I think I mentioned this when I did my blog about “Stardust”, but I really like Neil Gaiman’s concepts for his books. He obviously loves mythology about as much as I do, he seems fascinated with storytelling, and he had no problem mixing the surreal and the humorous together with fantasy and horror. All in all it should be the perfect mix. However all three of his previous novels, “Stardust”, “Neverwhere” and “American Gods” never quite clicked for me. In all three cases it was because of the protagonist. I never connected with the main character and instead kept wanting the book to be about the supporting cast (who were all amazingly colorful.
Well Gaiman bucked his trend in “Anansi Boys”. Not only does he create a leading character that pulled me in, but the entire story was a blast to read. Our hero is a typical sad sack character with the unfortunate name of Fat Charlie. The story starts with an explanation of why Fat Charlie is called Fat Charlie, even though he’s not fat.
The story goes like this, Fat Charlie was given the nickname by his father. We’re told that once his father gives anything a nick name – it sticks forever. So even though Charlie was a little pudgy kid that grew out of his husky state; he remained Fat Charlie to everyone he knew. This little story nugget establishes several key points right off the bat.
First off Fat Charlie didn’t get to pick his name, it was forced upon him. And pretty quickly we see that Fat Charlie has a lot of things in life forced on him. Sometimes he minds, sometimes he doesn’t, but there is nothing he can do about it. Life does things to Charlie and he reacts. And since life seems obsessed with giving him crap, Charlie’s always seems down on his luck or just surviving his existence.
Second we learn that Fat Charlie’s dad has no problem calling his son “fat”, and making sure that everyone else calls him “fat”. Right there you learn enough about the father to understand why Fat Charlie doesn’t like the man. But there is more to the story and it becomes apparent that Fat Charlie’s going to have to come to grips with his father.
The story continues along its merry way, introducing a mysterious sibling, a bit of magic involving spiders, and an ordinary lime that just might save the day. Because we like Charlie and feel bad for the guy (nothing seems to go his way no matter what he tries), the story carries you along, just waiting to see if Charlie is going to manage on the up side of things. Gaiman does a good job with the character and developing him over the course of the novel. Fat Charlie is not the same man at the end of the book, but after all his adventures – I’d be a little different too.
If asked what kind of book this was, I’d find it hard to place. It’s almost like a fantasy tale told in modern times. There is magic, there are gods meddling in human affairs, there’s lost siblings, lost loves and murderous corporate a-holes. You get a little bit of everything. But the book is always entertaining and has quite a few laughs in it. I especially liked the bit about the lime. I’ll never look at that little green citrus the same way again.
So all in all, “Anansi Boys” was a great read and one I’d definitely recommend. It’s my favorite of Gaiman’s novels, and a good place to start if you haven’t read any of his short fiction (which I also recommend). It’s good to see him finally create a protagonist I could connect with and one that I wanted to follow on his journey. Gaiman has never lacked for imagination and skill with creating worlds and supporting characters. This time the whole package is very satisfying.
Have you read “Anansi Boys”? What did you think of it? What did you think of Gaiman’s other work? Do you have a favorite “down on their luck” protagonist?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
You can’t go home again – X-files: I Want to Believe
I have an odd relationship with the X-files. When it first started out on TV I resisted it’s siren song. A co-worker was a huge fan and she kept trying to get me to watch it, but the commercials I saw just didn’t pull me in. My wife (girlfriend at the time) watched it infrequently and enjoyed what she saw, but I still didn’t care to see it.
I actually saw about half of one episode, (early season 3 episode with a young man who can control electricity). Coming in halfway and not getting set up, the whole thing seemed silly. I wrote off the show. And then a about halfway into the same season I caught the episode “Pusher”. The story was simple, a man has the power to persuade others just about anything he wants to. It’s not mind control per se, but it was a tool he could use very effectively – even convincing someone to take their own life. He ends up facing down Mulder and the episode was very effective. It was tense, the acting was good and the script was solid. I was hooked and continued to watch the series and pick up the VHS episodes.
I watched up until the movie, “Fight the Future” came out. I was seriously pumped for the film and found it disappointing. I picked up the show when it came back the next season, but missed a few key episodes. When I was able to watch again, I was lost in regards to the overarching story. I stopped watching and never really got back into it.
Eventually I revisited the series on DVD and found it just as entertaining as I remember, but with some elements that were so 90’s it hurt. Most of it had to do with the general feeling of paranoia and grimness that seemed to permeate the episodes (helped in great measure by the Vancouver locations). While the 80’s always seemed to be colorful and loud, the 90’s were dark, dirty and aggressive. Something the “X-files” seemed very much in tune with. Seen out of that light, it comes across a bit trendy at times. The core stories and acting are still very good, but some of the trappings are less appealing.
So I was surprised that the long rumored second X-files film was green lighted. In most cases nostalgia takes about 20 years to kick in completely. This means that X-files still had a few years to go before it could really jump on that bandwagon. The problem is that the stars and crew aren’t getting any younger and I suppose the idea was to strike while everyone was still willing and around to do it (and not make it look too silly with senior citizens chasing down UFOs).
Still, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this was a bad idea. The first X-files movie, while entertaining and part of the over-arching story never really captured my imagination (even on repeat viewings) as a solid film. It still felt like a television episode blown up for the big screen, but not quite measuring up. Star Trek had similar issues with it’s Next Generation films, especially “Generations” and “Insurrection”. The extra something needed to make them feel big screen worthy is missing.
I was afraid a second X-files film would fall into the same trap. And in a way it did. I know everyone was hoping for a success and possibly a string of movies with this being the genesis, but it ended up being something that disappointed the hardcore fans and didn’t generate enough interest for new comers. The plot does not revolve around some of the more sci-fi or monster elements. Instead it seems to be a simple serial killer investigation. Supernatural elements appear, but they don’t’ drive the case the way they would in the television series. It’s an interesting new direction, but at the same time it doesn’t feel like the X-files.
It’s been a few weeks since I saw the movie and I’ve had some time to think about it. What I think we ended up with was an epilogue of sorts. It was a summation of two people’s lives (and the acting is still solid with plenty of good moments for Mulder and Scully). They seem different from how I remember them (but I never saw the last few seasons), but it seems fitting in a way. They’ve evolved just as I have and this case brings up some pain for both of them. In a way it was interesting to see that dynamic work.
As I mentioned in my blog about the first season of the show, one of the reasons it works so well is that the characters of Mulder and Scully are well thought out and well matched. They create their own tension and support and to see it at work in a new story was the highlight of the film. But in the end I couldn’t help but feel that it was a bit hollow and a too late (or too early) to really capture what it needed to. There is a sadness to the film, but I think it also reflects on how I felt when it was over. Sometimes, you just can’t go back.
What did you think of the new X-files film? What did you think of the first film? Have you had the experience of a revisit to something you enjoyed in the past and were disappointed?
I actually saw about half of one episode, (early season 3 episode with a young man who can control electricity). Coming in halfway and not getting set up, the whole thing seemed silly. I wrote off the show. And then a about halfway into the same season I caught the episode “Pusher”. The story was simple, a man has the power to persuade others just about anything he wants to. It’s not mind control per se, but it was a tool he could use very effectively – even convincing someone to take their own life. He ends up facing down Mulder and the episode was very effective. It was tense, the acting was good and the script was solid. I was hooked and continued to watch the series and pick up the VHS episodes.
I watched up until the movie, “Fight the Future” came out. I was seriously pumped for the film and found it disappointing. I picked up the show when it came back the next season, but missed a few key episodes. When I was able to watch again, I was lost in regards to the overarching story. I stopped watching and never really got back into it.
Eventually I revisited the series on DVD and found it just as entertaining as I remember, but with some elements that were so 90’s it hurt. Most of it had to do with the general feeling of paranoia and grimness that seemed to permeate the episodes (helped in great measure by the Vancouver locations). While the 80’s always seemed to be colorful and loud, the 90’s were dark, dirty and aggressive. Something the “X-files” seemed very much in tune with. Seen out of that light, it comes across a bit trendy at times. The core stories and acting are still very good, but some of the trappings are less appealing.
So I was surprised that the long rumored second X-files film was green lighted. In most cases nostalgia takes about 20 years to kick in completely. This means that X-files still had a few years to go before it could really jump on that bandwagon. The problem is that the stars and crew aren’t getting any younger and I suppose the idea was to strike while everyone was still willing and around to do it (and not make it look too silly with senior citizens chasing down UFOs).
Still, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this was a bad idea. The first X-files movie, while entertaining and part of the over-arching story never really captured my imagination (even on repeat viewings) as a solid film. It still felt like a television episode blown up for the big screen, but not quite measuring up. Star Trek had similar issues with it’s Next Generation films, especially “Generations” and “Insurrection”. The extra something needed to make them feel big screen worthy is missing.
I was afraid a second X-files film would fall into the same trap. And in a way it did. I know everyone was hoping for a success and possibly a string of movies with this being the genesis, but it ended up being something that disappointed the hardcore fans and didn’t generate enough interest for new comers. The plot does not revolve around some of the more sci-fi or monster elements. Instead it seems to be a simple serial killer investigation. Supernatural elements appear, but they don’t’ drive the case the way they would in the television series. It’s an interesting new direction, but at the same time it doesn’t feel like the X-files.
It’s been a few weeks since I saw the movie and I’ve had some time to think about it. What I think we ended up with was an epilogue of sorts. It was a summation of two people’s lives (and the acting is still solid with plenty of good moments for Mulder and Scully). They seem different from how I remember them (but I never saw the last few seasons), but it seems fitting in a way. They’ve evolved just as I have and this case brings up some pain for both of them. In a way it was interesting to see that dynamic work.
As I mentioned in my blog about the first season of the show, one of the reasons it works so well is that the characters of Mulder and Scully are well thought out and well matched. They create their own tension and support and to see it at work in a new story was the highlight of the film. But in the end I couldn’t help but feel that it was a bit hollow and a too late (or too early) to really capture what it needed to. There is a sadness to the film, but I think it also reflects on how I felt when it was over. Sometimes, you just can’t go back.
What did you think of the new X-files film? What did you think of the first film? Have you had the experience of a revisit to something you enjoyed in the past and were disappointed?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Story Evolution – Makers of Rome
I had a history teacher in college say something to the effect of, “Plutarch wrote a series of histories about famous Romans and Greeks. These are called ‘Plutarch’s Lives’. It might be better to call them ‘Plutarch’s Lies’.” It got a nerdy chuckle from most of us, and I never really delved into Plutarch after that.
After my adventures with Herodotus last year, I decided some more ancient histories could make a good read. I ran into Plutarch’s name quite a bit, and since I had recently finished watching the HBO series “Rome” it seemed like reading some of Plutarch’s Roman lives would fit the bill.
I settled on the penguin classics version called “Makers of Rome”. This covers nine lives spanning from the legendary (and possibly mythical) general Coriolanus up to Mark Antony, the infamous lover of Queen Cleopatra. I also got to read about Fabius Maximus, Marcellus, Cato the Elder, Tiberius Gracchus, Gaiu Gracchus, Sertorius, and Brutus. For those of you who could care less about all these guys with “us” at the end of there names – hold on, there is a point.
First thing, the introduction pointed out that Shakespeare used Plutarch’s lives to create three plays: The Tragedy of Coriolanus, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, and Antony and Cleopatra. Now I’d never heard of a play about Coriolanus, but like most people I had to read Julius Caesar back in high school. I remembered that the play was more about Brutus than Caesar, and reading the Life of Brutus makes it all fall into place.
The really interesting part comes with Mark Antony. The Penguin edition includes an Appendix all about this particular life. It not only points out all the changes that Plutarch made to the history, but also pointed out the changes that Shakespeare made on top of that.
Now, I should clear something up here. Plutarch never set out to write history. His goal in writing these lives was to create a biography of these famous people to prove a point. Most of the time these were ethical ideals that the famous figure would be measured against – sometimes acting as an ideal example, other times failing to make the grade. In either case, Plutarch would sometimes warp history to fit the needs of his biography. So really Plutarch should read, “Based on a true story.”
Shakespeare makes some dramatic changes as well. Most of this has to do with shortening the time in which the story takes place, but there are other historical differences. However, since he is basing his play on Plutarch’s version of events, his version of Antony comes across a bit different from the historical version of the man.
And this was the version of Mark Antony that appeared in HBO’s “Rome”. It was interesting to see how long the image of an impulsive and completely manipulated Antony has prevailed. Even Cleopatra fares on the poor side of things. She is usually shown as a woman who is driven by her base desires and impulses. These end up causing her and Antony misfortune. But modern historians find that Cleopatra was far from the impulsive woman she is usually portrayed as.
This all tells me that writers have been messing with history since the time of Plutarch (and even before if you take a look at Herodotus). It also tells me that the evolution of a story can take many forms, twisting and turning through time. Each new author adding their new take on the old tale. Does that make all us storyteller liars?
It reminds me of a Mystery Science Theater episode called, “I Accuse My Parents”. The movie revolves around a young man who lies about his parents to his friends and classmates. His parents are drunk good for nothings, but according to Jimmy, they are wonderful caregivers. Jimmy’s lies pile up and up and up. At one point in the movie one of the robots quips, “He’s a gifted storyteller”. And that actually got me thinking. Are all storytellers liars?
Have you read Plutarch? What did you think of his work? How about Shakespeare’s take on historical events? If you are a writer or storyteller, do you consider yourself a liar?
After my adventures with Herodotus last year, I decided some more ancient histories could make a good read. I ran into Plutarch’s name quite a bit, and since I had recently finished watching the HBO series “Rome” it seemed like reading some of Plutarch’s Roman lives would fit the bill.
I settled on the penguin classics version called “Makers of Rome”. This covers nine lives spanning from the legendary (and possibly mythical) general Coriolanus up to Mark Antony, the infamous lover of Queen Cleopatra. I also got to read about Fabius Maximus, Marcellus, Cato the Elder, Tiberius Gracchus, Gaiu Gracchus, Sertorius, and Brutus. For those of you who could care less about all these guys with “us” at the end of there names – hold on, there is a point.
First thing, the introduction pointed out that Shakespeare used Plutarch’s lives to create three plays: The Tragedy of Coriolanus, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, and Antony and Cleopatra. Now I’d never heard of a play about Coriolanus, but like most people I had to read Julius Caesar back in high school. I remembered that the play was more about Brutus than Caesar, and reading the Life of Brutus makes it all fall into place.
The really interesting part comes with Mark Antony. The Penguin edition includes an Appendix all about this particular life. It not only points out all the changes that Plutarch made to the history, but also pointed out the changes that Shakespeare made on top of that.
Now, I should clear something up here. Plutarch never set out to write history. His goal in writing these lives was to create a biography of these famous people to prove a point. Most of the time these were ethical ideals that the famous figure would be measured against – sometimes acting as an ideal example, other times failing to make the grade. In either case, Plutarch would sometimes warp history to fit the needs of his biography. So really Plutarch should read, “Based on a true story.”
Shakespeare makes some dramatic changes as well. Most of this has to do with shortening the time in which the story takes place, but there are other historical differences. However, since he is basing his play on Plutarch’s version of events, his version of Antony comes across a bit different from the historical version of the man.
And this was the version of Mark Antony that appeared in HBO’s “Rome”. It was interesting to see how long the image of an impulsive and completely manipulated Antony has prevailed. Even Cleopatra fares on the poor side of things. She is usually shown as a woman who is driven by her base desires and impulses. These end up causing her and Antony misfortune. But modern historians find that Cleopatra was far from the impulsive woman she is usually portrayed as.
This all tells me that writers have been messing with history since the time of Plutarch (and even before if you take a look at Herodotus). It also tells me that the evolution of a story can take many forms, twisting and turning through time. Each new author adding their new take on the old tale. Does that make all us storyteller liars?
It reminds me of a Mystery Science Theater episode called, “I Accuse My Parents”. The movie revolves around a young man who lies about his parents to his friends and classmates. His parents are drunk good for nothings, but according to Jimmy, they are wonderful caregivers. Jimmy’s lies pile up and up and up. At one point in the movie one of the robots quips, “He’s a gifted storyteller”. And that actually got me thinking. Are all storytellers liars?
Have you read Plutarch? What did you think of his work? How about Shakespeare’s take on historical events? If you are a writer or storyteller, do you consider yourself a liar?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Art is staring you in the face – Pearls before Breakfast
The Best Non-required Reading for 2008 included all kinds of interesting bits of writing. It had non-fiction essays on whale hunters and Bill Clinton. It had excerpts from graphic novels. It included an interview with Judy Blume. Stephen King had a story in there. There was even a list of some very interesting Facebook groups.
But the one piece that I found the most interesting was called “Pearls before Breakfast”. It was about one of those social experiments you read about sometimes. You know the kind, where they have a crowd of people and one person acts like a madman and the scientists see how the crowd reacts. This was very similar but with a little twist.
World famous violin maestro, Joshua Bell took a priceless violin, went into a D.C. subway station, plunked down the open violin case with some seeding money and treated anybody who walked by to a free concert. Of course the area was infiltrated with reporters keeping their eyes on the crowd and watching reactions. Then they would catch up with anyone whose reaction was notable and interview them.
The piece contains a myriad of reactions from all kinds people: from commuters trying to catch a train, to a man who worked in a small bakery inside the station. The results weren’t too surprising. Very few people noticed that Bell was even playing. Only one person recognized him at all. And he didn’t make much money at all.
I urge you to seek out the whole article if you can, it’s a fascinating read and one that disturbs and fascinates me all at the same time. What I want to explore a bit here is the way we seem to have been able to ignore our surroundings.
Many of the people interviewed didn’t even notice Bell was there. The few that did remember seeing a guy with a violin don’t really remember if he was any good or not, they just remember a guy with a violin. The few people that did actually notice Bell and knew he was good had backgrounds in music.
So even if most of the people there were indifferent to classical music (not hard to believe. Most people I know care little for it), you would think they would be able to tell if someone of genius level skill was among them, right?
Maybe not, maybe people are so conditioned to ignore their surroundings and focus only on their immediate goals that they won’t notice if a genius is there standing next to them unleashing a huge amount of beauty into the air for all to enjoy. I believe it. People walk around with their music players on or their cell phones latched onto their ears. Maybe they are thumbing through their blackberry or iphone. Maybe they are just going over the upcoming challenges of the day. But it’s safe to say that few of these people even notice the changes in the world around them, unless they directly affect them.
I keep saying they, but I mean me too. I have my trusty ipod in my pocket as I do chores around the house or yard work. I listen to what is familiar, I watch what is familiar, hell I even eat what is familiar. It’s a big deal when I leave my little box, and I think most people fall into the same boat.
But this has been going on for decades. I read an article from the 80’s talking about the Japanese and their trains. The writer was an American, from the east coast. He is used to trains and buses, but he had never seen anything like what he encountered on the Japanese train. Few people spoke or looked at each other. Instead most had some kind of newspaper or comic book (manga). And many of the younger passengers had the then new walkmans. The writer was filled with wonder at the fact that these people could basically step aboard a train, and then seal themselves into their own world of music and manga and not even interact with anyone else. He thought that kind of behavior would be strange in the US
Jump forward a couple decades and now it’s normal. People look at you strangely if you try to have a conversation on a train or bus. Isolation into the familiar has become typical.
What does this have to do with storytelling? Well it tells us writers that it may not matter if we write the greatest book the world has ever known. If we can’t get anyone to read it, it will remain unknown. And even if you step into a crowd and start reading it, don’t expect anyone to listen. Most of us aren’t Joshua Bell.
But if the article did tell me anything it pointed out that beauty can be right in front of you. Maybe we all need to take some time to actually look around us and see what we may be missing. What does the world sound like without your music playing?
Did you read the article about Mr. Bell and his DC train station experiment? What did you think of it? Would you have noticed a genius playing the violin right next to you? Can people even recognize beauty anymore?
But the one piece that I found the most interesting was called “Pearls before Breakfast”. It was about one of those social experiments you read about sometimes. You know the kind, where they have a crowd of people and one person acts like a madman and the scientists see how the crowd reacts. This was very similar but with a little twist.
World famous violin maestro, Joshua Bell took a priceless violin, went into a D.C. subway station, plunked down the open violin case with some seeding money and treated anybody who walked by to a free concert. Of course the area was infiltrated with reporters keeping their eyes on the crowd and watching reactions. Then they would catch up with anyone whose reaction was notable and interview them.
The piece contains a myriad of reactions from all kinds people: from commuters trying to catch a train, to a man who worked in a small bakery inside the station. The results weren’t too surprising. Very few people noticed that Bell was even playing. Only one person recognized him at all. And he didn’t make much money at all.
I urge you to seek out the whole article if you can, it’s a fascinating read and one that disturbs and fascinates me all at the same time. What I want to explore a bit here is the way we seem to have been able to ignore our surroundings.
Many of the people interviewed didn’t even notice Bell was there. The few that did remember seeing a guy with a violin don’t really remember if he was any good or not, they just remember a guy with a violin. The few people that did actually notice Bell and knew he was good had backgrounds in music.
So even if most of the people there were indifferent to classical music (not hard to believe. Most people I know care little for it), you would think they would be able to tell if someone of genius level skill was among them, right?
Maybe not, maybe people are so conditioned to ignore their surroundings and focus only on their immediate goals that they won’t notice if a genius is there standing next to them unleashing a huge amount of beauty into the air for all to enjoy. I believe it. People walk around with their music players on or their cell phones latched onto their ears. Maybe they are thumbing through their blackberry or iphone. Maybe they are just going over the upcoming challenges of the day. But it’s safe to say that few of these people even notice the changes in the world around them, unless they directly affect them.
I keep saying they, but I mean me too. I have my trusty ipod in my pocket as I do chores around the house or yard work. I listen to what is familiar, I watch what is familiar, hell I even eat what is familiar. It’s a big deal when I leave my little box, and I think most people fall into the same boat.
But this has been going on for decades. I read an article from the 80’s talking about the Japanese and their trains. The writer was an American, from the east coast. He is used to trains and buses, but he had never seen anything like what he encountered on the Japanese train. Few people spoke or looked at each other. Instead most had some kind of newspaper or comic book (manga). And many of the younger passengers had the then new walkmans. The writer was filled with wonder at the fact that these people could basically step aboard a train, and then seal themselves into their own world of music and manga and not even interact with anyone else. He thought that kind of behavior would be strange in the US
Jump forward a couple decades and now it’s normal. People look at you strangely if you try to have a conversation on a train or bus. Isolation into the familiar has become typical.
What does this have to do with storytelling? Well it tells us writers that it may not matter if we write the greatest book the world has ever known. If we can’t get anyone to read it, it will remain unknown. And even if you step into a crowd and start reading it, don’t expect anyone to listen. Most of us aren’t Joshua Bell.
But if the article did tell me anything it pointed out that beauty can be right in front of you. Maybe we all need to take some time to actually look around us and see what we may be missing. What does the world sound like without your music playing?
Did you read the article about Mr. Bell and his DC train station experiment? What did you think of it? Would you have noticed a genius playing the violin right next to you? Can people even recognize beauty anymore?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Third Time’s a Charm - Rusty Nail
I was in the mood for some light summer reading so I picked up J.A. Konrath’s third book in his Jack Daniels series. For those of you who don’t know, Mr. Konrath is an active blogger and offers plenty of tips for writers. So I’m always interested in looking at how he approaches his novels.
Now Jack Daniels is a thriller series about a police detective who gets mixed up in dangerous cases. Konrath mixes danger, comedy and drama pretty well in all three books, but I was specifically interested to see how he would tackle book three.
He took a bit of an unexpected tactic. He based this case off of the events that occurred in the first book. At first Jack thinks she’s dealing with a copy cat killer, especially since the case from the first book was very high profile. But as things go along, it becomes obvious to the reader (and eventually to Jack) that this is something new – but tied very closely to first book.
Now Konrath has stated that his books are meant to be picked up and enjoyed, no matter what order you find them. He calls them airport reading, and I can see that. They offer quick, fun escape reading, perfect if you need to put it down, but just catchy enough to keep you reading.
This makes the prospect of tying back to the first book dangerous. You end up having to sum up the first case so that new readers won’t be completely lost. But at the same time you have to keep the exposition down to a minimum, because momentum and thrills are very important to this genre.
Konrath’s solution makes good sense, he has Jack think about the older case, specifically in how it relates to the current one. He actually makes it tantalizing, give a new reader enough to be interested (and maybe pick up that first book). Jack goes back to the old evidence to see if there is anything that matches with the evidence on the new case. This little journey triggers memories for Jack and for any reader who may not have picked up “Whiskey Sour” in a while (I read that book about a year and half ago, so my memories weren’t too sharp either).
As Jack gets closer and closer to putting the pieces together, the more the past plays into the story, but Konrath never bogs things down. He manages to keep the balance going and the story chugs along to it’s crazed conclusion.
This gives book three a different tone compared to the previous two books. Obviously the first “Whiskey Sour” was the intro novel. The follow up “Bloody Mary” was much more intense and graphic. It also moved at a very high speed. This book slowed down the pace a bit more and focused more on piecing the puzzle together and delving into Jack’s character a bit more. The element of the past plays a key role in the story and gives it a theme all it’s own.
So Konrath kept the series fresh feeling, even if he did end up with a serial killer on the lose as the basic plot again. The twists were pretty good and the identity of the killer had me guessing for a good while, but this time I did figure it out a few chapters before Jack did. I’m interested to see where he goes in book four. Will he keep the serial killer, or will Jack face a new type of danger? All in all, I found “Rusty Nail” to be a good read and an interesting study in keeping a series fresh.
Have you read “Rusty Nail”? What did you think of it? Do you have a favorite 3rd book or movie in a series? How did the writer keep the book feeling fresh and different?
Now Jack Daniels is a thriller series about a police detective who gets mixed up in dangerous cases. Konrath mixes danger, comedy and drama pretty well in all three books, but I was specifically interested to see how he would tackle book three.
He took a bit of an unexpected tactic. He based this case off of the events that occurred in the first book. At first Jack thinks she’s dealing with a copy cat killer, especially since the case from the first book was very high profile. But as things go along, it becomes obvious to the reader (and eventually to Jack) that this is something new – but tied very closely to first book.
Now Konrath has stated that his books are meant to be picked up and enjoyed, no matter what order you find them. He calls them airport reading, and I can see that. They offer quick, fun escape reading, perfect if you need to put it down, but just catchy enough to keep you reading.
This makes the prospect of tying back to the first book dangerous. You end up having to sum up the first case so that new readers won’t be completely lost. But at the same time you have to keep the exposition down to a minimum, because momentum and thrills are very important to this genre.
Konrath’s solution makes good sense, he has Jack think about the older case, specifically in how it relates to the current one. He actually makes it tantalizing, give a new reader enough to be interested (and maybe pick up that first book). Jack goes back to the old evidence to see if there is anything that matches with the evidence on the new case. This little journey triggers memories for Jack and for any reader who may not have picked up “Whiskey Sour” in a while (I read that book about a year and half ago, so my memories weren’t too sharp either).
As Jack gets closer and closer to putting the pieces together, the more the past plays into the story, but Konrath never bogs things down. He manages to keep the balance going and the story chugs along to it’s crazed conclusion.
This gives book three a different tone compared to the previous two books. Obviously the first “Whiskey Sour” was the intro novel. The follow up “Bloody Mary” was much more intense and graphic. It also moved at a very high speed. This book slowed down the pace a bit more and focused more on piecing the puzzle together and delving into Jack’s character a bit more. The element of the past plays a key role in the story and gives it a theme all it’s own.
So Konrath kept the series fresh feeling, even if he did end up with a serial killer on the lose as the basic plot again. The twists were pretty good and the identity of the killer had me guessing for a good while, but this time I did figure it out a few chapters before Jack did. I’m interested to see where he goes in book four. Will he keep the serial killer, or will Jack face a new type of danger? All in all, I found “Rusty Nail” to be a good read and an interesting study in keeping a series fresh.
Have you read “Rusty Nail”? What did you think of it? Do you have a favorite 3rd book or movie in a series? How did the writer keep the book feeling fresh and different?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Back into Hell – The Descent
You can’t get away from the underworld. No matter how old the story is, or how new fangled the tale proposes to be: there is always a moment where the main character must descend into the dark heart of the world and face the most brutal of fears.
Not too long ago I did a blog about “The Writer’s Journey” a book that explained how to use and understand the mythic hero’s quest style of storytelling. The journey into the underworld is a key moment in that mythic structure, and you see it in many forms in stories.
Sometimes it’s obvious, like in the Greek myth of Orpheus. The famous poet literally go into Hades to find his dead love and bring her back to the world of the living. He faces many trials and tests and completes most of them. But it is the final test, what should be the simplest, that ends up betraying Orpheus and causes him to turn from a hero into a tragic character. Find a good book of Greek myths and give the tale a re-read, it’s actually a great example of Underworld mythology.
Want something a bit more recent and less B.C. How about the most recent Star Trek film? The finale of the film takes place aboard the dark and dangerous Romulan space ship. Kirk and Spock must sneak inside, wander around in the darkness, face the king of the underworld (Nero in this case) and rescue the captured companion (Captain Pike). It’s the last major test for the heroes, one that ends up changing all of them and pushing them to their limits.
Well enough of those examples, let’s take a look at the book I read, Jeff Long’s “The Descent”. The title itself is a bit of a give away, but the bulk of the story is a journey into the underworld. The premise is simple, hell does exist and it is revealed to be a huge network of underground caverns that houses a civilization of beings that aren’t quite human, but seem to be a splinter of homo sapien.
Soon, “hell” is invaded by countries, armies and corporations. They do their best to eradicate the “demons” below but things might not be as easy as that. The main story follows an expedition that is sent into hell. It is comprised of scientists and a mercenary band for protection from the “demons”. At first the journey seems to be simple, straightforward exploration of a new frontier (very “Journey to the Center of the Earth”). But it becomes apparent that there are different loyalties among the group and that an operative among them might have a very different goal. Following along with this main story is a side story about a group of scholars and their search for Satan. They figure that since hell turned out to be a real place, that Satan must be real too, or at least based in historical fact. This search provides some clues that end up affecting the readers perception of what the explorers are experiencing.
So very literally Jeff Long has created an underworld and based his whole novel on the search and exploration of this world. The explorers initial journey into hell is actually one of the best parts of the book. It seems to be a simple matter of taking a colossal elevator/train to the bottom of the sea and then traveling in the underground corridors to the frontier settlements. But Long does a good job of allowing the reader to follow along with Ali, a nun who specializes in languages. Her journey from the upper world, the only one she’s known, down into the darkness of hell is actually the crux of the story. By giving you Ali’s perspective the reader feels the weight of the journey. As she travels deeper into the earth, the more the reader feels her wonder and her horror at the discoveries.
Of course no one can journey into the underworld and not change. Ali is an interesting character because as a nun she has seen horrors. She worked with the poor in Africa, and saw the toll that war and famine could take on humans. What she sees in hell is a new type of basic and elemental drive – something primal and almost bestial. It challenges what she felt she understood. This includes not only her teachings as a nun, but also what she felt was the basics of humanity. At the end of the story Ali is a very different person.
Ali is only one of several characters who makes the descent and each of them is changed in different ways. The book is interesting in its take on the underworld, and is worth reading for these elements (as a whole the book was good, but something was missing to make it a real knock out). It was interesting to see what Long did with his concept of making the underworld a real place.
What are your favorite stories the feature a plunge into “The Underworld”? Have you read “The Descent” or any of its follow up novels? Do you think the use of “the underworld” is a valid storytelling technique or is it too cliché?
Not too long ago I did a blog about “The Writer’s Journey” a book that explained how to use and understand the mythic hero’s quest style of storytelling. The journey into the underworld is a key moment in that mythic structure, and you see it in many forms in stories.
Sometimes it’s obvious, like in the Greek myth of Orpheus. The famous poet literally go into Hades to find his dead love and bring her back to the world of the living. He faces many trials and tests and completes most of them. But it is the final test, what should be the simplest, that ends up betraying Orpheus and causes him to turn from a hero into a tragic character. Find a good book of Greek myths and give the tale a re-read, it’s actually a great example of Underworld mythology.
Want something a bit more recent and less B.C. How about the most recent Star Trek film? The finale of the film takes place aboard the dark and dangerous Romulan space ship. Kirk and Spock must sneak inside, wander around in the darkness, face the king of the underworld (Nero in this case) and rescue the captured companion (Captain Pike). It’s the last major test for the heroes, one that ends up changing all of them and pushing them to their limits.
Well enough of those examples, let’s take a look at the book I read, Jeff Long’s “The Descent”. The title itself is a bit of a give away, but the bulk of the story is a journey into the underworld. The premise is simple, hell does exist and it is revealed to be a huge network of underground caverns that houses a civilization of beings that aren’t quite human, but seem to be a splinter of homo sapien.
Soon, “hell” is invaded by countries, armies and corporations. They do their best to eradicate the “demons” below but things might not be as easy as that. The main story follows an expedition that is sent into hell. It is comprised of scientists and a mercenary band for protection from the “demons”. At first the journey seems to be simple, straightforward exploration of a new frontier (very “Journey to the Center of the Earth”). But it becomes apparent that there are different loyalties among the group and that an operative among them might have a very different goal. Following along with this main story is a side story about a group of scholars and their search for Satan. They figure that since hell turned out to be a real place, that Satan must be real too, or at least based in historical fact. This search provides some clues that end up affecting the readers perception of what the explorers are experiencing.
So very literally Jeff Long has created an underworld and based his whole novel on the search and exploration of this world. The explorers initial journey into hell is actually one of the best parts of the book. It seems to be a simple matter of taking a colossal elevator/train to the bottom of the sea and then traveling in the underground corridors to the frontier settlements. But Long does a good job of allowing the reader to follow along with Ali, a nun who specializes in languages. Her journey from the upper world, the only one she’s known, down into the darkness of hell is actually the crux of the story. By giving you Ali’s perspective the reader feels the weight of the journey. As she travels deeper into the earth, the more the reader feels her wonder and her horror at the discoveries.
Of course no one can journey into the underworld and not change. Ali is an interesting character because as a nun she has seen horrors. She worked with the poor in Africa, and saw the toll that war and famine could take on humans. What she sees in hell is a new type of basic and elemental drive – something primal and almost bestial. It challenges what she felt she understood. This includes not only her teachings as a nun, but also what she felt was the basics of humanity. At the end of the story Ali is a very different person.
Ali is only one of several characters who makes the descent and each of them is changed in different ways. The book is interesting in its take on the underworld, and is worth reading for these elements (as a whole the book was good, but something was missing to make it a real knock out). It was interesting to see what Long did with his concept of making the underworld a real place.
What are your favorite stories the feature a plunge into “The Underworld”? Have you read “The Descent” or any of its follow up novels? Do you think the use of “the underworld” is a valid storytelling technique or is it too cliché?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Vampires Bite – Dracula
Over at one of my favorite DVD review sites (DVD Verdict), there is a particular reviewer who enjoys horror films. He gets to review quite a few, but lately he’s been lamenting the sad vampire flicks he’s had to watch.
Over at Reelviews, one of my favorite movie reviewers did a whole blog about the pathetic state of vampire films and how the mighty Dracula has fallen. http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=518
I even ran into a coworker who was disgusted with vampire movies, manga and anime. He recommended a good anime series where vampires “actually acted like creatures from hell”.
It seems like there is some kind of problem with the current state of vampires in fiction. Some of it comes from over-exposure. As the reviewer at DVD Verdict is quick to point out, nearly one out of every five horror films he ends up reviewing is a vampire flick (of course 3 out of the five end up being zombie flicks, but that can be another blog). You see enough of these movies and after a while they all end up feeling the same.
Then there is the whole Anne Rice issue. She took vampires and turned them into tortured souls who yearn for something greater than what they are. She fused Romance novel sensibilities into a gothic horror and created a genre unto itself: and it’s successful. I know lots of people who enjoy Rice’s work and the work of others who have fallen in line with her creation (the Twilight books being the most recent reincarnation).
Hell, I admit that one of my favorite shows, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” had it’s share of romantic vampires, but there was a good balance of real monsters and vampires that would sooner tear your throat out before they even start spouting philosophy. So I think you can say that Buffy at least covered all it’s bases.
At its core, the vampire myth is a horror cornerstone. You have a creature that appears to be human and yet it must drain the life out of a living human to survive. This fuses the vampire into a strange beast/human hybrid, one that must kill to survive. Keep in mind, this is a basic description and you can apply it to monsters that aren’t strictly vampires (at least in the standard gothic book of monsters). You can have something like the Wendigo that drains the soul of a human, leaving on a shell behind. Or something like the salt drainer from the Original series of Star Trek.
The element that makes the vampire appealing is that fusion of beast and human. It’s easy to see how this mix can be turned into something romantic or erotic. You have a human that must kill to live, and yet it’s so human-like, it could be appealing. The lure of danger is strong.
Did the most famous of vampires, Dracula, have this uncanny draw for women? Unfortunately I don’t have the book handy. As far as I remember, it’s never specifically stated. Dracula is deadly, hungry and clever. He bides his time, manipulating others and sneaking around. Sure he ends up claiming poor Lucy, and turning her into a creature of the night, but as far as I recall, he never gets romantic with her. It’s more the horror of draining her slowly and then killing her off.
When Coppola made his version of the story in 1992, he strove to keep the story close the original book, and succeeded in parts. But in the end, even he injected more romance into the story, creating a Beauty and the Beast version of the tale. I actually enjoy the movie a great deal (wonderful visuals, an awesome score and arresting sound effects), I just wish the casting had been a bit better. I actually would love to see the film as a silent movie, with title cards or subtitles instead of the spoken dialogue and the rich score guiding the story.
Back to the issue at hand - do people want actual fictional vampires to be scary any more? Has the vampire gone from being a monster and been transformed into a bad boy/girl with severe anemia? Or is there another answer. Has the vampire just become a very versatile character – one that can be used in a variety of situations and appeal to a variety of audiences?
Either way, I find it difficult to even think of writing a story including a vampire character. Is there anything that hasn’t been done with the bloodsucker? And if not, does it even matter?
What do you think of vampires in current fiction? Have you seen a resent vampire story that didn’t feel like the same old story? Why do you think people are drawn to this creature?
Over at Reelviews, one of my favorite movie reviewers did a whole blog about the pathetic state of vampire films and how the mighty Dracula has fallen. http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=518
I even ran into a coworker who was disgusted with vampire movies, manga and anime. He recommended a good anime series where vampires “actually acted like creatures from hell”.
It seems like there is some kind of problem with the current state of vampires in fiction. Some of it comes from over-exposure. As the reviewer at DVD Verdict is quick to point out, nearly one out of every five horror films he ends up reviewing is a vampire flick (of course 3 out of the five end up being zombie flicks, but that can be another blog). You see enough of these movies and after a while they all end up feeling the same.
Then there is the whole Anne Rice issue. She took vampires and turned them into tortured souls who yearn for something greater than what they are. She fused Romance novel sensibilities into a gothic horror and created a genre unto itself: and it’s successful. I know lots of people who enjoy Rice’s work and the work of others who have fallen in line with her creation (the Twilight books being the most recent reincarnation).
Hell, I admit that one of my favorite shows, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” had it’s share of romantic vampires, but there was a good balance of real monsters and vampires that would sooner tear your throat out before they even start spouting philosophy. So I think you can say that Buffy at least covered all it’s bases.
At its core, the vampire myth is a horror cornerstone. You have a creature that appears to be human and yet it must drain the life out of a living human to survive. This fuses the vampire into a strange beast/human hybrid, one that must kill to survive. Keep in mind, this is a basic description and you can apply it to monsters that aren’t strictly vampires (at least in the standard gothic book of monsters). You can have something like the Wendigo that drains the soul of a human, leaving on a shell behind. Or something like the salt drainer from the Original series of Star Trek.
The element that makes the vampire appealing is that fusion of beast and human. It’s easy to see how this mix can be turned into something romantic or erotic. You have a human that must kill to live, and yet it’s so human-like, it could be appealing. The lure of danger is strong.
Did the most famous of vampires, Dracula, have this uncanny draw for women? Unfortunately I don’t have the book handy. As far as I remember, it’s never specifically stated. Dracula is deadly, hungry and clever. He bides his time, manipulating others and sneaking around. Sure he ends up claiming poor Lucy, and turning her into a creature of the night, but as far as I recall, he never gets romantic with her. It’s more the horror of draining her slowly and then killing her off.
When Coppola made his version of the story in 1992, he strove to keep the story close the original book, and succeeded in parts. But in the end, even he injected more romance into the story, creating a Beauty and the Beast version of the tale. I actually enjoy the movie a great deal (wonderful visuals, an awesome score and arresting sound effects), I just wish the casting had been a bit better. I actually would love to see the film as a silent movie, with title cards or subtitles instead of the spoken dialogue and the rich score guiding the story.
Back to the issue at hand - do people want actual fictional vampires to be scary any more? Has the vampire gone from being a monster and been transformed into a bad boy/girl with severe anemia? Or is there another answer. Has the vampire just become a very versatile character – one that can be used in a variety of situations and appeal to a variety of audiences?
Either way, I find it difficult to even think of writing a story including a vampire character. Is there anything that hasn’t been done with the bloodsucker? And if not, does it even matter?
What do you think of vampires in current fiction? Have you seen a resent vampire story that didn’t feel like the same old story? Why do you think people are drawn to this creature?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)