The cynical part of me says that watching a hero fall is always more entertaining and gripping than watching a hero do right.  I’m pretty sure the Green Goblin makes this argument in Spider-man, and frankly nothing is more cynically horrifying than realizing anything Norman Osborn says is actually true.  More and more heroes are written to make the wrong choice because I guess writers like it or think audiences like it or audiences do like it.  Or possibly as the heroes have become more and more flawed, the writing logically follows that they would choose wrong, or start believing the ends justify the means if they choose right.  Or possibly someone who always (or almost always) makes the right choice is no longer as relatable (or entertaining) and someone who can’t be counted on to make the right choice.  This, I think, is why there are so many anti-heroes.  Watching the Punisher take down bad guys with impunity is apparently more entertaining than watching Captain America not do the same, even though he probably really wants to at times.  And for the heroes that remain, there’s not a lot of difference between heroes and anti-heroes in many cases.  Case in point – Wolverine (of course).

I should not be surprised.  Poor Cyclops is pretty much the poster boy for this character development (or assassination).  He’s the canary in the coal mine.  I will admit my first exposure to comic books was not through the physical books themselves, but through television.  Specifically my introduction to Marvel was the 1990s animated “X-men” and my introduction to DC was Tim Burton’s Batman, quickly followed up with the excellent “Batman: the Animated Series.”  I was impressed enough to look for the comics, and I think those two shows were pretty decent amalgams of long and complicated histories.  To me, those amalgams perfectly represented comic book heroes.  But that Cyclops is long gone.  Writers tried to give him more flaws to make him more interesting (and more Wolverine-like).  The logical extension of more flaws is that Cyclops started making the wrong choice more often.  Soon the Boy Scout was more Bad Boy and the descent only continued until Cyclops was making the wrong choice almost every time.  He has become an anti-hero or possibly an all-out villain.

Deeply flawed heroes can be appealing, but as exceptions, not the rule.  Spider-man (Peter Parker) is a loser.  He makes the wrong choices so often that’s as big a part of his character as his witty banter.  He doesn’t tell his loved ones his secret.  He chooses to fight crime instead of have dinner with his aunt.  He chooses to have dinner with his aunt instead of fight crime.  What makes Peter a hero (more or less) to me is that a) he is honestly trying to do right and b) the universe has stuck a “kick me” sign to his back so pretty much any choice he makes will have negative consequences (this applies in-universe and from a meta-context.  Given his issues with guilt, he will also assume in hindsight any choice was probably the wrong one.  By the way, I note that the Superior Spider-man has completely missed this point.  The premise is confusing and frankly stupid (I’m sorry, I said I wouldn’t be hating, but this is like Sharktopus levels of unbelievability) but Dr. Octopus has taken over Peter Parker’s body and is going to prove he is a Superior Spider-man and Peter Parker (the best revenge is living well).  Except, well, duh.  Anyone is pretty much guaranteed to be a better Spider-man and Peter Parker.  That’s the whole point of his 616 character.  So Marvel can’t even keep their flagship trademark loser hero written right.

The less heroic the heroes become, the more difficult it is to write a villain.  The villain is supposed to commit terrible, heinous acts (scaled appropriately to the threat level of the villain).  Villains believe the ends justify the means, so if conquering the world requires the death of millions, that’s acceptable losses.  A key point of tension in many stories is when the villain presents the hero with a choice between achieving victory but at great cost (however you define “victory” and “cost”).  If, for example, the villain will kill a bunch of people if the hero doesn’t let him escape, and the hero decides to let all those people die to catch the villain, suddenly the villain’s actions seem a lot less heinous.  The line between villain and hero is blurred, and honestly the logical conclusion to such encounters is eventually the hero will just kill the villain to prevent the villain from doing further harm.  In other words, the writer is put in the position of making the villain a credible threat and yet somehow writing the situation such that the hero doesn’t take the logical course of action (i.e., eliminating the villain).  For Silver Age heroics, that was easy.  For Darkier and Edgier, that’s much, much harder.

You may ask how this ties in with Ant-man.  I’ll get to specifics in another rant, but I did research to figure out why people liked this character.  I came across a fan who liked Eric O’Grady, the third Ant-man.  I didn’t know much about this guy, so I read the fan’s entry, and read up on Eric, and I am absolutely baffled as to why this character was considered a hero in any way.  Even the fan admitted the character was deeply flawed.  As far as my research turned up, the only difference between this character and that one guy that shows up at a party, drinks too much beer, hits on your girlfriend even after being told by her (or you) she’s not interested, breaks something, and probably crashed the party in the first place, is that somehow Eric O’Grady got the Ant-man armor (and didn’t end up in jail when by all rights he should have).  Peter Parker is a loser that wants to do right and often makes the wrong choice in spite of his best efforts; Eric O’Grady is a loser that’s trying to cover his rear end and occasionally makes the right choice in spite of himself (lest you think I’m too hard on O’Grady, check out this Cracked.com article).

It should be obvious which one I consider a hero and which one falls into the Nota category I made up above.  I think there is an abundance of deeply flawed characters that are being presented as heroes in the comic book universes.  Maybe I’m out of touch or old-fashioned, but I like that element of fantasy to my heroes.  By that I mean when I read or see my heroes in a bad situation and I know that I’d make the absolute wrong choice (or at least the most selfish choice), I want to see them make the right one.  That’s the fantasy – they are what I wish I could be.  Writers do walk a fine line between unrelatable heroism and un-heroic relatable failure and weakness.  It can be done, and some comic book writers have managed it with more success than others (sometimes with the same characters).

In short – I want a clear distinction between heroes and villains.  I don’t want to see my heroes make the same wrong decisions I make in their place.  Or, if they do (I know heroes fall) I want to see them pick themselves back up again and makes things right again.   I’m not a super-powered god alien; I’m not a hell-bent on justice terror of the night; I’m not a super soldier out of his own time; I’m not a goddess who can control the winds.  Hell, I’m not even a perpetual side-kick or the universe’s favorite whipping boy.  When the chips are down, when the situation is at its most dire, when the end appears near and there is no way out, I want to my hero to declare s/he will not go softly into that good night, stand up to the challenge, and prevail.

A Comic Book Entry – For Those That Came in Late

The two big comic companies, Marvel and DC, seem perplexed as to how to deal with their huge, sprawling universes and beloved/popular characters with tangled, sprawling back stories.  I think most readers tend to pick and choose what makes sense to them and produce an amalgam of a character in their own minds.  But those entertainment companies don’t seem to trust the readers to be able to sift through all the vast swathes of material.  They fear potential readers will be confronted by burden of back story and therefore run away before they can become fans.  So the executives hold meetings to figure out how to balance that back story with intimidating potential readers (at least, I assume there are meetings about this, as I assume there are meetings on other topics…).

I originally intended to point out that there are lots of serial media out there (soap operas come to mind) but for some reason only comic books seem to bear this burden of trying to simultaneously update a potential new reader on what the hell is going on and yet tell a story for a fan.  Then I read a poorly researched article in my local dead tree newspaper about soap operas and realized maybe the comic book companies have a reason they’ve always tried to strike this balance.

Generally most serial media doesn’t seem to feel any particular obligation toward a potential new fan to catch them up if they start in the middle.  Even shows that aren’t particularly serial have characters and universes with back stories, and they don’t try to catch up potential new fans.  If you start in the third season of Castle, you’re going to be kind of lost.  But does the show start with a recap of the previous two seasons?  Not really.  If the back story is important, generally a show will include a recap for the sole purpose of catching up viewers.  This also serves as a warning of, “Hey, this episode is important so pay attention.”  Also, starting a story in the middle is a very common technique to quickly build drama.  Yes, it’s more dramatic for people who know the characters, but for potential new fans, it’s kind of nice to know the long-time fans are just as lost as they are.

While it’s nice comic books have a recap page, I am sort of resentful the two big companies seem to think fans have the attention spans of goldfish and will be baffled and confused by long histories, and therefore editors have long put in footnotes and annotations.  This is actually helpful sometimes, but the logical extreme of this kind of thinking (that fans just can’t handle the burden of back story) is the dreaded reboot (or even soft retcons).

Marvel did this with their Ultimates universe.  Apparently not understanding how comics work, even though those working in comics are most likely fans, they decided all that tangled back story and history was just too darn intimidating so they created a whole new universe.  All things considered, the experiment seemed to work, more or less.  But now it seems as though the company is thinking the Ulti-verse is starting to get a little heavy in the back story/history department.  Marvel, that’s okay.  Really it is.  DC has just decided fans can’t be trusted to pay attention for more than five years tops and seems to be retconning everything fairly often when the company isn’t outright rebooting it.  Or possibly the companies believe they can stay solvent by issuing new first editions that collectors will gobble up in the hopes they’ll become worth something some day (although some [okay, many] would argue this does long-time fans a great disservice by constantly scrambling the structure of the universe for little more than a quick buck).

Here, in my experience, is how comic books (and other serial media work) – potential new fan picks up book/turns on TV show.  There’s a good chance the potential new fan is starting in the middle of a story arc.  Potential fan is somewhat lost, but the story is engaging and the characters are interesting.  By the end of the book/show/media, the potential fan is impressed enough to try the next book/show/media.  If all goes well, the potential fan becomes a fan and actively seeks out the media.  Some fans decide to learn all the back story and history.  Some fans figure they’ll pick it up as they go along and ignore parts of the back story and history that come up that aren’t relevant to them (the amalgam effect starts early).  And guess what?  It’s worked (for me and several people I know), although I suppose not as well as the companies would like, which left me wondering why they try so hard relieve the burden of the universe histories.

But then I read that article in which a journalist complained about soap operas.  As you may or may not know, many soaps have been cancelled but through the miracle of the internet they have also been resurrected.  While cast members have changed, the stories have generally picked up right where they left off network.  And this journalist was complaining that despite having switched media, soap operas just weren’t making an effort to pull in new viewers.  Then the journalist cited a section of dialogue, which makes me certain this person has never seen a soap opera (I have [although not a whole series], and I’m not ashamed to admit it, and it probably shows).  Here’s the dialogue:

“How’s Bianca?” Anna asked.
“Well, you know,” Miranda answered, “As well as she ever is, after that night.”
“We’re not talking about that,” Cameron interrupted.

The journalist said that such dialogue didn’t make it clear to viewers what was going on and would therefore be off-putting because they didn’t know anything about Bianca or the events of “that night.”  Had said journalist bothered to do about two hours of research (tops), s/he would have realized all soap opera dialogue is like that and there’s about a 50/50 shot this refers to a) an event viewers are expected to already know about or b) the introduction of a new story arc in which case no one knows what’s going on with Bianca and “that night.”  And people in the newspaper business wonder why it’s a dying media.

So I guess maybe potential fans expectations are changing.  Do people really expect to pick up serial media and expect the writers to catch them up the first time?  Or was this journalist just really clueless?  Imagine if every serial media was expected to encapsulate every important character and story ever prior to each installment of the media.  Comic books would be the size of the full-on novels.  Actual novels would need their own Cliff Notes with each sequel (isn’t the “Wheel of Time” long enough already?).  All television shows, even light-hearted sitcoms, would be at least an hour long, and only get longer the longer they were on the air (can you imagine the clip show required to catch someone up tuning into The Simpsons for the first time?).

Then again, faulting serial media for not presenting a recap for all new potential fans makes less sense now than it would have ten or fifteen years ago.  Back in the day, such as when the Marvel and DC executives were merely fans themselves, if they tried a comic book and liked it and wanted to read more comics, they had to physically go find comic books.  They had to either go to the library or a comic book store or harass the friend who got them interested in the first place.  For something like soap operas, fans either watched every single day, or they missed something important like Luke and Laura’s wedding, and that was it.  Soaps do re-run, but not with the frequency that would allow someone to catch up.  But with the internet and fans with too much time on their hands (bless them too), finding out anyone’s back story or a world history is easy.  It’s not even that hard to download back episodes of TV shows (including soap operas) and actually watch the story unfold.

Serial media, here’s a proposal for you.  We, the potential fans, will expect to be somewhat lost and confused when we try a new story for the first time.  We will not blame you for this condition nor expect you to hold our hands while we try to sort all this out.  In return, you create stories and characters that are engaging and interesting enough we want to continue to follow the world you’ve created.  Keep us entertained, and we’ll be patient.  We know we’ll pick up the back story and history in enough time, or, if it’s really important, you can tell us.  That’s fine too.  For those that came in late, a little recap every now and again never hurt anyone.  If you do your job right, there will always be those who came in late.  So – you be entertaining, and we’ll try to delay gratification a little bit for a lot more entertainment down the road.  Deal?