Rabid Lit Major
Mood - tired and sore but pretty happy...damn you, Liz! (Liz would be my friend who coaches me through workouts...my legs hate me and I hate her.) (Not really.)
Reading - "A Study in Scarlet" by Arthur Conan Doyle
Excerpt - "I have noticed such a dreamy, vacant expression in his eyes, that I might have suspected him of being addicted to the use of some narcotic, had not the temperance and cleanliness of his whole life forbidden such a notion" (Anyone who knows anything about Sherlock Holmes will enjoy the irony of this line.)
Ok, that's enough of that. Today, I wanted to look productive but also felt like being lazy. My solution is to put up two posts, one consisting purely of rants and the other an original piece that I already have saved on my computer.
To clarify really quick - An editorial is an opinion piece, usually for the news media (making it written by an "editor", hence the name.) A rant is the same thing, but without the pretension of being a legitimate piece of news and therefore holds more freedom to be generally angry and fewer requirements to justify the opinions. Lack of an employer breathing down my neck also means that my rants can be as long or as short as I like.
However, as with all editorials, I will preface these with a disclaimer.
Disclaimer:
These rants are works of opinion and do not reflect the views of everyone here at "Rabid Lit Major" (Some of the voices in my head disagree. And yes, I know I'm crazy, but some of the voices don't so keep it down, ok?) If you are offended by anything said in this rant, or if you wish to agree/disagree, feel free to write in the comments box. I do ask, however, that profanity be kept to a minimum because my blog is open to the public and not flagged for offensive material.
"Cool" language
Here is something that has always bothered me: why is it "cool" to sound like an idiot? I went to school in white-and-wealthy suburbia. 98% of the student body fell in the upper-middle class range. Our school was ranked one of the best public schools in the state. So why in the world did so many kids speak in rough slang and with terrible grammar? My brother goes there now and even he will pretend not to understand me when I use words exceeding three syllables and will ignore me until I rephrase the sentence in smaller words. (I know for a fact he knows what the larger words mean.) I think back to high school and I remember standing in the lunch line every day listening to some kid behind me saying things like "It ain't a big deal so I wish she'd get off my a** and sh** because I don't give f*** what she thinks 'cause she don't know what it's like" and all I can think is "Your dad is a lawyer and you are in a school that offers college-level English courses...who do you think you are fooling?"
And while we're on the subject...
Whose bright idea was it to use "gay" as synonymous with "stupid"? If I alienate readers with this post then they are the the kind of readers I want as far away from my blog as is virtually possible. As you will see from my later post, I think discrimination based on sexuality is one of the most misguided prejudices in the universe. As for the use of "gay" as an insulting term to describe something completely unrelated to sexuality as stupid...beyond exposing yourself as pathetically small-minded, you are also wasting an opportunity to use one of many much more kickass insults. I am a fan of "troglodyte", personally.
Speaking of gay...
I have this theory that the song "I Think We're Alone Now" is about a homosexual couple. If you are more familiar with the Tiffany cover from the 80s, you should know that it was originally released in 1967 by Tommy James and the Shondells and was written by a man. Now the song talks about how the two people in question are allowed to be friends but a romantic relationship would be forbidden. A close listener would also notice that no gender-markers are used in the song. In the sixties, who would be allowed to be friends but not lovers? A bi-racial couple probably wouldn't be allowed to be friends in the first place. If the parents/friends/etc cared enough about differing social classes to ban a relationship a friendship would likely be banned as well. Two boys being friends? Not a big deal. Just saying.
And while we're on the subject of music...
As you all know, I'm a big fan of clever lyrics in songs. However, a song does not have to have a deeper meaning to be good. Nor does it need to have exemplary musical technique or be avant-garde or...whatever. Sometimes a song can simply be fun. This is ok and is not something that is to be looked down on. This applies to movies as well. Just because I think a movie is stupid doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Did I think "Predators" was a clever movie? Considering that I predicted the order the characters would die in based on their race and personality within five minutes of being introduced to them, the short answer is "no." Did I enjoy two hours of mindless violence and explosions and drooling a bit over Adrian Brody, who I think is very attractive? Absolutely.
How did I do it?
There are eight characters in "Predators" (not counting the Predators and the Laurence Fishburne cameo). Boiling them down to racist profiling, they are as follows: Hispanic guy, Black guy, Russian guy, White-trash-convict guy, Japanese Guy, Doctor guy, Love interest, and Protagonist. This is, by the way, the order they die in. Do I consider this a spoiler? No. Why? I told my brother that would be the order they died in the moment they were all introduced...five minutes into the film. When he asked me after the film how I managed to predict it so exactly, I told him this:
Action movies are typically very racist...mostly because nobody cares enough to take them to task about it. Unless the token black man is the protagonist, he will die first. The only exception to this rule is if there's an Hispanic guy, especially a non-comedic one. Therefore, the first two deaths are Hispanic-guy followed by Black-guy. Protagonist must either survive or die last. Love-interest must either survive or die right before Protagonist in order to make him angry. Doctor-guy is the only truly "nice" guy of the group and seems harmless...so he has to turn out to be more evil than the rest and turn on them in the climax. He has to die right at the end for the full impact...probably by attacking Love-Interest. That makes the last three to die Doctor-guy, Love-Interest, Protagonist. This leaves us Russian-guy, White-trash-convict-guy and Japanese-guy. Of these, Japanese guy has to die last because he will probably find a samurai sword at some point and have an awesome sword fight that needs to be highlighted. Between Russian and Convict, convict had to die later because he was unarmed and it would make no sense for him to survive so long. By action-film law he therefore has to survive a stupid amount of time. I had all of this pegged in five minutes. It all happened. Even the finding of the random samurai sword.
Oh Japan...
Don't get me wrong, I kind of enjoy anime and manga. I have a huge respect for all styles of comic-books and will defy anyone who tries to claim they are not a valid form of literature. What throws me off is when otherwise-American authors create manga-versions of their work. Did the sequel to "Avalon High" really need to be a Japanese-style comic, Meg Cabot? How does that make sense? Maybe if the story had been in any way Japan-related...such as when Kill Bill took a break from live-action to give O-Ren's backstory in anime-style...but it isn't. More and more authors are jumping on this bandwagon and it's simply puzzling to me.
Speaking of novels I've seen adapted to manga...
Here's the thing Twilight-fans: I didn't hate the first book. I read it with an open-mind, having been told how excellent it was, and came away with the general opinion that it was ok. Was it mechanically well-written? No. Was it original? No. Did the story change my life? No. Did the characters inspire empathy or lust in me? No. On the other hand... Was I particularly bothered that general vampire-lore was ignored? Not really. Did I find it to be a decently cute young-adult romance? Absolutely. The first spark of dislike that Twilight inspired in me was mid-way through the second book when I realized that Bella was totally serious when she thought it was worth the risk of dying in a horrific way to hear the voice of the boyfriend that left her. Seriously? Your boyfriend leaves you, you have a delusion that you can hear his voice telling you not to hurt yourself whenever you do something dangerous, so you decide to ride down a street as fast as you can on a motorcycle without a helmet? When I realized she wasn't going to run into a tree and die a mangled bloody mess, as would have served her right, I put the book down and did not feel a hint of regret for not picking it up again. Bella is a boring, weak and pathetic character who is inspiring an entire generation of girls to hang all of their self-worth on their boyfriends and find over-protectiveness and stalking to be appealing traits in a romantic partner.
So there you go. Rants. Enjoy.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Friday, 1 April 2011
Firefly Week - Symbolism, conclusions, and a sneak preview
Rabid Lit Major
Mood - about to keel over
Watching - "Radamisto"
Excerpt - None...I haven't seen it yet. If you live anywhere near Liberty, Missouri (That would be most of you. My followers as yet do not extend much beyond my immediate circle of friends and family.) you should all come up to William Jewell tonight at 7:30 to see it with me. I'm good friends with many of the players, and I can tell you now that they are extremely talented. It promises to be a great show. If you are one of those players, I will see you there: break a leg!
Honestly, everyone, I don't know that I'm up to creating a post to my usual standards for length and in-depth-ness. I'm not even capable of coming up with a better word than "in-depth-ness". I had a hard-core week: a lovely combination of a broken-down car necessitating a lot of driving back and forth to give/receive rides, a rather large paper being due, my normal load of payed work and school work, and a host of other small duties.
I will, therefore, be brief...and I apologize for any lack you feel.
The use of symbolism is important in literature. In some cases, it can add layers of meaning. In others, it can create a subconscious feeling. Whedon uses all forms of symbolism. One of the best examples I can offer is in the color schemes. If you watch the DVD extra that gives you a tour of the ship, you'll hear how he purposefully made the colors of the rooms transition from cool blues and greys to warm oranges and reds. Colors carry a lot of subconscious weight. In advertisement, color theory is heavily used to evoke certain feelings from us. Yellow, for example, evokes hunger. Now think of how many fast food chains utilize yellow in their color schemes. To prove the subconscious impact, now think of how many kitchens you've seen that use yellow.
The costumes of the characters follow this pattern. Inara wears sensuous silks in reds, peach, copper etc. Kaylee's look is similarly warm in color, but has a more bright tone - evoking sensuality and cheer. Jayne's clothes are reminiscent of camouflage colors but shot with bright oranges and reds: militaristic and violent. Mal and Zoe wear brown shades, not only to honor their cause but as a symbol of humility and simplicity...and note! Zoe's shades tend to be slightly more lustrous and sensual. River typically wears busy patterns and floaty fabrics, indicative of her scattered mind.
Etc. etc. etc.
Did I mention this post wasn't going to be very thorough? I think I've given you an idea.
So! Conclusions for Firefly week: It's a brilliantly written show. Give it a chance if you haven't yet, I promise you you will not be disappointed.
Aaaaand I think I promised a preview in the title. So here we go:
In the next couple of weeks, look forward to some nice random posts. I plan to do a film review. I may explain to you all why sometimes I root for the villain no matter how evil he is. If I can convince him, I'd like to do a he said/she said style post with my brother on what comedy entails, (which in a very meta way will probably be pretty funny). Who knows, I may even post a bit of my original writing.
I hope you're looking forward to it. Once again, best wishes to the "Radamisto" cast. And that's it. I give up. I'm hungry and tired and I still have so much to do tonight. Wish me luck!
*Note - I apologize for any careless errors. I will regret it if my writing is less than clear...but not enough to change it. Too tired.
Oh! And a Happy April Fool's Day. Watch out for pranks.
Mood - about to keel over
Watching - "Radamisto"
Excerpt - None...I haven't seen it yet. If you live anywhere near Liberty, Missouri (That would be most of you. My followers as yet do not extend much beyond my immediate circle of friends and family.) you should all come up to William Jewell tonight at 7:30 to see it with me. I'm good friends with many of the players, and I can tell you now that they are extremely talented. It promises to be a great show. If you are one of those players, I will see you there: break a leg!
Honestly, everyone, I don't know that I'm up to creating a post to my usual standards for length and in-depth-ness. I'm not even capable of coming up with a better word than "in-depth-ness". I had a hard-core week: a lovely combination of a broken-down car necessitating a lot of driving back and forth to give/receive rides, a rather large paper being due, my normal load of payed work and school work, and a host of other small duties.
I will, therefore, be brief...and I apologize for any lack you feel.
The use of symbolism is important in literature. In some cases, it can add layers of meaning. In others, it can create a subconscious feeling. Whedon uses all forms of symbolism. One of the best examples I can offer is in the color schemes. If you watch the DVD extra that gives you a tour of the ship, you'll hear how he purposefully made the colors of the rooms transition from cool blues and greys to warm oranges and reds. Colors carry a lot of subconscious weight. In advertisement, color theory is heavily used to evoke certain feelings from us. Yellow, for example, evokes hunger. Now think of how many fast food chains utilize yellow in their color schemes. To prove the subconscious impact, now think of how many kitchens you've seen that use yellow.
The costumes of the characters follow this pattern. Inara wears sensuous silks in reds, peach, copper etc. Kaylee's look is similarly warm in color, but has a more bright tone - evoking sensuality and cheer. Jayne's clothes are reminiscent of camouflage colors but shot with bright oranges and reds: militaristic and violent. Mal and Zoe wear brown shades, not only to honor their cause but as a symbol of humility and simplicity...and note! Zoe's shades tend to be slightly more lustrous and sensual. River typically wears busy patterns and floaty fabrics, indicative of her scattered mind.
Etc. etc. etc.
Did I mention this post wasn't going to be very thorough? I think I've given you an idea.
So! Conclusions for Firefly week: It's a brilliantly written show. Give it a chance if you haven't yet, I promise you you will not be disappointed.
Aaaaand I think I promised a preview in the title. So here we go:
In the next couple of weeks, look forward to some nice random posts. I plan to do a film review. I may explain to you all why sometimes I root for the villain no matter how evil he is. If I can convince him, I'd like to do a he said/she said style post with my brother on what comedy entails, (which in a very meta way will probably be pretty funny). Who knows, I may even post a bit of my original writing.
I hope you're looking forward to it. Once again, best wishes to the "Radamisto" cast. And that's it. I give up. I'm hungry and tired and I still have so much to do tonight. Wish me luck!
*Note - I apologize for any careless errors. I will regret it if my writing is less than clear...but not enough to change it. Too tired.
Oh! And a Happy April Fool's Day. Watch out for pranks.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Firefly Week - I like "quirky"...quirky's cool.
Rabid Lit Major
Mood - geekier than usual
Watching - Firefly, of course
Excerpt - "I aim to misbehave."
Reason - Today is "Unification Day", a Facebook-organized protest in which Browncoats wear brown coats to show their support of the show...as well as their general displeasure at its cancellation. See my previous post for a picture of my own coat. :)
Alrighty then...on to today's reason that this is one of the greatest shows ever.
From the very beginning, "Firefly" shows that it is not a cliche. I mean, come on...it's a space western. That's not a very big group...I can only think of "Cowboy Bebop" and Steve Miller Band's "The Joker" ...some people call me the space cowboy...when I try to come up with others.
There's the utter lack of a classic sci-fi future look. The costuming remains fairly traditional and practical, in both the rich core-bred and poor rim-bred. Joss seems to have taken into account that fashion tends to work in a cyclical fashion...things come back into style all the time. You see little details are different. Odd fabrics or combinations...yet, at the core, the clothing remains logical and there isn't an inch of shiny plastic or neon color pallets to be found. The weaponry is a mixture of classic gunpowder and futuristic lasers...and the lasers function logically. (I love that one episode features a laser-gun running out of batteries and that even high-tech weaponry require oxygen to function properly.)
Futuristic technology exists, but it is taken into account that people wouldn't necessarily afford it. There's clear evidence of slowly progressing social norms...both positive and negative: a higher view of homosexuality and sexuality in general as normal, an increase in social class prejudice...you even see that indications that some are more conservative than others, such as Mal's disdain for Inara's otherwise respected profession.
It's also refreshing that a show taking place entirely in space...an entirely different galaxy even...shows no indication of their being alien life. Not that I mind aliens or think they're impossible...it's just different.
The characters defy cliche as well. No one character can be boiled down to one stereotype. They are entirely complex and more like real people. Kaylee is a prime example. In spite of acting innocent and being the bright-and-sunshiny character she is anything but naive. She's incredibly socially adept, very self-confident and is not shy at all when it comes to sex. I still die laughing at her cheerful call out to Inara to "Have good sex!", using the same tone as "Have a nice day!" She's also a female mechanic...who is NOT Asian.
Let's also note that neither of the black characters is the comic relief, have a background that involves race-specific enslavement or prejudice, or indeed have their race mentioned at all. Simon, the rich boy on the run, does not look down on his privileged life or present rebellious attitudes...but instead displays a logical amount of prejudice for a theoretically open-minded character who had never truly been exposed to those in a different social class.
Of course there are some classic elements...especially the dystopian ones. (Evil, corporate government, illegal and immoral experimentation for money and power etc. etc.) However, the details that go into the writing defy the cliche at every turn...and I love it.
Today wraps up Firefly month, tomorrow wraps up Firefly week...if you haven't seen the show I hope you will and that I had a small part in that. You can't stop the signal...even if the show never returns the fans will forever hope: what better testament to good writing is there?
Mood - geekier than usual
Watching - Firefly, of course
Excerpt - "I aim to misbehave."
Reason - Today is "Unification Day", a Facebook-organized protest in which Browncoats wear brown coats to show their support of the show...as well as their general displeasure at its cancellation. See my previous post for a picture of my own coat. :)
Alrighty then...on to today's reason that this is one of the greatest shows ever.
From the very beginning, "Firefly" shows that it is not a cliche. I mean, come on...it's a space western. That's not a very big group...I can only think of "Cowboy Bebop" and Steve Miller Band's "The Joker" ...some people call me the space cowboy...when I try to come up with others.
There's the utter lack of a classic sci-fi future look. The costuming remains fairly traditional and practical, in both the rich core-bred and poor rim-bred. Joss seems to have taken into account that fashion tends to work in a cyclical fashion...things come back into style all the time. You see little details are different. Odd fabrics or combinations...yet, at the core, the clothing remains logical and there isn't an inch of shiny plastic or neon color pallets to be found. The weaponry is a mixture of classic gunpowder and futuristic lasers...and the lasers function logically. (I love that one episode features a laser-gun running out of batteries and that even high-tech weaponry require oxygen to function properly.)
Futuristic technology exists, but it is taken into account that people wouldn't necessarily afford it. There's clear evidence of slowly progressing social norms...both positive and negative: a higher view of homosexuality and sexuality in general as normal, an increase in social class prejudice...you even see that indications that some are more conservative than others, such as Mal's disdain for Inara's otherwise respected profession.
It's also refreshing that a show taking place entirely in space...an entirely different galaxy even...shows no indication of their being alien life. Not that I mind aliens or think they're impossible...it's just different.
The characters defy cliche as well. No one character can be boiled down to one stereotype. They are entirely complex and more like real people. Kaylee is a prime example. In spite of acting innocent and being the bright-and-sunshiny character she is anything but naive. She's incredibly socially adept, very self-confident and is not shy at all when it comes to sex. I still die laughing at her cheerful call out to Inara to "Have good sex!", using the same tone as "Have a nice day!" She's also a female mechanic...who is NOT Asian.
Let's also note that neither of the black characters is the comic relief, have a background that involves race-specific enslavement or prejudice, or indeed have their race mentioned at all. Simon, the rich boy on the run, does not look down on his privileged life or present rebellious attitudes...but instead displays a logical amount of prejudice for a theoretically open-minded character who had never truly been exposed to those in a different social class.
Of course there are some classic elements...especially the dystopian ones. (Evil, corporate government, illegal and immoral experimentation for money and power etc. etc.) However, the details that go into the writing defy the cliche at every turn...and I love it.
Today wraps up Firefly month, tomorrow wraps up Firefly week...if you haven't seen the show I hope you will and that I had a small part in that. You can't stop the signal...even if the show never returns the fans will forever hope: what better testament to good writing is there?
Firefly Week - Second-viewing love
Rabid Lit Major -
Mood - torn...I'm irritated that the fire alarm in my building went off at 5am, but I'm thrilled by how wonderful the "Castle" episode I just watched is.
Watching - "Castle"...starring the lovely Nathan Fillion, which makes it very topical. (Obviously, posting every day that I'm still reading the Fry autobiography is silly.)
Excerpt - They make references to "Firefly" constantly in the show...here's a good example. (After Nathan Fillion as Rick Castle walks out in his Malcolm Reynolds costume.)
What a wonderful tie-in, eh? Let's latch on to that transition and move on...
I'm a little worried about today's post. You see, I wanted to write about the masterful grasp of foreshadowing in the show. It is a thing of beauty when a writer can literally state what is going to happen in a way that we don't even notice it.
I could give you so many examples! Whedon does it beautifully...sometimes boldly stating what's going to happen, sometimes couching it in cryptic terms...and I can't tell you any of them. Really, I can't. Those would be spoilers. I don't want to ruin it for you.
The only thing I can say is: take my word for it...it's well done. If you've only watched the series once, go back and watch it again and pay attention. You will notice all kinds of hints to later episodes...big hints. It's amazing. A lot of River's babbling, if you take the time to unravel the aphasia-like speech and analyze the various metaphors, is incredibly significant. And she's not the only one who makes surprisingly prophetic statements. There's a line of Kaylee's early in the series that is some of the most blatant foreshadowing I've ever seen...and you completely miss its significance until you watch it again.
Already I fear I've said too much.
Let's try this: Yesterday I gave a quick run-through of the premise...today I'll give you the main cast of characters, because I suddenly realize that I've mentioned several character names without explaining who they are...which is a baaaaaad mistake for a lit major to make. After, I'll try to give a rundown of how Joss Whedon uses foreshadowing and why it enhances the experience.
Serenity - a "Firefly" class spaceship, named after the battle of Serenity Valley, which was the turning point in the war which secured victory for the Alliance.
Malcolm Reynolds - captain of Serenity and veteran of the war. At times roguishly charming, at others intense and jaded, he still wears the brown coat he wore as an Independent and clearly is still very affected by the war even six years later. Since the war, he has carved out a living as a smuggler and thief.
Zoe Washburne - second in command and old army buddy of Malcolm, having served under him in the same unit. Generally cold and sarcastic, she loosens up around her husband.
Hoban "Wash" Washburne - pilot of Serenity and husband of Zoe. He's a great pilot and extremely goofy. (The first time you see him, he's playing with plastic dinosaurs.)
Jayne Cobb - the "public relations specialist" of Serenity...which is a polite way of saying mercenary. He states clearly that he was never involved in the war. He's big, undereducated, crass, and violent. (And, believe it or not, is one of my favorite characters.)
Kaywinnit Lee "Kaylee" Frye - super-chipper genius mechanic of Serenity. Kaylee is obnoxiously cheerful and kind, which contrasts nicely with a bold attitude and a complete lack of shyness when it comes to sex. She has a thing for Simon.
Simon Tam - the ship's medic and a current fugitive of the Alliance. Born in the core, he's a lot prissier than the rest of the crew, who were all born in the rim. His family was extremely rich and he himself is highly educated. He became wanted when he broke his sister out of a government facility.
River Tam - sister to Simon and fugitive of the Alliance. According to Simon, she was a super-genius as a child and was sent to a government "academy" to learn. She started sending him coded messages claiming they were hurting her, which prompted him to break her out. Whatever happened to her there, she is now mentally unstable, tends to speak in riddles and has violent episodes.
Shepherd Book - a preacher who accidentally falls in with the group at the same time as the Tams. He attempts to be the voice of morality in the den of thieves.
Inara Serra - a "companion" who rents one of the shuttles on Serenity. Companions in the Firefly 'verse are like courtesans: highly respected, legal prostitutes whose job description seems to be more along the lines of sexual therapy. She's extremely businesslike and is always trading barbs with the captain in some of the most painful sexual tension I've ever seen in a TV series.
And with that out of the way, I'll return to the main point of today's post: foreshadowing.
So far I've managed to do this without spoilers, (the character descriptions only hold info you can glean from the first episode), and I will endeavor to keep it that way.
Joss Whedon's use of foreshadowing is brilliant. The true mark of a truly good piece of foreshadowing is that it alludes plainly to something that happens later while being completely unobtrusive. If done correctly, the people who actively look for these things will notice it and will either appreciate the joke or be able to predict what will happen and amaze their friends. The people who prefer to take everything in in a relaxed way, however, should notice noting whatsoever and be spared any spoilers.
Joss's use is completely masterful. He employs two major techniques for his foreshadowing. One involves characters saying something off-hand that turns out to be significant later on. The other involves letting River...who speaks in crazy, twisted riddles, tell the viewers EXACTLY what's going to happen, but mired in a web of crazy allusions and metaphor.
What's really impressive about all of this is that Joss does not waste one iota of dialogue. Every scene, every line has a great deal of importance. There are no throw-away bits. He uses every second of screen-time given to him. If a scene doesn't seem to reveal anything new about the plot or character, you should probably look closer.
As always, check out HNBF's facebook page! Oh! And today is "Unification Day"...a bunch of us Firefly fans are wearing our brown coats in support of the show. Check out my sweet coat and my homemade "Fruity Oaty Bars" shirt.
Mood - torn...I'm irritated that the fire alarm in my building went off at 5am, but I'm thrilled by how wonderful the "Castle" episode I just watched is.
Watching - "Castle"...starring the lovely Nathan Fillion, which makes it very topical. (Obviously, posting every day that I'm still reading the Fry autobiography is silly.)
Excerpt - They make references to "Firefly" constantly in the show...here's a good example. (After Nathan Fillion as Rick Castle walks out in his Malcolm Reynolds costume.)
His Daughter: (laughing) Hey.
Castle: Hey. I was just trying on my...Halloween costume.
Daughter: What exactly are you supposed to be?
Castle: Space cowboy.
Daughter: Ok, A: there are no cows in space. B: didn't you wear that like five years ago?
Castle: So?
Daughter: So, don't you think you should move on?
Castle: I like it.
What a wonderful tie-in, eh? Let's latch on to that transition and move on...
I'm a little worried about today's post. You see, I wanted to write about the masterful grasp of foreshadowing in the show. It is a thing of beauty when a writer can literally state what is going to happen in a way that we don't even notice it.
I could give you so many examples! Whedon does it beautifully...sometimes boldly stating what's going to happen, sometimes couching it in cryptic terms...and I can't tell you any of them. Really, I can't. Those would be spoilers. I don't want to ruin it for you.
The only thing I can say is: take my word for it...it's well done. If you've only watched the series once, go back and watch it again and pay attention. You will notice all kinds of hints to later episodes...big hints. It's amazing. A lot of River's babbling, if you take the time to unravel the aphasia-like speech and analyze the various metaphors, is incredibly significant. And she's not the only one who makes surprisingly prophetic statements. There's a line of Kaylee's early in the series that is some of the most blatant foreshadowing I've ever seen...and you completely miss its significance until you watch it again.
Already I fear I've said too much.
Let's try this: Yesterday I gave a quick run-through of the premise...today I'll give you the main cast of characters, because I suddenly realize that I've mentioned several character names without explaining who they are...which is a baaaaaad mistake for a lit major to make. After, I'll try to give a rundown of how Joss Whedon uses foreshadowing and why it enhances the experience.
Serenity - a "Firefly" class spaceship, named after the battle of Serenity Valley, which was the turning point in the war which secured victory for the Alliance.
Malcolm Reynolds - captain of Serenity and veteran of the war. At times roguishly charming, at others intense and jaded, he still wears the brown coat he wore as an Independent and clearly is still very affected by the war even six years later. Since the war, he has carved out a living as a smuggler and thief.
Zoe Washburne - second in command and old army buddy of Malcolm, having served under him in the same unit. Generally cold and sarcastic, she loosens up around her husband.
Hoban "Wash" Washburne - pilot of Serenity and husband of Zoe. He's a great pilot and extremely goofy. (The first time you see him, he's playing with plastic dinosaurs.)
Jayne Cobb - the "public relations specialist" of Serenity...which is a polite way of saying mercenary. He states clearly that he was never involved in the war. He's big, undereducated, crass, and violent. (And, believe it or not, is one of my favorite characters.)
Kaywinnit Lee "Kaylee" Frye - super-chipper genius mechanic of Serenity. Kaylee is obnoxiously cheerful and kind, which contrasts nicely with a bold attitude and a complete lack of shyness when it comes to sex. She has a thing for Simon.
Simon Tam - the ship's medic and a current fugitive of the Alliance. Born in the core, he's a lot prissier than the rest of the crew, who were all born in the rim. His family was extremely rich and he himself is highly educated. He became wanted when he broke his sister out of a government facility.
River Tam - sister to Simon and fugitive of the Alliance. According to Simon, she was a super-genius as a child and was sent to a government "academy" to learn. She started sending him coded messages claiming they were hurting her, which prompted him to break her out. Whatever happened to her there, she is now mentally unstable, tends to speak in riddles and has violent episodes.
Shepherd Book - a preacher who accidentally falls in with the group at the same time as the Tams. He attempts to be the voice of morality in the den of thieves.
Inara Serra - a "companion" who rents one of the shuttles on Serenity. Companions in the Firefly 'verse are like courtesans: highly respected, legal prostitutes whose job description seems to be more along the lines of sexual therapy. She's extremely businesslike and is always trading barbs with the captain in some of the most painful sexual tension I've ever seen in a TV series.
And with that out of the way, I'll return to the main point of today's post: foreshadowing.
So far I've managed to do this without spoilers, (the character descriptions only hold info you can glean from the first episode), and I will endeavor to keep it that way.
Joss Whedon's use of foreshadowing is brilliant. The true mark of a truly good piece of foreshadowing is that it alludes plainly to something that happens later while being completely unobtrusive. If done correctly, the people who actively look for these things will notice it and will either appreciate the joke or be able to predict what will happen and amaze their friends. The people who prefer to take everything in in a relaxed way, however, should notice noting whatsoever and be spared any spoilers.
Joss's use is completely masterful. He employs two major techniques for his foreshadowing. One involves characters saying something off-hand that turns out to be significant later on. The other involves letting River...who speaks in crazy, twisted riddles, tell the viewers EXACTLY what's going to happen, but mired in a web of crazy allusions and metaphor.
What's really impressive about all of this is that Joss does not waste one iota of dialogue. Every scene, every line has a great deal of importance. There are no throw-away bits. He uses every second of screen-time given to him. If a scene doesn't seem to reveal anything new about the plot or character, you should probably look closer.
As always, check out HNBF's facebook page! Oh! And today is "Unification Day"...a bunch of us Firefly fans are wearing our brown coats in support of the show. Check out my sweet coat and my homemade "Fruity Oaty Bars" shirt.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Firefly Week - Science fact in science fiction
Rabid Lit Major
Mood - Giddy
Book - Same book...I'm more excited that I'm buying "Tangled" today. If you haven't figured out my love of Disney by now...
Excerpt - (song from Tangled) "Seven AM: the usual morning lineup. Start on the chores and sweep 'til the floor's all clean. Polish and wax, do laundry, and mop and shine up. Sweep again...and by then it's...like...7:15."
Moving on.
Let's start off with a new literature rule, shall we?
Literature Rule 3
Those who write fiction should pay even more attention to realism than those who write non-fiction.
I believe I may have stated this before, but it bears repeating: writing fiction does not give you the right to avoid research. Quite the opposite in fact. Writing fiction constitutes a delicate balance between the fantastical and the realistic. Fiction, good fiction anyway, should always use the fantastic to accentuate and emphasize truth. At the very least, fiction should provide an escape to the reader...a new world to get lost in.
The more fantastic the story, the more the writer needs to make sure it conforms to rules.
This is for a very good reason: the fourth wall. For those unfamiliar with the term, the fourth wall is the wall between the audience and the work. "Breaking" the fourth wall occurs when the suspension of disbelief is destroyed and can be put to good use. (A good example is in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" whenever Matthew Broderick speaks directly to the camera, temporarily destroying the illusion that these are real people living out their life unaware they are in a movie.)
Despite some creative, deliberate breaking of the fourth wall, it does exist for a reason. As a writer, you want to immerse the audience in your work. You want them invested. You want them to feel for your characters, as if they were real people. You want them to gasp in genuine shock when Darth Vader reveals he's Luke's father.
This will not happen if, the entire time, the audience is thinking "these are just characters, it's not real."
To make the audience forget the falsity of the story, it is important to maintain enough realism to not throw them out of the story and say "Wait a second...that didn't make sense."
Hence, the reason realism is important.
(Brie...Brie? This is a post about Firefly. Get to the point?)
Right. Right. Sorry.
Joss Whedon, writer of Firefly, agrees with me on this topic. This is clear in his careful adherence to science fact within science fiction.
The show takes place in the future. General premise is that humankind left "Earth That Was" due, presumably, to overpopulation and exhaustion of resources. We now live in a new solar system full of terraformed planets made to simulate Earth. This was ages ago. When we catch up to our characters it is six years after a war between the "Alliance" and the "Browncoats/Independents". As their names suggest, the war was between those who wanted to Unite the various planets under a central government and those who wanted to remain independent.
Those of you who have heard of Firefly may have heard it described as a "space western". If this seems like a weird genre to you, let me explain. Joss Whedon put a lot of thought into what would happen if we were to "move" to a new galaxy. The "central" planets of the system, those close to the governmental center (yes, the Alliance won) look like a classic sci-fi world. Shiny metal, gleaming towers, wealth and technology. The "rim" planets, however, are rough. The people are obviously poor and as a result of their lack of resources, they function more like old Western towns than cities of the future.
Another logical leap he made when constructing the politics of his world is in the language and culture of these worlds. While many cultures are seen and represented, the two that seem to have held on are China and America. Everyone in the world speaks both English and Mandarin fluently. This, aside from being a logical leap given that they are the two most spoken languages, was a choice based in practicality. It's a gritty show, obviously meant for adults, but it aired on Fox. So while it seems weird for the characters not to curse, they simply would not be able to per television standards. So the solution was to have all of the cursing in Mandarin. It gets the point across and avoids the censors. However, I still give Whedon huge bonus points for taking into account that just because it's an American show, not everyone in the world speaks English.
Then there's the science. Due to the rugged Western feel, tech is pretty low key. You see small nods to it here and there. Guns represented are a mixture between ammo-and-gunpowder and laser weaponry. Hovercraft and spaceships are common for transport between worlds, but on-world tends to be dominated by trains and horses. One of the little details I love is that you still see duct tape used as a universal repair tool.
However what's really impressive is that Whedon does not sacrifice scientific facts in his writing. Much of the show takes place in space...and space in "Firefly" actually does function as a vacuum. Whenever the characters are "in the black" and not in the ship, there is complete silence aside from their communicators. In one episode, there is a fire in the ship which they get rid of by sealing off the areas on fire and opening up the air lock. As the oxygen rushes out, so does the fire...which dissipates the moment there is no air to burn. Even the design of the ship is carefully thought out to make its movements logical.
No sound here.
These are not things that most people notice...that's the idea. If you notice them, they grab your attention away from the story. They are logical and would work in the real world, so we file them away as "normal" and ignore them. That is a sign of a well-constructed fictional world.
HNBF note - One of the many wonderful charities supported by Nathan Fillion is "Kids Need to Read"...who can't get behind that? Join the fine folks at Help Nathan Buy Firefly in supporting the charity and showing that Browncoats care!
Mood - Giddy
Book - Same book...I'm more excited that I'm buying "Tangled" today. If you haven't figured out my love of Disney by now...
Excerpt - (song from Tangled) "Seven AM: the usual morning lineup. Start on the chores and sweep 'til the floor's all clean. Polish and wax, do laundry, and mop and shine up. Sweep again...and by then it's...like...7:15."
Moving on.
Let's start off with a new literature rule, shall we?
Literature Rule 3
Those who write fiction should pay even more attention to realism than those who write non-fiction.
I believe I may have stated this before, but it bears repeating: writing fiction does not give you the right to avoid research. Quite the opposite in fact. Writing fiction constitutes a delicate balance between the fantastical and the realistic. Fiction, good fiction anyway, should always use the fantastic to accentuate and emphasize truth. At the very least, fiction should provide an escape to the reader...a new world to get lost in.
The more fantastic the story, the more the writer needs to make sure it conforms to rules.
This is for a very good reason: the fourth wall. For those unfamiliar with the term, the fourth wall is the wall between the audience and the work. "Breaking" the fourth wall occurs when the suspension of disbelief is destroyed and can be put to good use. (A good example is in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" whenever Matthew Broderick speaks directly to the camera, temporarily destroying the illusion that these are real people living out their life unaware they are in a movie.)
Despite some creative, deliberate breaking of the fourth wall, it does exist for a reason. As a writer, you want to immerse the audience in your work. You want them invested. You want them to feel for your characters, as if they were real people. You want them to gasp in genuine shock when Darth Vader reveals he's Luke's father.
This will not happen if, the entire time, the audience is thinking "these are just characters, it's not real."
To make the audience forget the falsity of the story, it is important to maintain enough realism to not throw them out of the story and say "Wait a second...that didn't make sense."
Hence, the reason realism is important.
(Brie...Brie? This is a post about Firefly. Get to the point?)
Right. Right. Sorry.
Joss Whedon, writer of Firefly, agrees with me on this topic. This is clear in his careful adherence to science fact within science fiction.
The show takes place in the future. General premise is that humankind left "Earth That Was" due, presumably, to overpopulation and exhaustion of resources. We now live in a new solar system full of terraformed planets made to simulate Earth. This was ages ago. When we catch up to our characters it is six years after a war between the "Alliance" and the "Browncoats/Independents". As their names suggest, the war was between those who wanted to Unite the various planets under a central government and those who wanted to remain independent.
Those of you who have heard of Firefly may have heard it described as a "space western". If this seems like a weird genre to you, let me explain. Joss Whedon put a lot of thought into what would happen if we were to "move" to a new galaxy. The "central" planets of the system, those close to the governmental center (yes, the Alliance won) look like a classic sci-fi world. Shiny metal, gleaming towers, wealth and technology. The "rim" planets, however, are rough. The people are obviously poor and as a result of their lack of resources, they function more like old Western towns than cities of the future.
Another logical leap he made when constructing the politics of his world is in the language and culture of these worlds. While many cultures are seen and represented, the two that seem to have held on are China and America. Everyone in the world speaks both English and Mandarin fluently. This, aside from being a logical leap given that they are the two most spoken languages, was a choice based in practicality. It's a gritty show, obviously meant for adults, but it aired on Fox. So while it seems weird for the characters not to curse, they simply would not be able to per television standards. So the solution was to have all of the cursing in Mandarin. It gets the point across and avoids the censors. However, I still give Whedon huge bonus points for taking into account that just because it's an American show, not everyone in the world speaks English.
Then there's the science. Due to the rugged Western feel, tech is pretty low key. You see small nods to it here and there. Guns represented are a mixture between ammo-and-gunpowder and laser weaponry. Hovercraft and spaceships are common for transport between worlds, but on-world tends to be dominated by trains and horses. One of the little details I love is that you still see duct tape used as a universal repair tool.
However what's really impressive is that Whedon does not sacrifice scientific facts in his writing. Much of the show takes place in space...and space in "Firefly" actually does function as a vacuum. Whenever the characters are "in the black" and not in the ship, there is complete silence aside from their communicators. In one episode, there is a fire in the ship which they get rid of by sealing off the areas on fire and opening up the air lock. As the oxygen rushes out, so does the fire...which dissipates the moment there is no air to burn. Even the design of the ship is carefully thought out to make its movements logical.
These are not things that most people notice...that's the idea. If you notice them, they grab your attention away from the story. They are logical and would work in the real world, so we file them away as "normal" and ignore them. That is a sign of a well-constructed fictional world.
HNBF note - One of the many wonderful charities supported by Nathan Fillion is "Kids Need to Read"...who can't get behind that? Join the fine folks at Help Nathan Buy Firefly in supporting the charity and showing that Browncoats care!
Monday, 28 March 2011
Browncoat Love
Before I launch into the post I have a few quick notes.
First, I am very sorry for the intermittent posting. As stated before, I have less computer access than I am accustomed to. I will do my best to post at least two or three times a week.
Second, I have decided that, as this is a literature blog, I should start posting a bit about what I'm reading currently. This is also because it is my literature blog, and therefore it should center around me anyway.
So! Here we go.
Rabid Lit Major:
Mood - sleepy but cheerful
Current book - "The Fry Chronicles - an autobiography" by Stephen Fry
Book excerpt -
Additional note - I don't care if that excerpt was ridiculously long...I love words too.
Additional additional note - Thanks to my wonderful boyfriend for buying me this book. <3 Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Those of you who are facebook friends with me have likely already realized that I am a huge browncoat. Browncoat - n. - 1. Slang term for the rebel army in the short-lived television show Firefly, in reference to the brown coats worn by members of the army. 2. A person who is a fan/obsessive of said short-lived science-fiction show.
(Hint: I fall in the realm of the second definition.)
If you are already a browncoat, you can skip this part. If you're confused…here's an explanation.
Joss Whedon's space-western epic aired in 2002 on Fox. It lasted one season before it was cancelled due, according to Fox, to low ratings. Fans contend that had the episodes been aired in a regular time slot, and in order, the ratings would have been much higher. Regardless of whether this is true, when the show came out on DVD it sparked a huge fan following. Enough interest was generated that a feature film sequel, Serenity, was successfully pitched, produced and hit theaters. However, rather than satisfy fans, the sequel merely sparked hope that the show could be resuscitated…and nine years later the hope remains strong.
The reason my obsession has been particularly visible lately is part of a giant awareness-raising campaign sparked by the show's lead actor - Nathan Fillion. In an interview, the actor made an offhand comment about wishing he could just buy the rights and start the show up again. The fans immediately rallied behind the idea, pledging money and creating press-garnering stunts.
Now…I suspect that Fillion was not 100% serious. (Although, having been a geek icon so long he really ought to know better.) It does not change the fact that this simple statement had…impressive results.
At time of writing, the group helpnathanbuyfirefly.com has ceased collecting pledges from hopeful fans due to a request by Fillion. However, its supporting facebook group still holds an astounding 117,000+ members (including myself), people all over the world have changed their facebook profile pictures to firefly characters for the month (including myself), and many plan to end this month by wearing a brown coat to show their loyalty (including myself).
By the way, if you are interested, the group is now collecting donations for various charities supported by Fillion. The pledges were discontinued because Fillion didn't want to create a ruckus without promise of results. However, the fundraising continues in hopes that we can raise awareness of the show and support some good causes along the way. You can reach their facebook page here:
Help Nathan Buy Firefly
So why the hubbub? What's so impressive about this specific show that the followers are…dare I say…rabid?
Who better than the Rabid Lit Major to analyze the show's literary merits to solve the mystery of Firefly's appeal?
(That was rhetorical. Please keep your answers to yourself.)
All this week, I will be analyzing the show, explaining what makes it so great, and hopefully I'll win a few converts to the Browncoat ranks. Will it help Nathan to buy Firefly? Likely not. But if I can introduce more people to one of the best written shows of all time, drum up a little bit of press, and talk about a subject dear to my heart…then I'll be happy.
So what literary areas does the show excel in?
1. Realistic fiction in a fictional reality
2. A masterful grasp of foreshadowing
3. Avoidance of cliches
4. Symbolism
It also has a wickedly excellent, and largely attractive, cast.
See?
First, I am very sorry for the intermittent posting. As stated before, I have less computer access than I am accustomed to. I will do my best to post at least two or three times a week.
Second, I have decided that, as this is a literature blog, I should start posting a bit about what I'm reading currently. This is also because it is my literature blog, and therefore it should center around me anyway.
So! Here we go.
Rabid Lit Major:
Mood - sleepy but cheerful
Current book - "The Fry Chronicles - an autobiography" by Stephen Fry
Book excerpt -
"If a thing can be said in ten words, I may be relied upon to take a hundred to say it. I ought to apologize for that. I ought to go back and ruthlessly prune, pare and extirpate excess growth, but I will not. I like words - strike that, I love words - and while I am fond of the condensed and economical use of them in poetry, song lyrics, in Twitter, in good journalism and smart advertising, I love the luxuriant profusion and mad scatter of them too. After all, as you will already have noticed, I am the kind of person who writes things like 'I shall append a superscribed obelus thus'. If my manner of writing is a self-indulgence that has you grinding your teeth then I am sorry, but I am too old a dog to be taught to bark new tunes."
Additional note - I don't care if that excerpt was ridiculously long...I love words too.
Additional additional note - Thanks to my wonderful boyfriend for buying me this book. <3 Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Those of you who are facebook friends with me have likely already realized that I am a huge browncoat. Browncoat - n. - 1. Slang term for the rebel army in the short-lived television show Firefly, in reference to the brown coats worn by members of the army. 2. A person who is a fan/obsessive of said short-lived science-fiction show.
(Hint: I fall in the realm of the second definition.)
If you are already a browncoat, you can skip this part. If you're confused…here's an explanation.
Joss Whedon's space-western epic aired in 2002 on Fox. It lasted one season before it was cancelled due, according to Fox, to low ratings. Fans contend that had the episodes been aired in a regular time slot, and in order, the ratings would have been much higher. Regardless of whether this is true, when the show came out on DVD it sparked a huge fan following. Enough interest was generated that a feature film sequel, Serenity, was successfully pitched, produced and hit theaters. However, rather than satisfy fans, the sequel merely sparked hope that the show could be resuscitated…and nine years later the hope remains strong.
The reason my obsession has been particularly visible lately is part of a giant awareness-raising campaign sparked by the show's lead actor - Nathan Fillion. In an interview, the actor made an offhand comment about wishing he could just buy the rights and start the show up again. The fans immediately rallied behind the idea, pledging money and creating press-garnering stunts.
Now…I suspect that Fillion was not 100% serious. (Although, having been a geek icon so long he really ought to know better.) It does not change the fact that this simple statement had…impressive results.
At time of writing, the group helpnathanbuyfirefly.com has ceased collecting pledges from hopeful fans due to a request by Fillion. However, its supporting facebook group still holds an astounding 117,000+ members (including myself), people all over the world have changed their facebook profile pictures to firefly characters for the month (including myself), and many plan to end this month by wearing a brown coat to show their loyalty (including myself).
By the way, if you are interested, the group is now collecting donations for various charities supported by Fillion. The pledges were discontinued because Fillion didn't want to create a ruckus without promise of results. However, the fundraising continues in hopes that we can raise awareness of the show and support some good causes along the way. You can reach their facebook page here:
Help Nathan Buy Firefly
So why the hubbub? What's so impressive about this specific show that the followers are…dare I say…rabid?
Who better than the Rabid Lit Major to analyze the show's literary merits to solve the mystery of Firefly's appeal?
(That was rhetorical. Please keep your answers to yourself.)
All this week, I will be analyzing the show, explaining what makes it so great, and hopefully I'll win a few converts to the Browncoat ranks. Will it help Nathan to buy Firefly? Likely not. But if I can introduce more people to one of the best written shows of all time, drum up a little bit of press, and talk about a subject dear to my heart…then I'll be happy.
So what literary areas does the show excel in?
1. Realistic fiction in a fictional reality
2. A masterful grasp of foreshadowing
3. Avoidance of cliches
4. Symbolism
It also has a wickedly excellent, and largely attractive, cast.
See?
Friday, 25 March 2011
Game Week 3: Dungeons and Dragons
There's a game that actually improves your abilities as a writer immensely...and it's not Scrabble. Nor does it have a Mensa sticker or proudly exclaim that it's "educational."
In fact, it in no way advertises its helpfulness in this field. However, the sheer number of successful people who played this game in their youth speaks for itself.
Yes, yes. I'm that much of a geek. Dungeons and Dragons is a recent love of mine. I always wanted to get into it, but it seemed like such a...time investment. And it is. Getting started in a game is enough to deter most people from playing...setting up a character and learning the mechanics is frustrating. It took me several sessions to get the hang of the fighting and when to roll dice and which dice to roll. During that time, the game was frustrating and difficult. I wasn't really having a ton of fun and I was so busy with the rules I wasn't getting into my character properly.
Once I had the mechanics down though? Just trust me on this...if you stick with it through the learning curve, you will have a great time.
I'm off topic though. You didn't come here to have me tell you to play this game - you came here to see what literary merit the game has.
I have always thought that there is no way I could be a teacher, because my method of teaching would be totally bizarre. My students would watch the BeeGees's "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" in order to teach them the concept of deus ex machina.
I would totally make a creative writing class play Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm not kidding.
(Now tell me I should be a teacher. Parents would riot.)
It would work. I believe this fully. I just don't think the people in charge of curriculums would give me a chance to explain. You, my captive audience, have no choice. (Well...you do. But I assume that, if you're still reading, you're willing to hear it anyway.)
Here's why my students would be forced to spend each class period making perception checks and my budget would include an invoice for 20-sided dice.
Dungeons and Dragons is literally creative story-telling by committee...and possibly the greatest exercise ever for enforcing character-driven plots.
For those of you whose knowledge of D&D is limited to, as a comedic animation put it "a shit ton of rules and a lot of funny shaped dice"...a bunch of nerds in their parents' basement eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew and never having girlfriends...and dressed up in silly medieval outfits holding foam swords...let me explain it to you.
First of all, most of the stereotypes, whether they've been true in the past or not, are pretty much untrue or exaggerated. My group has two girls, (including myself). Our DM (Dungeon Master...I'll explain later) hosts the games in his own apartment. Sometimes there's mountain dew...but typically we go out to eat as a group and sometimes we have alcohol (depending on the age of the players and who's driving). All of us have had a significant other at some point, whether we're currently attached or not. And the dressing up and foam weapon thing? Completely incorrect, that's a different thing altogether. That's called "LARP" or Live Action Role Play. It's a small subset of D&D, which is a table-top role playing game, that combines the game with theater. I've never played, but imagine that it's vaguely similar to working at RenFest.
Ok, that's out of the way. Here's how you actually play.
The best way to explain D&D, which just proves my point, is that you are writing a story. It's not a competitive game. There's no "winning" or "losing" the game.
Gameplay breaks down into two roles: you are either the DM in charge of the plot, or you are a player in charge of a character.
To begin a game, the DM prepares a basic story construct. The DM decides what the world looks like, how it works, generally what's going to happen and what has been happening...Meanwhile, the players create characters.
Everyone who writes a story should make a D&D character. You don't simply come up with a name and looks. You have to decide all of the backstory of your character and ok it with the DM to make sure it fits the world he's created. You have to decide what your character's strengths are. Are they highly intelligent but a little naive? Strong and intimidating but not very charming? No character can be perfect...and your abilities have to match your backstory. If your character grew up studying extensively but didn't interact with other kids much, your "charisma" points are going to be low while your "intelligence" points will be high. Which means if you need to lie convincingly, you're not going to do well...but if you need to remember some random bit of history you'll do just fine.
If you decide that you character is really big, they'll be stronger but they'll also be slower.
If your character has distinctive looks, they will have trouble being inconspicuous.
EVERY decision you make has to make sense, and will have logical consequences.
Game play simply involves the DM relaying the story in the guise of narrator and the minor characters. The players, however, are responsible for the individual decisions of their characters.
Sometimes, this has unintended consequences that the DM was not expecting.
I will give you an example from the game I currently play.
My group was hired by the government to investigate a mysterious group that had been causing some trouble. Our investigations led us to leave the city...which we had not been authorized to do. When events led us to return to the city we had warrants out for our arrest. We fell into a trap and were captured by bounty hunters.
This is where things get interesting.
We have in our group a character played by my good friend Alex. Alex's character is a changeling who, while being useless in a fight, is an incredible liar. He has impressive magical abilities and a great deal of charisma...so when he lies he not only makes them believe him, it makes them believe him passionately. As with all skills, this depends on the roll of a dice...in this case a 20-sided one. The idea is that you have a certain amount of natural and trained ability in something...which creates a "modifier". However, any endeavor also depends on your luck and the ability of others to resist you. Now Pique (Alex's character) has a ridiculously high "bluff" modifier...something like +20. The bounty hunters had an unfortunately average ability to sense the motives of others...such as when they are lying, (a stat known as "passive insight"). Alex then made the situation even more interesting by rolling really well.
What was the result?
"Pique" decided to distract the bounty hunters by getting them interested in a "new" God, (something we'd been investigating at the time and therefore was fresh in his mind.) However, he lied so well that he not only got them to let us go...he started a new religion.
Which meant that the next time we entered the city (a few months later in game time) the religion that he had started had become a major force and the followers hailed him as a prophet and offered us all kinds of aid.
The DM did not create that story line...Alex did through his decisions.
That is the essence of a character-driven story. I prefer character-driven stories over plot-driven stories any day...and you probably do as well. In a character driven story, the events unfold based on the decisions of a character. In order for this to work, the character has to be well-written and function like a real person. They make decisions that are logical given the knowledge, background and personality of the character. An impulsive character will act impulsively. A character that does not know he's walking into a trap will continue doing so regardless of what the reader and author know, etc. etc. etc.
An event-driven plot, however, will force a character into the sequence of events the author has already come up with. This is not a bad thing necessarily. As long as the character reacts in a logical way based on the events and it still works then it's perfectly fine.
There are downsides to each style. Character-driven plots have more chance of derailing on the author as the character reacts to events in a way the author doesn't expect and makes the ending impossible or boring...necessitating a re-write. (e.g. a timid character may decide to stay at home and do nothing in reaction to scary things happening...and therefore not be in the right place for the plot to continue and completely throw the author off as they try to think of a legitimate reason to place the character back in harm's reach.) Event-driven plots, on the other hand, have a much higher chance of deus ex machina style events...plot points that come out of nowhere for no clear reason for the sole purpose of moving the plot along.
Between the two, I prefer character-driven plots because they force the author to rewrite the story until it logically works rather than taking a shortcut.
Playing D&D is literally practice in creating character-driven plots in game form. It's wonderful.
So, yes...if I was a creative writing teacher my poor students would be forced to play.
They would also have a required unit on grammar and sentence diagramming, know the difference between intransitive and transitive verbs (or know my wrath) and would suffer dire consequences for mixing up your/you're.
They would hate me.
This is my D&D group, minus the DM who is taking the picture. You may notice that we are all having an awesome time. You may also notice that we are huge dorks.
In fact, it in no way advertises its helpfulness in this field. However, the sheer number of successful people who played this game in their youth speaks for itself.
Yes, yes. I'm that much of a geek. Dungeons and Dragons is a recent love of mine. I always wanted to get into it, but it seemed like such a...time investment. And it is. Getting started in a game is enough to deter most people from playing...setting up a character and learning the mechanics is frustrating. It took me several sessions to get the hang of the fighting and when to roll dice and which dice to roll. During that time, the game was frustrating and difficult. I wasn't really having a ton of fun and I was so busy with the rules I wasn't getting into my character properly.
Once I had the mechanics down though? Just trust me on this...if you stick with it through the learning curve, you will have a great time.
I'm off topic though. You didn't come here to have me tell you to play this game - you came here to see what literary merit the game has.
I have always thought that there is no way I could be a teacher, because my method of teaching would be totally bizarre. My students would watch the BeeGees's "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" in order to teach them the concept of deus ex machina.
I would totally make a creative writing class play Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm not kidding.
(Now tell me I should be a teacher. Parents would riot.)
It would work. I believe this fully. I just don't think the people in charge of curriculums would give me a chance to explain. You, my captive audience, have no choice. (Well...you do. But I assume that, if you're still reading, you're willing to hear it anyway.)
Here's why my students would be forced to spend each class period making perception checks and my budget would include an invoice for 20-sided dice.
Dungeons and Dragons is literally creative story-telling by committee...and possibly the greatest exercise ever for enforcing character-driven plots.
For those of you whose knowledge of D&D is limited to, as a comedic animation put it "a shit ton of rules and a lot of funny shaped dice"...a bunch of nerds in their parents' basement eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew and never having girlfriends...and dressed up in silly medieval outfits holding foam swords...let me explain it to you.
First of all, most of the stereotypes, whether they've been true in the past or not, are pretty much untrue or exaggerated. My group has two girls, (including myself). Our DM (Dungeon Master...I'll explain later) hosts the games in his own apartment. Sometimes there's mountain dew...but typically we go out to eat as a group and sometimes we have alcohol (depending on the age of the players and who's driving). All of us have had a significant other at some point, whether we're currently attached or not. And the dressing up and foam weapon thing? Completely incorrect, that's a different thing altogether. That's called "LARP" or Live Action Role Play. It's a small subset of D&D, which is a table-top role playing game, that combines the game with theater. I've never played, but imagine that it's vaguely similar to working at RenFest.
Ok, that's out of the way. Here's how you actually play.
The best way to explain D&D, which just proves my point, is that you are writing a story. It's not a competitive game. There's no "winning" or "losing" the game.
Gameplay breaks down into two roles: you are either the DM in charge of the plot, or you are a player in charge of a character.
To begin a game, the DM prepares a basic story construct. The DM decides what the world looks like, how it works, generally what's going to happen and what has been happening...Meanwhile, the players create characters.
Everyone who writes a story should make a D&D character. You don't simply come up with a name and looks. You have to decide all of the backstory of your character and ok it with the DM to make sure it fits the world he's created. You have to decide what your character's strengths are. Are they highly intelligent but a little naive? Strong and intimidating but not very charming? No character can be perfect...and your abilities have to match your backstory. If your character grew up studying extensively but didn't interact with other kids much, your "charisma" points are going to be low while your "intelligence" points will be high. Which means if you need to lie convincingly, you're not going to do well...but if you need to remember some random bit of history you'll do just fine.
If you decide that you character is really big, they'll be stronger but they'll also be slower.
If your character has distinctive looks, they will have trouble being inconspicuous.
EVERY decision you make has to make sense, and will have logical consequences.
Game play simply involves the DM relaying the story in the guise of narrator and the minor characters. The players, however, are responsible for the individual decisions of their characters.
Sometimes, this has unintended consequences that the DM was not expecting.
I will give you an example from the game I currently play.
My group was hired by the government to investigate a mysterious group that had been causing some trouble. Our investigations led us to leave the city...which we had not been authorized to do. When events led us to return to the city we had warrants out for our arrest. We fell into a trap and were captured by bounty hunters.
This is where things get interesting.
We have in our group a character played by my good friend Alex. Alex's character is a changeling who, while being useless in a fight, is an incredible liar. He has impressive magical abilities and a great deal of charisma...so when he lies he not only makes them believe him, it makes them believe him passionately. As with all skills, this depends on the roll of a dice...in this case a 20-sided one. The idea is that you have a certain amount of natural and trained ability in something...which creates a "modifier". However, any endeavor also depends on your luck and the ability of others to resist you. Now Pique (Alex's character) has a ridiculously high "bluff" modifier...something like +20. The bounty hunters had an unfortunately average ability to sense the motives of others...such as when they are lying, (a stat known as "passive insight"). Alex then made the situation even more interesting by rolling really well.
What was the result?
"Pique" decided to distract the bounty hunters by getting them interested in a "new" God, (something we'd been investigating at the time and therefore was fresh in his mind.) However, he lied so well that he not only got them to let us go...he started a new religion.
Which meant that the next time we entered the city (a few months later in game time) the religion that he had started had become a major force and the followers hailed him as a prophet and offered us all kinds of aid.
The DM did not create that story line...Alex did through his decisions.
That is the essence of a character-driven story. I prefer character-driven stories over plot-driven stories any day...and you probably do as well. In a character driven story, the events unfold based on the decisions of a character. In order for this to work, the character has to be well-written and function like a real person. They make decisions that are logical given the knowledge, background and personality of the character. An impulsive character will act impulsively. A character that does not know he's walking into a trap will continue doing so regardless of what the reader and author know, etc. etc. etc.
An event-driven plot, however, will force a character into the sequence of events the author has already come up with. This is not a bad thing necessarily. As long as the character reacts in a logical way based on the events and it still works then it's perfectly fine.
There are downsides to each style. Character-driven plots have more chance of derailing on the author as the character reacts to events in a way the author doesn't expect and makes the ending impossible or boring...necessitating a re-write. (e.g. a timid character may decide to stay at home and do nothing in reaction to scary things happening...and therefore not be in the right place for the plot to continue and completely throw the author off as they try to think of a legitimate reason to place the character back in harm's reach.) Event-driven plots, on the other hand, have a much higher chance of deus ex machina style events...plot points that come out of nowhere for no clear reason for the sole purpose of moving the plot along.
Between the two, I prefer character-driven plots because they force the author to rewrite the story until it logically works rather than taking a shortcut.
Playing D&D is literally practice in creating character-driven plots in game form. It's wonderful.
So, yes...if I was a creative writing teacher my poor students would be forced to play.
They would also have a required unit on grammar and sentence diagramming, know the difference between intransitive and transitive verbs (or know my wrath) and would suffer dire consequences for mixing up your/you're.
They would hate me.
This is my D&D group, minus the DM who is taking the picture. You may notice that we are all having an awesome time. You may also notice that we are huge dorks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)