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.

Why Have Elves?

Sometimes writers will add certain elements to their stories 'just because.' SFF (Science fiction and fantasy) are particularly vulnerable to this. For example since Tolkien, many fantasy writers have chosen to include notions of wizards, elves, dwarves, and magic for either an overused message or for the simple reason of 'it's fantasy to have these things.' The same can be said about Science Fiction with faster than light travel, aliens, space fighters, and intergalactic empires. The key concept that gets overlooked in this case is that everything that is put into stories is supposed to serve a purpose (even if that purpose is to have no purpose at all). If a story includes aliens or elves, they cannot exist in the story just because it makes the genre. Tools, plot devices, characters, etc. are put into stories to tell a story; the items put into the story should help tell that story.

Back to my title question: Why have elves? This is a question that one can ask of almost any fantasy book because elves are so common Since Tolkien's creation of the popular conception of them. Many simply include them as a given in a fantasy story to represent a patented message, or include them to add 'diversity' into their stories. Rarely however, to elves play unique and original roles specific to a given author. It should be noted that Tolkien had a well thought out conception of elves and why they were in his stories. They had a clear role and their identity, characteristics, culture etc. played a role in making the story of Middle Earth what it was. Without Tolkien's elves, Middle Earth would not be Middle Earth. Now when looking at bad fantasy, elves can be taken out of a story and the result is little or no impact on the story. Or, that the reason for having the elves is so stereotypical and overused that the story becomes a bore to read.

The question that writers must deal with is what is the purpose of putting elves in their story? Do they play a key role? A minor role? Or any role at all? Because elves (and other plot devices used to such a large extent like elves) are used so much,  extra pressure is also put on the writer to do something original with them. Elves should be used like all other items in a story; to help that story's message be carried to the reader. If a story has elves then they must be for the purpose of that particular story and say something key involving that story.

This brings to mind a further complication, one that Tolkien also addressed in his stories. When writers fall into the trap of including 'elves' because they have a fantasy story, they often assume the readers to have a general idea of what elves are. Writers of this type assume that elves have already been defined by Tolkien and thus do not need to be elaborated on originally. What this means is that elves are continually unchanging regardless of the author (or at least changing in minor technical ways that have almost nothing to do with the main point of a story). This is a short cut that Tolkien did not take. When he introduced orcs, hobbits, dwarves, elves, dragons, etc. he defined them all. He clarified to the reader how they all worked and fit into his story in such a way as to say something monumental. This is something that every other writer must do and redo for their own stories. If a writer chooses to have artificial intelligence or aliens (or any other sci-fi trope or gadget) then it must be given rules and a role to play in the story. Thus I suppose that what I really mean is that when a writer uses well worn tropes in a story, then it must be unique and original to that story in oder to say something. 

I ran into a similar issue when workshopping a short story. Because my short story was set in a wider fantasy world that I intend to write larger works about, magic appeared in it. Now I ran into trouble because my short story was centered around the idea of history and how it can be manipulated by nationalism to violent ends, and how history itself is formed by individual forces as well as massive ones. Magic, in this second draft, played a minor role but it nevertheless appeared because of the wider world it was set in. This gave magic the appearance of just being there because my short story was fantasy, not because it had anything meaningful to contribute. When I go to edit it, this issue will have to be resolved by clarifying magic's role, or even connecting it to history in some degree. The latter, now that I think about it, might be more useful seeing as how I want to treat magic in my fantasy world, and what I want the idea of magic to say to the reader. 

Black Swan and Plot - relations to Sci-fi and Fantasy

I did not like the movie Black Swan. While I thought the filming of it, the music, the acting, the visuals - All that was exquisite - I did not find the plot gripping at all after watching the movie. Almost everything that happened to  the main character, Nina, I found to be explained away by the fact that she was unstable and had been for some time, and so was her mother (maybe even more so). Had this movie been about how someone like Nina was affected by her environment to the point of spiraling to death, it would have been more understandable - but the movie I'm sure was not intended as such, nor filmed as such.

So if Nina's mental state and how it was affected by her surroundings, then what was it? As this story hinges on the ballet story of the same name, it had a great deal to do with the contradictions of being innocent and...not innocent. I feel that while Nina's gentle and kind demeanor can be seen as a mask for a darker side, which is relate-able, I feel that her instability overshadows the message the movie is trying to send: That it is so incredibly contradictory to be both the 'black' and 'white' swans that it leads to a self destruction if a balance is pursued to perfection (pressured also by influences outside the self). Her very instability then, means that she is already vulnerable - I feel that all of us are subject to these outside pressures and internal conflicts enough without needing to be equated to someone who is spiraling, in an unhealthy environment. It was totally not surprising to me that she murdered (or at least hurt) someone and killed herself. I don't mean to say I predicted it, but I was not surprised. Her character's backstory almost demanded that she spiraled further and probably would have had she never been in that exact situation to begin with. For this point, Nina is not a character that truly relates the message of the story.

(I know this is taking a while to get to Sci-Fi and fantasy but bear with me)

Now this brings into question, what was Nina's purpose? Obviously, she was portrayed as the perfect white swan - innocence in every sense of the word. But in that is my other problem. I don't believe she is a true representation of innocence. If, as an adult, one is required to look at the world in almost a childlike state of naivety to be 'innocent' then only those who are not matured can be so. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying that when a person is grown up, that they are unkind and callous. What I am implying is that this portrayal of innocence is not reflective of how humanity is shown. Innocence is not blindly ignoring the world around you, nor being subservient to everyone regardless of their actions. Innocence is more trait that is built, though small children have innocence of a different kind. Children have an innocence built around their true ignorance of experience which is not the same as innocence built upon experience. I don't think I can explain innocence any further, as it is something that requires more thought to expand on, and this post is not about it. That being said, I do know/feel that innocence is not what is shown in that movie. If it was, what that implies about people who act in that manner is extremely patronizing and insulting.

Now is the bridge point. To use an metaphor, Nina as a character in Black Swan, is like trying to see a black piece of paper in a dark room. In terms of the story being told, Nina does not stand out as someone to convey the message to the viewer. She is an unstable person in a movie filled with equally unstable/bad people. This movie is trying to talk about innocence and having a dark side, along with seeking perfection, affects people, there is no one who relates this with people who are not unstable. The struggles in the movie are felt by every single human being (reconciling with oneself, seeking or understanding perfection etc.) but this movie takes it to such an extreme as to be disconnected with what actually occurs within people. To get back to my metaphor - Seeing Nina in the midst of such bad circumstances we have no way of separating her from the rest and relating to her. She is totally a product of her own instability and how that instability was exacerbated by the ugliness shown by people around her.

And here we get to Science Fiction and Fantasy. The best of these two genre's are seen when it allows the reader/viewer/player to relate to the characters and story. There has to be a means of connection between the fantastical occurring in these stories, and the reality of the reader otherwise the story is beyond/behind what is the reality of human interaction. Good SFF (Science Fiction and Fantasy) happens when realistically portrayed interaction is placed in a fantastical scenario. I believe it is one of the strengths of SFF to be able to put humans (or characters with humanesque traits so as to be relate-able) in imaginary scenarios to better understand ourselves and the world around us; to be able to explore certain questions that may not be readily discussed in the present. That satellites were first talked about in sci-fi first, demonstrates the ability of the genre to introduce new thought that can serve to inspire real change/discussion. SFF at it's worst, does (among other things) what I feel Black Swan does; Bad SFF has characters and stories entirely explained away by other variables that overshadow the intended message. I suppose this is true of every story, but for the purposes of this post I will contain it to SFF. When characters are explained away by magic/ideals (see "A Tough Guide to Fantasyland" under colour coding) the story is bland. An example > He is evil because he is the evil god (Fantasy) > He is evil because he is the Intergalactic Emporer (Sci-Fi). Again, good SFF should be able to realistically portray human interaction (whether on an individual level or macro level) in order to relate to the reader. People look to SFF to tell them a story of people existing in imaginary situations, not people who are explained away entirely by certain traits (unstable, evil, magical, elvish, alien).

As a writer I hope to take realistic interaction into my stories so that people are drawn into them, and are not confused because the message is in conflict with the characters and interactions portrayed.

_________________________________________________
Add on > After 2nd comment

After thinking more about what I had to say about Black Swan I feel my main concern about her instability getting in the way of the story is another way of saying that Nina had an almost complete lack of agency. Her death at the end I feel was a symptom of her situation rather than a personal choice. I got the impression from how her character was portrayed that her childhood had been incredibly damaged by her mother, and that her mother continued to skew Nina's life after adulthood. Her mother had been in ballet and I could easily see her forcing Nina into ballet. From there I got the impression that Nina was just playing the part of a puppet, her drive for perfection the symptom of being led by others. Even at the point in time where the movie takes place this I feel is true. Her 'choices' to indulge in the hedonistic life were not really hers to make as it was her instructor who was pressuring her into being the 'perfect black swan' From this I feel that the film was trying to  portray the Swan Lake story (sorry for mistaking it for the 'black swan story') and that that story requires a participant who has the ability to be conflicted by such decisions. It felt like this movie set up a character like Nina as a puppet and then tried to tell a story that then ignored her lack of agency as if it were unimportant. To better illustrate my point; The movie 'A Beautiful Mind' is also about a person who is remarkably unstable (indeed he is actually mentally ill). While he has no choice in the fact that he has an actual mental condition that actively affects his mind the movie is entirely about his struggle to choose how he himself is to live. In a way 'A Beautiful Mind' is another version of 'Black Swan.' 'Black Swan' then, seemed to ignore the history of Nina that it built. She must have been battling with her cruel situation of not being sure whether or not her own decisions were truly her own. That I think is a much better story. That being said, 'Black Swan' seemed to be filmed about her course to death rather than her agency (or lack of agency in this case).