Silent Heroes in Vid-Games

Frst a news update on Camp NaNoWriMo....>.> I'm still incredibly behind but with a bit of encouragement and competition I'm working to get caught up. I suppose it's just a matter of sitting down and actually hashing out my ideas with a chainsaw before I get stalled too much. Anyways I have a pretty good idea for where my story will be going and it actually seems to be something I'd consider reading! I hope...

Onto the blog proper!

Today I'd like to talk about the 'Silent Heroes' you see in video games (in particular FPS games). Now in a lot of cases games just simply don't have voices for the characters and that is just that, but sometimes you'll get a game where the character's silence sometimes feels as if it were meant to be. Just to give an example of a few games where this is so (that I know of); The Half-Life series, Portal, The Marathon Series, and The Bioshock Series. I probably am missing a few but these in particular I'd like to focus on. One reason why I focus on video-games however is that the 'silent hero' is something that I feel can only really be done in video games. After all a book where the main character does not talk at all would get awfully boring and probably end up being a side character. In a movie it would be easier, but still not as do-able as in video games where, while the hero doesn't speak the player still gets to be interactive with the story.

One of the things that has always intrigued me about this concept has been the question of the protagonist's agency. You, the player, control the character's actions, but the character is constantly put in situations by some 'other force.' On top of all that, your character never has a voice. Is your character a tool to be used, or are you an opposing force against those who put you in such a situation? I also find it interesting that sometimes the protagonist's lack of voice is sometimes commented on, as if other people note that it's strange you never talk. Everything in games like these seem to put the player apart from everyone else. The character is even put apart from the enemy and the allies, even if these two sides think it otherwise.

The Marathon series really puts to the forefront the question of the character being a tool or a natural/human force. I've already posted about Marathon in a previous post so check it out if you'd like a bit of background, but it isn't vital. Essentially I find it fascinating that Bungie was able to give you (the character) a conflict between yourself and your controllers that plays itself out in the objectives you pursue and yet you are still lead from place to place by anyone other than yourself. Granted, with gaming technology back then it would have been hard to come up with dialogue for your character inside of an FPS environment, and Bungie did give its hero a voice in the Halo series, but in Marathon I felt I had to ask myself why did Mr. Security Officer never talk? Indeed the whole game is about the hero's agency and freedom of action; one line that is repeated in the series is, "Escape will make me free."

Valve's Half-Life series is very similar to Marathon in this regard. Gordon Freeman is a man who, "Is the right man, in the wrong place," constantly. He is put in these places however. I have to wonder about what is really going on behind Freeman's glasses. Even when Freeman is about to break free at certain points, or seems to be making his own way, the story takes a twist and puts him right back in square one. Is Freeman a free man? Or is he merely a tool? We think of voice as playing a pivotal role in how we express ourselves and our agency, but if that were taken away...? I like wondering about Freeman's role in the story, and what kind of humanity he represents, and the story there would be incredibly complex. Sometimes he seems to be a hero at points, and others an unwitting ally of those with ulterior motives.

Tied to Half-Life is Portal, which I've posted about before as well. While my explanation for Chell in my second part of the post seems to negate what I've been saying about the silent hero, in some ways I still feel it to be valid. Perhaps it is more valid in Portal than in other games. In the Portal story you are actually a test subject in a laboratory and your goal is to escape. You are placed in a clear situation where you must break free of the entity that is directing you from place to place. When that control breaks down, literally the walls of the facility become meaningless and you then have to make your way. But, even your escape seems to be directed some how in subtle hints, left behind by painted symbols. Is Chell a test subject or is she choosing to break free from all tests? From here I suppose that these silent heroes are really silent so that they can have a multitude of voices. I feel now that maybe these characters are made this way to represent humanity in these types of situations.

The last series I'll examine is Bioshock 1 (I haven't played the others...). Again this game is very similar to the above games for it's silent hero who has no voice, and is set in a world that is a competition between nature and science. This conflict can clearly be seen to take place in the character himself as there are many points through the story where you are able to choose certain outcomes, and key story points where you cant. The whole world is designed as if to say 'this is what you really are, and there isn't anything you can do about it' but when in fact, the situation might be more complicated.

To wrap up, I feel that silent heroes in video games are an interesting symbol in stories. They can be done well or horribly, but when done well they really mess around with your head and get you to wonder just what the game itself means. To compare; Games where the player has a voice, the story is scripted. While the meaning (if it is a good game) can change just like when one re-reads books, the plot is still carried out in a particular way. The player goes through the game experiencing a situation in an almost complete manner. But when the character's voice is taken away, the player must contemplate just what that means in relation to the story. I constantly feel like I have to figure out why the game developers wanted a character to no be able to speak in certain key story moments. I don't mean to say that 'all' games should have silent characters; I do love games that have incredible stories however they are told. What I do think though, is that the ones where a seemingly vital part of any story is taken away, become interesting to puzzle out and analyze; Why was this chosen to tell the story? What does it change about 'us'?

Review of 'Spice and Wolf'

NaNo update: Well to say it simply...I'm soooo behind! It's difficult to get focused enough to write like this! It's good for me though and I'm planning on sprinting ahead to catch up...but I'm actually confident as to where my story will be going. The tough part in my plot is yet to come, but I'll deal with that when it comes around.

Onto the blog proper.

A few weeks ago I stumbled on a rather interesting anime while on Hulu. At first I didn't know exactly what to think. Reading the description I didn't feel like this was a show that I'd get into. And even after the first few minutes of the first episode I was a bit unsure. The animation might not be the best or the most iconic and it actually is a little sparse. What I mean is, in a lot of anime there is action (people moving and such) going on constantly, and in heavily populated scenes there is a sense of a great many people. In 'Spice and Wolf' it's mostly just Kraft and Holo sitting or standing and talking, but do not let this put you off! I was drawn in by the delightful dialogue and very intriguing yet relaxed plot. Essentially Kraft is a traveling merchant and Holo is a wolf goddess. Their adventures seem to come right out of a book of myths. Instead of having action and fight scenes like in many other anime, or having an intense and highly dramatic love plot 'Spice and Wolf' mostly has to do with their partnership and with trade. The key aspect to most all the episodes is Kraft's job as a merchant and Holo's interest in it. Of course Holo and Kraft have an interesting relationship that you might say includes love, I won't say that it's typical of other anime. This to me is a drawing point as well as I keep on having to reevaluate how the two interact just as they have to reevaluate their relationship as well.

Now on Hulu the first of the two seasons is dubbed. But, to all those hardcore anime fans out there I will say that I think I like the dubbed version better than the subbed version. The voice actors for both Holo and Kraft are excellent and I grew fond of them. In particular Holo's actor got across Holo's dry wit and imperious attitude quite well and made me smile quite often when she did something ridiculous. Kraft's actor also seemed to convey a rather relaxed and sharp minded merchant. One thing I like about the dub is that none of the characters are voiced by idiot ditzy sounding people with high pitched voices, or with gruff over exaggerated male ones. This to me is a happy medium that gets across what the story is actually trying to do. So in short, if you are wanting a nice relaxing anime to watch that is not one of those typical love drama's that is set in the present day then 'Spice and Wolf' is the way to go. It's free in it's entirety on Hulu (Although for season 2 you have to sign up because it's apparently adult content, although I can't figure out why).

I apologize for this being a shorter post, but I do not want to give anything away about 'Spice and Wolf.' Also I was caught a bit shorthanded this weekend. Next sunday you can expect a full length post to be sure!

1st day of NaNoWriMo Camp!

I feel that the timing of my blogpost with the start of NaNo Camp is fortuitous. For those of you who do not know NaNoWriMo stands for National Novel Writing Month (Link: http://www.nanowrimo.org/) where crazy writers decide that in the month of November to write a 50,000 word novel all in one go. Imagine this as a literary marathon. This is entirely about goal setting and while there are bragging rights involved as rewards (and some neat badges) there are no penalties for non-completion...in fact don't even think about it in terms of complete and incomplete! The whole idea is that writers should sit down, write, and challenge themselves to produce.

Now what is Camp NaNoWriMo? Well...it's essentially the same thing but during the summer! (and possibly other months as well? Link: http://www.campnanowrimo.org/sign_in) Although it's still in beta phase, prospective campers can get together with others and produce the same crazy schedule by choice. 50,000 words over the month of July and I'm diving right in. This is actually my first official involvement with anything WriMo so I'm very excited to be involved with the community. I've done a bit of writing in the past but nothing I've done has been on this scale in this time frame. This will be my first real attempt at writing a novel as all my experience up till now has been with short stories. I don't intend on documenting everything that comes along, but I think every Sunday along with the main post I'll put a tiny blurb at the top for highlights of the weeks writing.

The title of the story I'm working on is titled, "Tangled in Steel." Here's the synopsis I posted up on my camper profile page (there is also an excerpt from my first bit of writing there as well):

"A young girl's father on one of the backwater moons of Saturn has a failing merchant business. In order to save the business from a greedy and tyrannical strong-man he must risk all on a trading venture through pirate infested space. But alas! There's a rogue warship stalking the orbits here, rumor has it it's Martian but no one knows for sure. All (insert Daughter's name here) knows is that her father is missing and she must save him (and that she must avoid marrying said strong-man)."


Well I guess failing Merchant business is a bit exaggerated, it's more like struggling. The story includes love, sadness, action, suspense, comedy, and probably other things I haven't thought of yet! When I started yesterday I felt a little like I was in over my head...How am I going to make this story fill 50,000 words? Well that's part of the fun! 

Tension You Can Cut With a Knife

Today's blogpost will be some advice for writing tense scenes, or scenes with action in them. I do realize that I am not the best writer in the world (and I'm not even published...yet), but hopefully what I have to say will help anyone in this area. Furthermore, I also hope that if there are any flaws or missing items in my advice that those who read this will point them out! Onto the blog proper

I enjoy writing face paced scenes, or scenes that play on high emotions, when time seems to slow down or speed up for all involved. It gives me the chance to lead the reader along and be made to feel as if they to were in the same situation. You know, good heart pumping tension! One of the greatest helps I have for writing scenes like this is music. Ordinarily when I'm writing normally (or a tough scene) music sometimes gets in the way and I prefer quiet. But what I've noticed for myself is that when I'm writing tension/action, music of a like-type helps me. The pace of the piece of music I have chosen for a scene helps me to let the flow of emotion and senses get written down on the page. I can use the music to help shape images in my head and then let them flow into my writing (or so I hope!). The idea here is that action or tension is something you use to make the reader feel tense. Music for me, is a good way to help channel my efforts in this. However when I write like this it is far from perfect. But when I do have it written down I can then chip away at the general structure of a scene and still preserve the essence of urgency. I can even check and correct key observations and details that must be included.

I've found that writing tension or action cannot be too thought out initially or you end up adding in so much to the scene that it becomes another part of the prose. For instance a WW2 action movie has action and tension, whereas a WW2 documentary is more bland and all parts of it are on roughly the same level. Action or tension I feel has to be set somewhat apart from the normal flow of the story (although the boundaries are fuzzy). When I read I usually know that a scene is part of the action or tension is when I begin to feel my heart race, or that when I read I sort of rush through the words to get the feel rather than what is actually there. I want to be able to write scenes where the reader is rushing right along side the characters, feeling the urgency of the situation.

What I've also noticed about action in particular is that it cannot be written too long, or if it is that there should be a few respites (both for the character and the reader). Recently in my own current short story project I found that an action sequence had become far too long. For the purposes of my short story I felt it became cumbersome and too strung out. One of the dangers with writing action or tension is that you can only string the reader on for so long. After a certain point the tension or action becomes meaningless and normal. Action and tension should be punctuation points in a story, peaks in the plot. Having brief pauses in such scenes helps if the action or tension must be continued. The reader then has a chance to catch a mental breath before plunging into the fray again, and actually process what has just happened. However if the action or tension in a given story is such that there couldn't be any breaks then it must be condensed. A long sword fight for example could be condensed into an overall description while still preserving the sense of tension and urgency.

Interestingly enough, I believe the ones to be the best at sustaining action and tension are first-person-shooter game makers. If you pay attention you'll notice that a FPS game is not 100% action all the way through (or at least the good ones aren't). The Halo and Call of Duty series are good examples. Both contain short punctuated action sequences, or in the case of longer missions, breaks from the action. This allows the player's senses time to recover and get ready for the next bit of fun. The fact that these games are so popular is evident in their control of these skills.

Words to Make the Mind Wander

One of the things I enjoy most about written stories are their ability to make you wander down thought paths. This is also one of my only consolations when reading stories that aren't particularly good, as I can still expand my mind by working out the flaws or pearls of quality that lay buried within it. But in a good story, sometimes I find myself pausing mid-sentence and start to think bout a particular plot twist or story element. Sometimes my eyes continue to drift down the page even though I had stopped reading lines before.

This is one thing that is severely lacking in other kinds of media (with the exception of music and still art which I will get to shortly). Not because of their quality, but because there is no halt to the motion. Even in the slowest movie, video game, or even radio broadcast you are pushed along a river of information that you can only adequately asses after it reaches journey's end. I know you can pause games or films along the way, but to me it is not the same. There is a continuity that is key to these types of media that needs a flow. With books your mind can actually continue the story on tangents that are not even written down, but that you make up as you think. Instead of being pulled down a story, when I read, I feel like I'm strolling through memories at my own leisure. I feel better able to comprehend the world that is being painted. And, even if the story is not that great, I can turn aside from the pages for a while and explore the alley ways that the author didn't think to develop or continue (which happens a great deal when I read my own work!). When I play games or watch movies I feel like I'm 'living' through the story instead of recalling it or being a spectator. In my own head when I read I feel like I can pause the action of a book and yet still be part of it by being able to move through the world as it's frozen and explore any facet I choose. In a movie or game for example you can only really process what you have seen before and what's in front of you; because that is where the action is (this is one reason though, why I like quality 'behind the scenes' additions like LOTR, which would be a subject of another post). Even in non-fiction this is the case. You can pause anywhere you like and go to the places where events occurred or research more deeply into what you see on a page.

I believe my thoughts also apply to still art, and in a different sense, to music. When you observe art you observe a thing that tells not a story, but a representation of a story. Comic books of course fuzzy the line a great deal by combining these two media. Music I feel also should be included here. Yes it does have a continuity that is reminiscent of movies or video games, but instead of pulling you, it leads you. Music has a peculiar ability to let me imagine any sort of story I wish when listening. For example even when listening to music that some people find adventurous or happy I might feel sad or contemplative. Music, like the written word can let a person lose themselves down trains of thought that change or clarify each time it's listened to. This is not to say that video games and movies do not change in meaning, but that usually comes after you watch/experience it.

As I write this however, even in video games is my thinking  bit fuzzy. I feel sometimes that in some games that I enjoy quite a bit there are built in pauses, or in some cases branching points. I feel in particular that a good example would be Fallout 3. For those of you who do not know the game, Fallout 3 is an rpg, but an open one. Meaning you can choose to pursue the main plot as quickly as possible, or branch off at any point to explore the rest of the world as you will. But this, in the context of that particular plot has it's own problems. I think a closer example to built in pauses would be games such as Portal 1-2, the Half-Life series, and Bungie's games. These example typically have short but periodical vignette scenes or quiet breaths where the player can then absorb particular parts of the story. I think, in particular the Marathon trilogy of Bungie does an excellent job in this where the story is actually told through text. The gaming part then becomes just a tool so one can get to the next terminal which you can read and think about as you search for the next one.

To go back to books and written stories, this is the effect I hope to achieve in my writing (hopefully because of quality). Reader's should have the freedom to explore the dark or shaded areas of a novel and fill in the blanks. Even the most thorough plots leave so much unexplored, and indeed, the more complete a world is the more questions a reader then has. A good story should be like the most complex maze every imagined: because that maze is built by every step a reader takes in whatever direction is chose.

My Portal 2 Review Pt 2: Dear Chell

Caution! This post on Portal 2 CONTAINS SPOILERS! However, even if you have not played the game and just want to read more about it regardless of spoilers then by all means go on ahead :) (although watching a "Let's Play" Video of both Portal 1 and 2 would help you to familiarize yourself with it).

As I said in my first part of my Portal 2 Review the story is, when you actually look closely at it, amazing. It's hard to notice it in Portal 1, as the story is mostly in the scenery. Portal 1 makes you feel that you're waking up in a story almost at the end and that you're rushing to the finish. But, again, the story seems more to do about the world you're in rather than Chell...or so it seems until Portal 2.

So I figure I should put out my base theory about Chell and Glados right out at the very beginning. Glados is Caroline and Chell is Caroline's (Glados') daughter, and her father is Cave Johnson (this might be altered somewhat to say that Chell is Caroline...but I prefer above idea better). Also keep in mind this story assumes that the crazy scientist guy who writes all the stuff on the wall is not related to Chell and is just a crazy smart guy...although I suppose it could be Cave Johnson...which would also make sense for why Rat Man is still alive and cares so much about Chell...

How is this possible? Well to completely answer this question I have to start with Portal 1 and then tell a story. Frist, we have to answer why Chell starts in such an odd situation in Portal 2. Think for a moment: EVERYONE in the Aperture Labs has been killed by a neurotoxin...Except Chell. Why is Chell spared? I'm sure Glados could have circumvented whatever safe guards might have been in place around Chell (or maybe Caroline put them in place herself?) or could have found some way to kill Chell while she was sleeping. On to the next bit of information...Glados makes repeated pokes at the fact that Chell is adopted or has been given away. But notice that even in Portal 1 there is that brief mention of "Bring Your Daughter to Work Day." So by themselves (And even in combination) in Portal 1 these two bits of information do not mean much...until you add them to the bits revealed in Portal 2.

Now things get a bit tricky...So first off there is early on that mention of Wheatley's about "Bring Your Daughter..." where he says it was a bad day...that everyone was killed (which is obvious otherwise the experiments would have been taken down). So if Chell was Caroline's daughter then obviously she would have been taken on that work day. Next...I think Wheatley also talks about Chell being adopted which is odd that this continually is brought up.

Fast Forward a bit to when Glados is woken up. So now we have Glados talking about you're being adopted still, in addition to talking about your weight. I don't know about you, but for some reason this really seems like something a terror of a mother would do to her kid...X3 of course I might be wrong. So gradually you continue on until you reach Aperture's lower levels you come into contact with Aperture's earlier story and learn about Cave Johnson and Caroline. During this it is all but said that Caroline becomes Glados (Cave Johnson's last request is that if he should die, then Caroline would be put into a computer to run Aperture). Now...again up to this point it is entirely believable that Chell is just a test subject...Glados is still Caroline but there is no connection. But then you get to the absolute end of the game where Glados is talking to you before sending you off to the surface. She keeps talking about how she needed your help and that now she knew where Caroline existed but with your help she could now delete it. Also she said that at first she wanted you dead, but now just want's you to leave. This to me is very odd...and to me resembles a huge conflict between the Caroline part and the Glados part. Maybe Chell was a living form of conscience restriction on Glados and that as long as she was there Glados could not do what she wanted. But now with Chell simply 'gone' Glados has found the easier path. And Glados triumphs over the Caroline part....or does she?

Now jump ahead to the turret opera song as you ride up the elevator. Sounds nice, no? Well I did a bit of searching to find the English translation and that's when I knew (for myself at least) that Caroline was Chell's mother...The song keeps on saying things like, "My Dear Chell..." and such, even repeating at the very end 'My darling, My dear, My darling..." Could Caroline still be somewhere in Glados' mind? Maybe it's a bleedthrough that comes out in the turret's song? Maybe Glados has put the Caroline part of herself into the turrets?

Fast forward just a bit more to the ending song. Chronology-wise this actually was the part that first sparked my many questions about Portal 2. The song itself seems an odd fit for the Portal story, especially after the song "Still Alive." I listened to the words over and over, each time feeling that something was strange about it. Now I believe I know what that is. This song, to me, sounds like something a mother would say to a kid...but if that mother was still suffering internal conflict about being a mother and being a scientist (etc). I know it's a off the wall thought, but the song really does seem sad, but happy...conflicted. "You want your freedom, Take it, It's what I'm counting on." and, "You're someone else's problem now, that's what I'm counting on."

So...there you go! There are probably major holes that I'm missing here but still...this seems to make an odd sort of sense that falls in line with the Portal story...Why Chell? Why is she so important and why does Glados have such a fixation on her? Why out of all the test subjects in Portal 2 is Chell still alive and not a complete vegetable (you still jump to say you like apples....). It seems as though everything revolves around your relationship to Glados and Aperture Labs...Why would Portal 2 put you through the backstory of Aperture? I mean the obvious answer is to just tell more about Glados...but why would this be done? I refuse to believe that this is simply another case of 'background story' and that there is something more going on...

My Portal 2 Review: If Life Gives you a Portal Gun...

News: I know these next two posts may border on flooding my blog, but that is really not my aim. I do have quite a few ideas for blog posts and I try to restrict them to Sundays only, and this project has become incredibly fun. I hope anyone who reads this finds it the same way. Now onto the blog proper!

This is the first part in a two part blog post on Portal 2. These posts will be my personal opinions about the game. But why two posts you ask? Well I am a little tired of people posting handicapped reviews with no spoilers or posting reviews with spoiler warnings sprinkled through the entire piece. This will be a way for me to bypass this. This post will contain no spoilers and focus on a general review of the game as a whole, the gameplay, graphics, etc. The second post (probably around Thursday or Friday) will contain spoilers as it will be a deeper look into the story of Portal 2. That being said, let's begin!

This has been a triumph!

Portal 2, to sum up was a wonderful game. The three things I usually use to weigh a game are story, gameplay, and lastly graphics. Music while awesome, I usually place in a distant fourth because, if it really sucks I can turn it off and use my own music :).

The story of Portal 2 I think does a wonderful job of extending and giving depth to Portal 1's story. While some may say that Portal 1's story was very simple, Portal 2 adds new questions that suddenly make Portal 1 seem the tip of an iceberg. You get a better sense of how Aperture Science came to be and what happened to it. Valve has done an amazing job to create a very intriguing story that has the player asking many questions. As of right now I don't think I have enough skill to go about describing the story any more without revealing anything. So, those of you who read this and have not played Portal 2, take my word for it that the story is amazing and entertaining. It isn't anything on the scale of "A Game of Thrones" but it has a grandness all it's own.

On to gameplay. Again Valve has worked it's magic with physics and a accessible, easily learned set of controls. While the controls are simple, the puzzles and the ways that the game put's these controls to the test are challenging. I wouldn't say that Portal 2 offers the most difficult ever, or that re-playability is endless, but they are fun to play through every once in a while. The physics is the same awesome it's always been and you won't be disappointed by the new puzzle solving toys that the game offers. I think I would have liked a little more difficulty in the puzzles as sometimes I felt that there was a general pattern to how to solve them. Once this pattern was found then it could be run through a second time easily. I think though, that the mot fun that can be had in Portal 2 would come from co-op. Now since I didn't have the capability to play co-op I was not able to judge it, but I was able to watch a couple of let's plays. From what I've seen the best that Portal 2 has to offer in terms of gameplay comes from the interaction between the two people playing. Find a friend and work through puzzles, making funny mistakes and playing tricks...fun to say the least.

Onto graphics. As I'm sure everyone who has had interest in Portal 2 knows (from screenshots and such) Portal 2 is an amazingly stunning game. Just like in Half-Life 2, Valve does an excellent job in making the world seem incredibly large. The scenery is all quite extraordinary and you can become lost in simply observing the different panoramas. My one and only gripe with Portal 2 is that while you can see a large world, I did feel a little limited in where I could go. This however is a small gripe. You do always get a sense that you are 'going' places. Furthermore in those moments of high speed running (like being chased) you also feel a sense of scale, like the world is zipping by. I suppose what I'd like to see Valve do is something akin to a combination of the Portal premise and Fallout 3. The idea here is that you actually get to explore the Aperture labs in an open way and accomplish objectives, but do so at your own leisure. Now of course such a project would be incredibly huge...but it is something I'd like to see sometime! (Valve if you read this...)

Lastly, music. I have to say, the music in Portal 2 is far an above the music of Portal 1 (I am not yet voicing my opinion about the ending song however!). The music however is the kind that blends into the ambient sounds which I count as a good thing. It's awesome to say the least. You only notice it if you listen for it, but when you forget it's there it becomes part of the world around you. It's a pleasant effect. The ending song I actually like quite a bit. I know a lot of Portal 1 "Still Alive" fans might troll me on this, but the more I listened to it the more I came to like it. The odd tune grows on you and you just start to think when you listen to it. "Still Alive" was a good song, but I felt it was just a sort of parting shot by Glados. "Want You Gone" is such an odd choice for the end of Portal 2, because of it'd oddness it raises questions about why it was chosen for Portal 2...Here is where I start treading on the ground for my second post so I will cut off here. I hope this was great to read and that if you haven't played it, will make you want to give it a try!

Demography of Fantasyland

News first. This week I'll be posting a two part Portal 2 review. Well actually the first post will be a review but it will contain NO spoilers. The second part to my Portal 2 posts WILL contain spoilers as it will be my take on the story; so if you want to keep the surprises to yourself do not read the second post until after you have beaten Portal 2. that being said...on we go!

Hello and welcome to my second part of the investigation of Fantasyland. The first part, in case you missed it, was my post on the Geography of Fantasyland. Here I'll be looking at the portrayal of cultures, species, and societies in fantasy stories.

One of the fascinating aspects of fantasy writing is the interaction of different cultures and how that is sometimes mixed with the interaction of humanity with species from it's own mythology. Of course one of the best and most used examples of such an interaction would be between elves and humans. A lot of the fantasy I have read uses elves, dwarves, and various other species. But some do so better than others...well actually I feel that quite a lot of fantasy does not portray other species in a realistic way. To better explain the problem in demography in a fantasy setting, writers often simply create monolithic cultures and societies.

While I enjoy Dungeons and Dragons as much as the next person, that world has lead to a lot of people producing the 'other' as a stereotype. To give a better example; I enjoy reading R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt Series, but I do have to swallow the rather entertaining story with a grain of salt (Several actually). Dwarves, elves, orcs, etc, all have similar societies everywhere regardless of geography in the Forgotten Realms world. While I do partly believe that there are inherent characteristics in a species that show across geography, I do not think that would manifest into Scottish accents and a disposition for mining everywhere.

I do however think that if a writer doesn't want to come up with a highly complicated regional history for every branch of culture a particular species has, then he/she can make the fact that a species is a monoculture part of the story. For example in David Weber's Safehold series the entire planet is dominated by a singular religion and main language. But he uses this as part of the story, an obstacle for humanity to overcome if it wants to survive. Another theme (that I will not go into in depth) is the idea of the Singularity, where humanity becomes so advanced that they become one culture and, some would say, one mind.

Transferring this to Fantasyland, I think the best example of a pseudo-monoculture would be the elves and dwarves of Middle-Earth. To really get a sense of this however, you should read the Silmarillion (or failing that check it out on Wikipedia :) ). Essentially the elves spring to life all in one place and start to develop their own culture and language. This is used to 'color' the elves for everything that happens after. However, Tolkien realized quite correctly that time, distance, and influences, would create different subcultures. He showed this variance through language, bloodlines, geography, and certain key plot twists (which were then mostly represented by language, bloodlines, or geography). For example, there re huge differences in culture and language between the elves who stayed in Middle Earth, the elves who journeyed to Valinor, and the elves who later returned to Middle Earth. An even better subject of an well deployed monoculture in Middle Earth would be the dwarves. Their entire civilization sprang from the hand of one of the Valar and remained few in number throughout the stories. As they existed in a limited area, their cultures and languages did not vary much. Wherever someone went in Middle Earth, one could expect dwarves to be similar as they all came from one place.

One interesting result from humans writing these stories is that humans are the only people who have multiple cultures (which are seen, heard, and felt in stories) but other species do not. Now unless the writer gives some compelling reason, pertinent to the story, of why said species is a monoculture, then I would expect a species like dwarves to have many different kinds of cultures that vary just like humans. I would expect there to be different dialects, languages, customs, etc to spring up as the different species expand and progress through time. Quite a number of the fantasy authors I have read have taken pains to stress the variability of human culture and so I do not feel as pushed to harp on that line (although in certain cases it is still a problem). Even in Salvatore's work, there is a sense that humans in one place are different from humans in another.

In my stories set in wonderful Fantasyland I hope to give different shades of the species I include. I do not want my readers to feel like the world is bland. I do not believe (and hope not) that humans are the 'only' sentience capable of having different cultures. I imagine a key aspect to sentient life to be a wonderful ability to grow in different and unexpected ways. It makes sense that new cultures and regional histories develop and that regardless of species, people become different. Wouldn't that be a much more fascinating and exciting world to travel in? Isn't reality amazing because of the same?

Bonus post: Minecraft Mosques and Broomsticks

I know I said in my previous post that my next would be on the demographic and cultural aspects of Fantasyland, but this dream was so much fun that I couldn't resist posting it.

So it starts with myself flying in the air high above a Minecraft world. For some reason in my dream I don't think that this was a virtual world and in fact thought that it was reality. Below there was this gigantic structure that looked very much like pictures of Mosques I had seen. From a distance it was all blocky and very easily discernible as being a Minecraft creation. It was all browns and blacks though, cut through with green grass. I decide then to fly down and now I noticed my mode of transportation: a broom. Now the flying was not some variation of Harry Potter, all stiff and clunky, this was more like 'Kiki's Delivery Service' flying; It was like being on something like a combination of an ice skate and a kite without wings flying in a windy sky, where every slight touch was responded to by the broom as if it were a part of me.

So there I was flying down to the Mosque-like structure and it began to become more real instead of being simply blocks. As I walked around the courtyard I began to be drawn closer and closer to the main building which again was in all dark grays, browns and blacks. Despite it being sunny out, this place seemed to absorb the light and be perpetually dim. I should point out that I did not feel that this place was scary at all, it was more mysterious than anything. I remember walking up these steps (past a grated and ornately covered well).Inside this initial room there was this metal grating hanging like partitions or like the shelves in a library and it the iron was twisted into this strange language. It seemed to be a combination not of Arabic or Persian, but of Norse, Hieroglyphics, and Sanskrit. And it was not uniform, at some times it would seem to be completely one language and then gradually flow into the next, the middle being a mishmash of two forms. For some reason I felt that it was then time to leave and I noticed that the grating was the same on the coverings of the well I had passed. As I made my way to the center of the courtyard I noticed that there were people filtering in. Their clothing was heavy and thick but somehow I could tell that they were all women. Their clothing actually resembled how the Gondorian Rangers were portrayed in Peter Jackson's LOTR movies (without decoration and greens). They had black cloths over their mouths and wore deep earth brown cloaks over black and dark gray garments. They too seemed to absorb light making them look like shadows. No one was speaking, or making any noise at all. Again I was not afraid or got a sense of fear, I just felt like I had run out of time and should be going. So I got my broom ready and zoomed off through the front gate.

Next thing I knew I was exiting a shopping center near my house that had now turned into a school and it was graduation for something. I remember feeling so happy and that it had something to do with my broom. This, in my opinion was the best part of my dream, and also the shortest. I hopped up onto my broom and then started to fly around the general area gripping the wood tightly with my legs and performing all the aerial acrobatics I could think of. I flew high into the air and dived, zooming at high speeds and narrowly avoiding trucks and cars. I remember flying backwards upside down and as I started to wake up I actually felt like I could control where I was going and what I was doing. I could feel the lightness of my body and the wind on my face as if I weighed nothing at all and became part of the air around me, slipping and sliding above the ground just an inch away from out-of-control. I felt so very happy, and that was driving my flying.

If you have not seen 'Kiki's Delivery Service' by Hayao Miyazaki (Studio Ghibli) then I suggest that you do so. It is a wonderful movie and a joy to watch. I hope you had fun reading this, because I definitely had fun writing it.

Geography of Fantasyland

It seems to be that lately I've been neglecting the "Dungeons" part of this blog! I shall rectify this oversight.

This is a two part post. This one will deal with the subject of Geography in the Fantasy novel, and the second post will be on the subject of Demography where I'll write concerning species, cultures, and history. The next post might be later this week or next Sunday, I have not decided which.

One key item to any fantasy story is the subject of geography; Who lives where, what are the distances involved, how does weather act, and a host of other questions. In fact one of the staples of the Fantasy genre has been the inclusion of a map at the beginning of a novel. One unfortunate result of the map tendency has been the story's reliance on the map in place of comprehensive description within the prose itself. Or rather, a dependency on using the map for understanding physical elements in the story. Should a map play such an important role in a novel? Or should the story alone be able to stand independent from such a physical representation. Furthermore, the less hard properties of climate often lack any sort of realism in a fantasy novel (for instance you might find deserts in places where they shouldn't be, tropical areas that seem out of place, or mountain ranges that appear coincidentally to the story etc.).

On my first point of geography I'll use Tolkien as an example of what I believe is one correct way to use maps. As practically everyone knows Tolkien is the main progenitor of the fantasy novel, and of course included a map of Middle Earth. While his map was useful for understanding the travels of the Fellowship, the reader could in fact read the trilogy in its entirety without so much as glancing at the map. Indeed the map served as a simple enhancement to what was written on the pages. If reading carefully a person could easily understand what direction a party was traveling in, how long it would take to get to place to place, and where places were roughly located. Furthermore the descriptions of these physical geographic characteristics in the Lord of the Rings was handled in a very entertaining and poetic way (I would point to the sections describing the Fellowship's journey south to Moria, the description of Lothlorien, and the section describing Minas Tirith and the surrounding countryside). While other books do try to describe travels the same way, often they just do the bare minimum of making sure the reader knows where everything is located and expect the Map to be used rather than as a point of interest. There is a sense that the map is supposed to occupy a key plot point. I can only say that even Tolkien took time to describe the portions of the map that were relevant; if there was a key plot point, it had it's place within the prose of the work. Examples of maps being used in a typical way would include the Dragonlance books and Eregon. Other examples where I feel maps have been used to great effect would be McCaffery's Pern books, R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series, Salvatore's Drizzt books, and of course topping all bout be Terry Pratchet's work.

Now I'll turn to the other part of geography, that of climate. As I pointed out I've read many fantasy books where there are misplaced terrains. Now there isn't exactly a reason why a jungle might be located in particular area it's just that there is no pattern as there is on Earth. I do agree that in a novel that has magic as a key point that certain areas can be magically induced (Lothlorien or Mordor for example) but I would expect that there would be certain patterns that occur; wind patterns, ocean currents, tectonic movement etc. Again to reference Tolkien, he had much of Middle Earth's climate explained by assuming that it was based in northwestern Europe (approximately). Another stunning example of the use of climate in a story would be R.R. Martin's work. "A Song of Ice and Fire" is heavily involved by the unique climate of the world and the terrain actually does follow some sort of pattern. The reader can then expect certain kinds of weather, obstacles, and events in a given area or a reader can guess where a scene is located by the description.

Now what does this say about the use of a map in a fantasy novel? Well it must be said that the use of a map has become cliche to some extent. But I feel that a map can be used in certain circumstances. A map should not be used as an 'accurate' depiction of the world, but more of an approximation. Markers for terrain can be given but always be sure to let there be enough room in interpretation so that the reader can create their own idea of the place described. A map is a tool to give an idea of the boundary and scope of the lands involved. In this way then the map is actually a supplement to the story itself instead of a page that must be constantly flipped back to in order to understand what is going on.

Bonus post: Maybe William Blake knew the Doctor?

I noticed that if you change just a few words here and there in William Blake's "Tiger" it is quite relevant to the Dr. Who story...eerily so! Just thought it might be interesting to put up.

TARDIS, Tardis, flashing bright

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant times or skies

Burnt the fire of thine eyes?

On what wings dare he aspire?

What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art

Could twist the sinews of thy heart?

And when thy hearts began to beat,

What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?

In what furnace was thy brain?

What the anvil? What dread grasp

Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,

And water'd heaven with their tears,

Did He smile His work to see?

Did He who saved the Earth save thee?

Tardis, Tardis, flashing bright

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Building Backgrounds and POV

The past few days I've run into yet another stumbling block on the short story I am working on. It revolves around a problem I actually have fairly often when writing. It focuses around the relationships between characters and character development. I find that to myself, my characters tend to seem very similar to each other and often this becomes a problem. When the characters are all similar then the answers to problems are essentially a given. There is no suspense, sense of growth, or variety. This problem also carries over to character's reactions to events in the story; if they all react the same way then what's the point of writing the story in the first place?

So that brings us to my brainstorm last night. There are two ways that I feel I need to constantly remind myself when writing a particular scene: One is to anchor a scene with a character in mind, and the other is to keep in mind the background of the characters involved. When a scene is anchored to a certain character that allows the writer to easily draw upon that character's insights, experiences, and characteristics and avoids the risk of having a scene become so scattered that the reader loses track of who is the central focus. Now sometimes of course a scene must be written by switching from character to character but if so it should be handled carefully and very clearly. Anchoring a character can also be used as a plot device as you can hide key elements to the story in plain sight or avoid writing a very tedious but key scene elsewhere. In my own case using anchoring in my short story allows me to keep the focus on the main character and her conflict both inner and outer without hopelessly expanding the story to include everyone else. The problem with rich characters is that they too have their own stories begging to be told!

Now anchoring a character also leads to the second item: a good background. When you anchor a scene in a story to a particular character (or set of characters) you then are able to draw upon who that character is and what they represent. This requires a sort of understanding of who they are. Now like any good argument sometimes you do not get around to formulating an argument until all the research is done. Sometimes you do not really know who a character is until you've done the work of working out their defining history. As I said above sometimes my characters have been flat when compared to each other (and I hope this will change). By concentrating on their backgrounds I can then tweek them into a variety of people. I can build the differences into my characters and thus populate my stories with a wide range of personalities that can clash or mesh.

To help with this, a friend of mine came up with a simple format for a story reader that sparked this idea. Simply put you look at the setting(s) of the story, the plot, the characters individually, and then the character's relationships to each other. This allows the writer to see in a condensed and focused format, how the characters interact and fit into the story. This allows you to hopefully see the similarities and differences between characters and how to build them into unique pieces to your story. It forces the writer to really consider what makes their characters different by boiling away all the story around them. By looking at the characters under a microscope their personalities can be clarified and give the writer answers as to how a character will view, react, and feel about a given scene or event. Now I do not mean to say this is the only way to go about this but I have found it useful. And I also do not mean to claim that this will make me (or others) into a perfect writer but it should help organize my thoughts and writing to a finer point. Hopefully whoever reads this will find a similar thought process useful. Any other thoughts or advice would always be welcome. I realize that this is a shorter than usual post, but I feel that the content is something that can really be expanded through commentary. In short I feel that this post (and my posts in general) to be premises for further discussion, tips of icebergs.

Have Dreams Will Travel

As I mentioned waaaay back in my blog I will be posting any fun/interesting dreams I have. The main reason I want to and enjoy doing this is because I cant draw...I have really clear dreams that I can picture in my mind clearly. And while they do fade (because I have other things to think about) sometimes I just want to record them; I want to remember them in a descriptive way. So, since I cannot draw I write.

That brings me to the dream I had the night before last. There were various parts of the dream that I had, but the main part, the part I remember the most, is what I will describe. The dream starts with myself picking a lock to a man's apartment. Intuitively I knew I was some sort of detective investigating a criminal's place for evidence. It was night time and the hallway I was in was dark with wood floors. One inside the living room I turned on the lights (for what reason I do not know, seem's like a very stupid thing to do!). The room is set as if it were in the 1910's-20's and very expensive. The walls were blue with white trimming and I remember distinctly an ornate gold chandelier hanging form the ceiling. Eventually I come to the suspect's bedroom and start riffling through his roll-top desk (btw the lighting was gaslights not electrical). While I was searching (I do not know what for) I hear the door open and hear footsteps and a curse. They guy see's the lights on and pulls out a gun. I manage to hide myself inside his closet and hope that my clothing blends in with his, as well as my shoes with his. However some how he knows where I am and I can see his rounded jowly face clearly as he approaches. He's balding with a wisp of black hair still covering the top of his shiny head and he pulls me out. Now he holds the gun on me and starts demanding that we go to the bank right that moment to go withdraw some obscene amount of money. I am surprised and dismayed in my dream that he apparently doesn't realize that banks would be closed at this late hour but he still insists and becomes more and more angry. Finally I manage to come up with some sort of excuse that includes he can lock me up until morning when the banks will be open. So it's almost like a page is turned because the next thing I know we are walking along a cobble stone street with a huge river to our left. It reminds me of pictures/images I've seen of London, and the buildings on my right are big rectangular but with architecture that reminds me of the Buckingham Palace (best way I can describe it since I don't know the right words). There are horse drawn carriages that clatter along, and people walking by in heavy clothing, sometimes coats or even cloaks. When we step into the bank in particular it's amazing. The cavernous room is a warm golden color. The floor is white marble squares outlined in gold leaf. The walls are lined with columns and the lobby furniture is exquisite. The people who use this bank are obviously very rich and even come here to socialize as food and drink are being offered to those waiting on the seats. The place is lit up everywhere and sparkling. The man behind me follows me to the teller and still has his gun on my back. I realize the only person I can count on to rescue me is the lady teller in front of me so I wait for the guy to leave and then try to tell her my situation...only to discover that the guy is behind me again! And that is where it ended...I was interrupted by my cat who decided to act as my alarm clock

The interesting thing is that I remember more than I am even able to write down. If I could draw I could depict it clearly I am sure! And another interesting thing is I remember how everyone else looked exactly, except for myself. I don't know what I was wearing or anything. The whole dream felt as if I was watching a rather bad detective movie or a Sherlock Holmes rip off. Anyways I don't really analyze my dreams I just thing that dreams like this are fun both to describe and to write down. Consider this reading for enjoyment.

The Deepest Motivations - answered? Or left puzzles...

Before  I start posting I'd like to point out a tiny item of interest. This is my 14th post. It just so happens though that my 7th post gained a lot of attention as did my first (for obvious reasons). It would be interesting to see if this post follows that pattern, after all the tru7h is out there!.

NOTE: this note was written after writing the blog post > Please excuse me if this post seems a bit of a ramble, disjointed and confusing. In some ways, on the topic I will be discussing, I feel the same way. If you could bear with me, I hope this post will provide something to think bout.

Onto the blog proper. Lately I've found that the sci-fi short story I've been working on has reached a blockage (one that I've been working on and made progress). My short stories (whether sci-fi or fantasy) I set in a larger universe (Separate for SF and fantasy). Thus each time I write a short piece I am not only working on my larger stories as a whole, but I have a framework to use. However this also brings up certain problems. When I write my characters or settings I have to consider them in the larger context of the world(s) in which they inhabit. This means I have to come up with a whole set of factors for why certain characters act certain ways that aren't explicitly revealed in the piece itself (the same goes for setting). For the current piece I'm working on I found myself stumbling on a character's motivation for a certain action. This motivation however is what puzzles me. I can describe from the actual actions the reasons for the actions preceding it....but when I get to the base motivation the true why of a motivation I find myself stumbling.

It goes without saying that when considering the deep motivation of a character or group of characters, I am trying to avoid motivations that have been used before. Before I go on I feel the need to explain why I am not going into specifics; Apart from wanting to keep my ideas between myself, friends, and family, I want to work out a way to understand how to think about motivations. I think the best way for me to come up with them, to put it another way, is to work out a way of thinking about motivations.

What does one consider when working out the deep motivations behind a character's actions? When discussing humans sometimes the answer is easy; It's love, it's anger, it's sadness, it's joy etc. But at other times it can be much more complicated; Politics, religion, duty, insanity. All of these things are hidden in a person's mind. They can in fact be carried to their death without ever being revealed or hinted at except under the greatest scrutiny (emotions are much the same way! Secret love, revenge, jealousy etc.) Interestingly, to point out that these concealed (emotional or otherwise) motivations can be always be layered, without order, depending on the individual. In reality there is never a way we can truly grasp what lays at the bottom of a person's motivations, but should this be the same for a writer? Should a writer leave these deepest motivations  in a hole? Or should a writer illuminate what the writer thinks of as the motivations for an action or a life. Insanity is particularly interesting. It has been the subject of much scrutiny (both from within the ranks of psychology and from without). Michel Foucault in particular investigated the political/governmental aspects of deciding who was insane and who was not. While there have been many arguments as to the accuracy of Foucault's evidence and theories, for my purposes I feel that the questions raised are enough to ponder. Psychology has been able to categorize and investigate an all manner of mental conditions, and thus theorize as to their motivations. But the much of the progress they have made has been by the examinations of voluntary subjects. The involuntary ones are interesting because how do we know for sure that what we have discovered has leaded us in the right direction? In fact, how do we know that those who are voluntary in the world of psychology are in fact voluntary and not leading us on?

Of course clever investigators can pick up on the tiniest details in order to reveal more about a person's motivations, but that of course is not a true clear picture. This goes back to my question of the writer, and then to my own puzzle. Some of my favorite stories do not reveal the motivations (or even the identities) of characters in order for the reader to puzzle them out. Each interpretation (based upon the evidence provided by the story) can alter the message of the story as a whole, which provides endless rereading and investigating. But on the other hand, some of my other favorite stories do their best to clarify who characters are, and why they act. This then provides a way for the author to give a message upon a point; to be able to say something about human character or the world in general. But is this limiting? Would this then flatten the characters into beings that aren't entirely real, only able to exist upon the pages of a story?

Any discussion about this would be very welcome.

Somewhere among the stars...they are waiting(?)

Lately I've been digging into the Marathon story page (http://marathon.bungie.org/story/mainpage.html). For those of you who do not know about Bungie's earlier first person shooter, check out the wiki page for the Marathon game series. The Marathon universe (an apt name after looking through the discussion on the story page) is a rich one, filled with references to philosophy, literature, history, and mythology. As there have been many good and accurate summaries of the entire Marathon trilogy I would again point you to the wiki page for starters, and then to the story page listed above. But what does this all have to do with a blog post? What is my topic? I suppose a good blogger would have put that up in the very beginning...well then, one thing that grabbed at me while reading the various theories on almost every aspect of the Marathon story was the  need for people to demonstrate, debate, or debunk connections between plot points, fill in or open up blank spots, and propose theories that would 'explain' why the games turned out the way they did and what the games are trying to imply (and to explain the crucial questions that the games do not answer). I could not but help be amazed by how drawn in both others and myself could be at the Gordion Knot that is Marathon.

(Of course many people would say, and be in a sense right to do so, that it's just a game you ninny! Just accept it and take it as it comes and be satisfied by the 'obvious' answers...A game does not deserve this kind of attention!)

Ahem...now why would anyone be drawn in to this degree into the story of Marathon? Well the answer is obviously complicated and has multiple facets but I think one is (and for me is extremely significant) is that Marathon is inextricably tied with human history as well as humanity's nature, place in the universe, and potential. This ties Marathon to some of the best traditions of sci-fi, in that it tries to tell the story of 'this' reality and illuminates aspects of what we are and could be. I would propose stories like Dr. Who, Firefly, Star Trek (yes it can be cheesy, but sometimes cheese is good), Half-Life, Terry Pratchet's work, Heinlein's, Asimov's, and a host of others. Of course this tradition could be said to be a tradition of literature in general, but I'd like to stick to Sci-Fi and Fantasy for my blog's sake.

Marathon shows our humanity (both past and present) through it's story by various means; It offers humanity terrible threats, both external (The Pfhor, The W'rkncacnter) and internal (Rampant A.I.'s, as well as human's with their own agendas) which reveal certain aspects of ourselves, it shows our humanity through our constructions (A.I.'s, weapons (such as the A.I.'s themselves and the military cyborg's), our understanding and reaction to the other (The Pfhor again, the Sph't, the Jjaro, and the A.I.'s), and offer's questions about our humanity by considering 'our' place in the universe. This last is extremely debateable though as the player character is possibly not entirely human and the player's director's are mostly not human either...indeed humans only figure in on the very edge of the stories (Humans as we know, completely flesh and blood). One last device by which Bungie has used the above plot devices to reveal these intense philosophical and theoretical questions has been the use of actual history and real people/events. Now obviously I am not saying that the conspiracies and inaccuracies are to be taken as wholly factual and that we are actually in the Marathon universe, but what I am saying is that Bungie has made ample use of real life resources for the symbolism and connection to the real. The use of Latin, mythology, history, literature, science, and references to names, places, and events, all do their part to offer a story that is rich and leaves more questions when finished than answers. (A possible critique to bring up here is that the mythology and history used by Bungie is primarily European/Western...but if you read the story page on Marathon you should be able to pick up bits and pieces of what inspired Bungie, which should help to illuminate, but not answer, why Marathon turned out the way it did). These references (left in odd places which only the sharp-eyed would notice) are then coupled to the goals and events in the actual game itself - You're endless obedience to whoever is ordering you, Durandal's goal of escaping the collapse of the Universe to become god, Tycho's rampancy, The Pfhor's religion and enimity (these are just a few). The symbolism, the references, and the real time events combine to tell a story about who we are even though the game is an actual shooter...odd huh? That the action in the game could really be just to get from one neon green terminal screen to the next, like turning a page in a book but having to fight for each bit of information...only to find that when you get there it's either garbled, incomplete, or obscure. 

As I write this I also have come to see another draw people (and myself) is that this story, in it's "completion" also seeks to posit questions about the creation of the universe, the idea of the eternal hero, and if the nature of history is somehow tied to the birth and death of the universe (using the eternal hero as a tool or instigator). This even becomes further complicated by theories of the connections (both those in favor of an actual connection, and those simply wanting to illuminate the similarities) between the Marathon series and the newer, more familiar, Halo series...I won't begin to get into the connections here as they have already been amply 'got into' elsewhere on the Halo story page. However I bring this up because a lot of the theories about the actual connection between the two universes, and what these theories have to say about 'the larger picture' in their own respective stories is what intrigues me.

Up to this point I have been trying to describe what has hooked me about the Marathon Story. The Marathon universe that Bungie created has sought to fold humanity into a larger pattern regarding the universe and history. Humanity is at once both the tool and the instigator in these struggles around the control of fate and one's own destiny. Now why is this of interest to me? Well right now I am debating with myself about my own stories. Some of the best stories I have read have been about folding humans (on an individual level or as a species) into larger patterns prompting questions about destiny, agency, and the nature of history. On the other hand, I could write my stories in a universe where humanity is just one species in a galaxy full of adventure. A universe where the message would read "We are the purveyors of our own destiny and responsible for what we do." But could not the same message be said in the earlier mode? I guess what I am asking is...should my stories be in the context of a greater story, should humanity be playing some part in a greater picture? or should we be on equal footing with other actors - that there are no actors that have a greater influence on time, history, or destiny than others and that all strive. Both could be great stories...but...I don't know, something about the way Bungie has handled their stories is very grabbing. Conspiracies could be so much fun!

The Doctor and You

First before the post and update: Been a crazy past few weeks. Finishing up another semester at Berkeley put me away from posting here but I'm back! Well I guess crazy is a bit of an understatement, long story short I'm spending another year at Berkeley due to an unexpected lack of credits. Having to take more classes at Cal...big loss huh? =D

Anyways on to the subject of today's post: Doctor Who and his companion

I should start off and say that my experience with Doctor Who has been limited by the first two seasons of the 2005 reboot and thus I haven't seen how the Doctor interacts with other companions. This post is based off of the assumption then that his relationships (both with the Companions and others) are similar in the ways I will be discussing.

Now to really begin...I swear.

Of course I had watched a scattering of Dr. Who episodes before this semester, but recently I had actually begun to watch them in earnest. The one thing that fascinated me from the very start is the nature and interaction between the Doctor and his companion (in this case Rose) and how that interaction is different and sometimes similar to other characters encountered on his travels.

The first thing that struck me by the Doctor's relationship with Rose was how the intense feelings between the two was always just barely restrained from bubbling forth. I've seen different versions of true love and love of the person rather than looks, but the kind of relationship portrayed in Dr. Who seemed incredibly different than every other story I could remember off the top of my head. On the surface one could say that it was their mutual experiences through the TARDIS that was the basis for the deep feelings, or that it was simply love at first sight, but I think that their relationship was deeper than that, or rather to say, different. Their relationship seemed to be based on who they were and a sort of understanding of intent; like something neither person could escape. Which brings up another point of interest, the Doctor can resist and escape a great many things, but the one person he could never pull away from unless under great, unimaginable pressure is Rose (again I'm assuming this is similar to other companions). Rose obviously does not have the knowledge the Doctor have, and the Doctor himself is odd and not human. And yet, their relationship seems to go beyond those limitations and appeals to something beyond even the Doctor's understanding. The Doctor does not just offer anyone a spot on the TARDIS, either they are there for  simple ride, are a companion, or they are there at the Companion's behest.

Yet if their relationship was just as simple as a mutual connection (even one they cannot readily understand) it seems as though such a connection would break if they ever brought it to fruition. This I think also gives a hint as to the basis for their relationship. They do seem to understand (Both the Doctor and Rose) that the dangers and wonders they face have to be confronted as companion and Doctor not as what they wish to be. Why is this? Well one answer could be destiny, that they were meant to face these dangers and wonders for a masterful purpose. But, while that might be a good plot point for the story of the Doctor I would like to think that there is some aspect of agency. This would then point to that understanding of their position. That understanding of their role in space and time is what cements them I think. They are drawn by something they cannot readily understand, but they do understand that if they were to follow through on their deep feelings that something negative would happen. Ultimately this is terribly hurtful to both, giving the story of the Doctor and Rose a bitter sweet tone. It causes for their suffering through many tense events and culminates in particular in the episodes School Reunion (Sarah Jane) and Doomsday.

I'm not sure that this is actually pinning down why I find this aspect of Doctor Who so fascinating, but but I feel that it is a step in the right direction. I could just be overthinking this whole topic but I really do feel that the way the Doctor's relationship with Rose is very telling of who Rose and the Doctor are as people.

I'd much appreciate any thoughts people have on this, as it is something I'd like to expand on and better understand.

If Jim Butcher can do it so can I

If Jim Butcher can do it so can I. What am I talking about you may ask? Magic I answer! What exactly does Jim Butcher do with magic that interests me so?

Well I'll tell you.

In every fantasy book I have ever read there has been magic. However in almost every fantasy book I have read magic has been treated in 2 ways. 1) the world in which magic exists is static and never changes. 2) Magic fades away as the world changes (think LOTR). Now I have no qualms with the later case as it is a logical solution to having human behavior interacting with magic. The histories of those worlds can progress and develop as expected when one deals with humans.

As to the first assumption, I have great reservations. Although the stories written with this kind of telling can be well done (even to the point of my completely forgiving for this transgression), it leaves an assumption about history and human behavior that I do not buy. In a world where Gods are real and magic exists, how could humans, being intensely curious creatures and incredibly intelligent, not find ways to rise to the top of whatever power structure there was or be destroyed trying? I find it hard to believe that books written in a fantasy world the culture/history etc never changes or develops as long as magic exists (or it is conveniently dropped as the second case). If there are rules for magic in a story then why haven't humans mastered those rules? Or developed systems for exploiting them? Now I'd like to turn to real history for a moment. Humans have never remained static in terms of culture, technology, science, philosophy, etc. The idea that humans would not burst out of the bubbles that many fantasy writers put around them is a bit disquieting. What I want to know is how do these worlds pan out. I want to know what this same world would look like a thousand years in the future when science is being developed and human culture has developed. I want to know how the 'fantasy' races deal with all of this and what their part is in the future of these worlds. As I said above, Tolkien and many other writers have used a time honored assumption that magic and all fantasy elements fade away to nothing. Like many other plot devices, this can be handled good or bad, but the ones who just let the outcome be assumed to be static or simply say 'it all goes away' are the ones I want more from. As a short example, though I enjoy R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt books, the world in which the stories take place seems static, or that the assumption is that 'it all goes away.' I want to know what happens in the future. In Tolkien's case he was writing a mythology for our world so, the ending was assumed in the best sense. Terry Pratchet however assumes and builds a world that is static on purpose and this I like. Pratchet's honesty is refreshing when the future of these worlds is addressed.

Now I come to Jim Butcher (it should be noted that at the moment I have only read his first Harry Dresden book and I am assuming his others are of similar quality). In the fantasy stories I want to write I want to address what happens when humans are in a world where magic does not fade away to nothing and does not create a static level of development. Included in that goal is discovering and interpreting how magic fits in to the present day. How does magic fit in to a world where there is the internet, jet planes, World Wars, etc? Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden books address this interaction in one possible way. Butcher's view is that magic has been on a downslope in history, pushed onto a back-burner and it is hinted that it might be on the rise again. The way Butcher writes about the cohabitation of magic and mundane in these stories gives me hope to write an even closer interaction between the two. I love how normal he makes the interactions seem and how totally believable the book's 'present' is; how it came to be. This brings me to my first statement, but elaborated; If Jim Butcher can write an exciting and believable account of magic existing in a present day setting (that takes into account human nature to discover, manipulate, use and explore) then there is hope that I can do so as well. I want to explore what happens when humans use magic in conjunction with what we already have....how can I explore our humanity when it is paired with such a force as magic?

Reading 'A Game of Thrones' II

Well! I actually finished reading 'A Game of Thrones' a few days ago. I wanted to have a chance to think about how I felt and write about the impressions that lingered with me (I also took a chance to read the first Harry Dresden book which I will post about very soon).

So on the first part of this topic I focused mainly on my fascination with Martin's fantastic depiction of intrigue that draws a reader in and his incredible command of physical description of the world in which he writes. These things I am happy to say carried through the entire book (although most of you who are reading this have probably already read it...multiple times to!). I suppose what I should give now is a general report of what I noticed while reading it.

Where to start...I suppose I ought to say that this book has every right to be made into a first class tv series (I'm avidly looking forward to watching it). I think that one thing that stood out to me after having thought about the book for a few days were the characters. I mentioned previously that the intrigue in the book was due in part to the variety and depth of the characters. While I write this and think about the book I can recall many characters with clarity because, even the 'minor' characters play a role. Martin does a wonderful job of cutting out extraneous items from his story, by making everything from geography, culture, history, and individuality, play a part in the telling of the tale. Could this be a bad thing? One of my friends mentioned that one possible pitfall of the tv series was that all the characters in 'AGOT' are larger than life, and that the way they are portrayed on screen may not live up to the book's standards. Could the fact that there are no extraneous characters/plot items in a story detract from it's reality? Well I suppose that question begs another question > how do we define reality? It could very well be that in our own lives we could choose to view our experiences as never extraneous, that everything plays a part in our life as a whole. Such a view on a story would then not just include the stories of the central characters, but of the stories of the characters around them. Maybe there is just a small tendency of Martin to not delve into the dispositions of the 'common folk,' treating them as a mass rather than a mass of individuals. He does include the dispositions and stories of the 'common folk' who are interacting with the central characters, but I would also like to see how they interact with those not in their constant vicinity. Anyways back to the things I liked about the characters who played a role. They were memorable. Their names, characteristics, desires (or their careful hiding of desires), all of it was so well defined and clear that I felt that I had a good enough mental picture of them to always have a reference in mind. Furthermore it wasn't just a cookie cutter representation either. The characters have faults and strengths. They all have their own histories which intermingle for stunning stories and relations.

Another impression I was left with was that this world had an incredible amount of historical depth. Maybe the history might not reach as far back as Tolkien's Middle Earth, but the history that was there was part of the trajectory that the story had. You could see clearly that past events (natural, historical, etc) had an effect on the 'present' of the book. The history of past dynasties, dragons, magic, and then the more recent history of Ned and Robert's pre-'AGOT' years all flow together. It feels as though there is a foundation that everyone in this world is working from, each with their own interpretations, reactions and expectations. This is a very human behavior and Martin captures it well.

The last thing I want to comment on regarding 'AGOT' was sparked by a general consensus those in my workshop group had about Martin's book, that was further reinforced by something I read on his wiki page. "George R.R. Martin," as said in the workshop I attend, "is very hard on his characters." His wiki page also acknowledged that he seems to be very cynical in his writing. I can't help but draw a parallel from Martin to Tolkien in that the story of Middle Earth as a whole only had 2 maybe 3 'happy endings' among countless tragedies. But for those who feel that these two writers are too cynical or choose to 'see the worst' in people I  would point them in the direction of human history. So much of our history is told by temporary happiness punctuated by tragic events that are either unavoidable or caused by hidden forces. A government might be newly democratic only to be knocked down by an Imperial power. A charismatic politician might secretly be addicted to a certain vice etc. Very rarely are there lasting happy endings to stories, and even many of those endings are eventually ripped to shreds by the world around them. 'AGOT' in particular is a perfect representation of a struggle humanity faces even now in the struggle of Ned Stark and his fate. There is a constant struggle from the individual level to the global of honest people trying to keep the peace and protect the welfare of the public, which is set in opposition to those who are dishonest and seek to benefit their own selfish views of life. I remember a person from a class I had last semester who was incredibly unsettled and I could say depressed by the sheer amount of tragedy and horror that existed in the world and how could anyone ever hope of opposing all the 'bad' in the world. Ned, in one interpretation, represents the need to oppose certain fates regardless of how hopeless it seems in the moment for the sake of the future...sometimes we do not fight for ourselves, but we fight for those generations years ahead of us. People in stories like Ned Stark are more prophetical than the identified prophets because of their principles and ideals regarding humanity and human behavior.

These are the reasons I like George R. R. Martin's 'AGOT.' it provides a myriad of outlooks on humanity and philosophies of life, and then takes them one step further by causing them to interact, oppose, and reinforce each other.

Note: I do intend on posting about my reading of Jim Butcher's 'Storm Front' tomorrow or the day after. The next subject is magic in a contemporary setting.

Reading 'A Game of Thrones' I

I have heard so many great things about George R. R. Martin from friends that I found myself buying the book to discover what the fuss was about. I have been reading it for a few days now and have only gotten to about page 130, but I am impressed and hooked completely. I also couldn't help but feel that this book reminded me of the movie 'A Man For All Seasons' about Henry VIII and his political battle about his divorces and the man who wouldn't agree or disagree. I realize that this book has been out for quite some time and that anything I say here has probably already been written about, but I feel compelled to talk about what I have noticed so far regardless.

Where to start...This book has so many things that have captivated me that it is difficult as I write this to choose. I suppose I should talk about what I have heard many others from my workshop group admire; the political intrigue. To discuss this I will use a few comparisons of other SFF (Science fiction and fantasy) books I have read. Firstly, I thought to compare this book with various other books David Weber has produced (The Honor Harrington Series, The Safehold Series, etc.). Actually I had just finished the third book in his Safehold series when I picked up 'A Game of Thrones.' Before reading AGOT (A Game of Thrones) I felt I had a pretty good picture of what political intrigue was and what it meant. However after reading only a few tens of pages into it I felt immersed in a way I haven't been in books like Weber's. Why is this? To be sure in Weber's books (which do deal with politics heavily) there is intrigue of a sort. There are plots, scandals, assassinations, elections, wars, treaties, inheritance, monarchies, economics, etc. but compared to this book they feel a little flat. Having thought about it for a while, and putting it in context with AGOT I feel I can answer this question. David Weber's portrayal of intrigue seem to be lacking in it's complexity and the almost stark difference between good and evil (or in most cases in his work, competence and incompetence; which amount to the same thing in some cases). I feel in his books that the characters comprising different political factions are very much similar in, not only his different books, but in regards to the other characters in the story. The good guys are largely competent (the incompetent ones are either incredibly loyal or innocent) and the bad guys are largely incompetent to be replaced by competent bad guys who are either killed or turn good. I guess what I am saying is there is not a lot of feel that there is a whole lot of internal variation which is so natural for people in general and is very hard to control. There seems to be a feeling that the two sides to a conflict largely stay on their own sides and that inside the groups there is a sense of incredible consolidation which is pitted against a group rife with dissension (due to selfishness and other flaws). While this still makes for good stories and says a lot about what reality should be like, what government and relationships should be like; it doesn't (I feel) represent what politics resemble in reality. The difference in Martin's AGOT is that here the battle lines are drawn by individuals themselves as they state what they will or will not due, and their own individuality/history plays into their decisions. In a sense I feel that the intrigue in AGOT is layered both politically and on an individual level. Every character has their own motives and beliefs and they are clearly defined against other characters motives and belief's. Even the characters who are incredibly similar in both motive and history have clearly defined differences. This is realistic because for people (At least I feel this myself) that sometimes it is those 'tiny' differences which can sometimes mean the most or have more meaning to one person than another. I love in AGOT how all the characters are constantly interacting and those interactions can be seen to have an actual affect on the political scene. There is a complexity to the intrigue in AGOT; a sense that there are a great many people with varying degrees of influence all trying to cooperate with some, oppose others, and accidentally bumping into still others. There is a sense of fluidity in AGOT; which I suppose is the best way to describe it. There is a sense that at any given point a situation might change. Of course Martin also uses random acts or individual variation in people to affect any given situation in ways no one could readily predict.

The next item that grasped me was Martin's physical, mental, and emotional description of people, places, and things in AGOT. This also is tied into Martin's 'economy of words'; He uses words with such skill that so much is said about a given item that one can get a clear picture of it. In a sense he makes a few words tell volumes about something. The easiest example that for me holds true for the rest of the book (at least so far!) was the prologue. Those first few pages were so full of description, and character development. I was hooked by how each member of the Watch party were so well defined and described, and I could visualize in my head the world around them clearly. I could feel the animosity and fear of the characters and the skill of Martin's writing so far has remained constant. This was all done in so few words that I felt I had read more than was actually written.

This technique in particular holds me in awe. I want to be able to write volumes in sentences. This is also intensely respectful to the reader as well as it assumes the reader has the intelligence and the understanding to grasp the history of people, regardless of experience.