Pants on Fire – Thank you For Smoking

The success of a book like “Thank you for Smoking” rests on the shoulders of creating a solid antihero. And if anything Nick Naylor is an antihero. He lies for a living. His job is to go onto television and radio and spin attacks against the tobacco industry into positives. He uses shaky statistics, charisma and a quick wit to keep twisting the attacks back onto the attackers, and he’s very good at it.

Christopher Buckley has created a very interesting character, one that is despicable and yet at the same time likable. Nick knows what he’s doing is morally wrong, but he’s so darn good at it, that the challenge seems to feed him. He rises to each attack, many seemingly hopeless and manages to get out of the predicament each time.

As a reader you keep turning the pages to see what new challenge Nick will face next and how he’ll get around it. He’s on Oprah with a young man who’s got cancer, and who was inspired to smoke by Joe Camel. How do you turn that into a positive – Nick does it. The senator from Vermont wants to put the skull and crossbones on cigarette packs. Nick turns it into an issue with Vermont cheddar cheese. He’s sent to Hollywood to get cigarettes into more movies and shown in a positive light. The whole situations provides a hilarious look at product placement in films.

The book as a whole is very cynical and black hearted, but it’s consistently amusing and had a few laugh out loud moments. It’s the character of Nick that keeps it interesting and fun. And even when I felt that the whole thing was getting stretched just a bit too thin, Buckly starts to wrap up his tale.

All in all it’s a good study on how to make an entertaining and interesting antihero.

Have you read, “Thank you for Smoking”? What did you think? Who is your favorite antihero character?

Weaving the Plot - David Copperfield

Last year I took a crack at Charles Dickens and read “Great Expectations”. I found the experience to be entertaining and educational. So this year I decided to give him another try (again during winter, which just seems like a Dickensian time). I heard that “David Copperfield” was not only the book that Dickens’ considered his favorite, but many readers consider it to be one of his most accessible novels. At the bookstore I was in for a bit of a shock – “David Copperfield” was a huge book. Weighing in at slightly less than one ton, I was intimidated. Could I endure that much Dickens, or would it end in tears? But hey, I read all of “The Histories” by Herodotus and it was about that long.

Once again it took me a couple of chapters to get into the style and language of the time. Dickens is pretty notorious for getting paid by the word, and yes there are sections of this story that prove that. But Dickens does something else that helps increase his word count without being overly verbose – he structures his story in a way that lends itself to multiple points of view. He did this to an extent in “Great Expectations”, but in “David Copperfield” it felt more obvious.

David is telling us his story, and so he provides us with two points of view. One point of view is of younger David as he makes his way through life and the other is the older David commenting on that life. This isn’t Dickens merely restating the same scenes, he actually offers commentary as older David, hinting at things we have yet to read and offering a bit more depth that the younger David can’t know. This duality actually works very well to not only increase the word count, but also add to the story on various levels.

The other thing that Dickens does is introduce a whole cast of interesting and colorful supporting characters. Some of them help David, some of them actively try to hinder him. All of them pop up continuously through the narrative. This is typical of Dickens and some fault him for it. I find it to be a charming part of the world he creates. Yes, he is commenting on current events, but I think it’s a bit easier for us reading years later to see it as a different world, a fiction where people would come into contact throughout life.

The danger of this technique is that readers will lose track of who is who. Dickens avoids this by give each character a unique personality. Sure Mr. Murdstone and Uriah Heep are both villains (with great names!), but they are uniquely wicked in their own ways. Murdstone is a rigid man who’s hypocritical adherence to religion and rules literally destroys those around him. Heep on the other hand is a slimy man, who puts on a face of humility while abusing the weaknesses of others and going out of his way to make everyone as unhappy as he is. The characters are so vividly drawn and observed by both David’s that the reader actually wants to know just what is going to happen next.

And that is pretty much what happened. I was engrossed in the story and enjoyed reading the weighty tome to its conclusion. David Copperfield himself is a rather bland fellow, reminding me a great deal of Pip from “Great Expectations”, but he’s basically a good soul who finds himself in all kinds of situations. But the reader is entertained by the supporting characters and the situations that Dickens comes up with. I have to admit that I chocked up quite a bit during the last few chapters – to me that’s a solid testament to the skill of the writer. For a book that long, I think Dickens did an excellent job.

What do you think of “David Copperfield” or Dickens in general? Do you think his approach to characters is a valid one, or do you consider it a cheat? What is the longest book that you’ve tackled, and why did it work (or not)?

The Other Side of the Coin – The Naked Sun

Last year I read Isaac Asimov’s “Caves of Steel”, an interesting combination of mystery and sci-fi. It was Asimov’s first novel length Robot themed work and to tell you the truth, I enjoyed it a great deal. Anyone who is not familiar with Asimov should give it a try. It’s very accessible and entertaining to boot.

Now I’ve read Asimov before. I’ve blogged about “The Gods Themselves” and read the Foundation trilogy in high school. So I was pretty familiar with his style and the way he weaves interesting science based themes into his work. “The Gods Themselves” did it in a way that was fairly obvious, but the story was engaging enough to keep the themes from disrupting the flow.

I can say that the two Robot Novels I’ve read, “Caves of Steel” and “The Naked Sun” are much more based in telling the story and having the themes play more of a background role. After all most mystery stories have to be plot based by their nature – otherwise the mystery ends up taking back seat to the thematic action. That’s what makes these two books easy to recommend to people who aren’t huge fans of science fiction. The mysteries are both compelling enough to make the story entertaining, and if they make you think outside of the story – well that’s just a great bonus.

“The Naked Sun” is really a solid companion novel to “Caves of Steel”. Sure you could read “Naked Sun” and enjoy it without reading “Caves of Steel” first, but they actually work together so well, that I really wish I had read the two books back to back. The Naked sun follows the protagonist of the first book, Elijah Bailey to the world of Solaris, where a murder has taken place. He is brought in to find the killer, and bring them to justice – simple enough right?

Well, Bailey has a few problems right from the start. Being from Earth, he’s not used to huge open spaces and wandering about on the surface of the world. In “Caves of Steel” we learn that humanity is living underground in densely populated mega-cities. Bailey is used to crowds of people and recycled air. The fact that Solaris is all open fields and huge mansions presents not only a huge culture shift for him, but actually makes it difficult for him to concentrate on the task at hand.

In addition the world is sparsely populated, but has an enormous robot to human ratio – something like 10,000 robots to every one person. On Earth robots are disliked and considered to be a necessary evil. On Solaris, they are a fact of life, built to serve and do whatever the Solarians ask.

While the mystery is still the focal point of the plot, it is the huge cultural differences that not only drive the story, but also provide for the themes of the book. The contrast between earth and Solaris is very obvious, but as Bailey attempts to untangle the mystery, he finds more and more that the differences between the two cultures shows strengths and weaknesses in each that he never considered before. And this leads into the final chapter of the book where Bailey realizes a truth about human kind and the fate of those on earth.

All in the all the book is a solid read, every bit as intriguing as “Caves of Steel”, if a little on the slower paced side. There isn’t much in the way of action in the novel, most of the interaction happens via view screen (Solarians refuse to see each other face to face and find such close contact abhorrent and obscene). But the mystery itself as well as the finding out bits of the culture as you search for clues with Bailey keeps you turning pages. The only downside for me was that the very interesting character of Robot Daneel Olivaw has a smaller role to play. While in “Caves of Steel” he was a main character and key to the investigation. In the “Naked Sun” he is removed from the story for a good third of the book. He plays a key role, but I missed his interaction with Bailey.

What “The Naked Sun” is an excellent example of is the fact that Asimov took his characters and situations from “Caves of Steel” and wrote a sequel that not only expanded and developed those ideas, but also made sure that “The Naked Sun” took the world concept into a new direction. This is actually a really impressive sequel – one that doesn’t rehash the previous book, but moves things in a new direction and provides a very interesting ending.

In his introduction to the book Asimov says that he felt that “The Naked Sun” was the perfect ending to his Robot series. I agree with him. He did end up writing a third book 25 years later called “Robots of Dawn”. I’m curious to read it, but I wonder if it was really necessary. “The Naked Sun” was a perfect ending for these characters and that world.

Have you read “The Naked Sun”? What did you think of it? Have you ever read a book or seen a movie that was a excellent sequel – one that took the established characters and situations and took them in a new direction (instead of just rehashing the story)?

A Tragic Legacy – The Children of Hurin

Tolkien is considered the father of “High Fantasy” or fantasy stories based on the model of epic quests to save the world (as opposed to “Low Fantasy” or a series of adventures where the main character is more out for themselves). He created a vast detailed world that obviously resonates today not only to readers and writers, but the public at large now that “The Lord of the Rings” movies have come and gone.

So when more of his work comes to light, there plenty of fantasy fans who start salivating. This was the case for “Children of Hurin”, a work that was created from several different accounts written by J.R.R. Tolkien and compiled by his son. Reading the introduction you get a feel for the reason why the story was compiled in the first place – Tolkien felt that it was a key part of the world he created. It didn’t have the vast mythological view of “The Simarlillian” (a work I have yet to be able to get through, despite my love of mythology). And it wouldn’t be like the adventurous duo of “The Hobbit” or “Lord of the Rings”. Instead this fell somewhere in the middle, a solid hero legend.

For the most part you can’t tell that the work was a fusion of different sources. Tolkien does a good job of creating a linear flow to the work and smoothes over the rough patches with minimal interference. My only issue was the first chapter in which the amount of Tolkien-esque names was hurtling at me fast and furious and the whole chapter came across like an info dump. But after that chapter, the story got rolling and was very interesting. It was a solid mix of wanderings, chases, escapes, battles, love and doom.

Doom plays a huge role in the story and in the end makes the book feel very melancholy. Even “Lord of the Rings” has a feeling of sadness to it (what with the elves leaving and everyone running off to the Grey Havens at the end), but the final words of the book and the movie were with Sam, and he seemed to give you comfort that everything was all right.

“Children of Hurin” doesn’t go for the warm fuzzies. It’s main theme is about fighting fate and how fate or Doom if you prefer is too strong to completely break from. But the Doom in this case is powered by the malicious soul of Morgoth (the god-like being who was Sauron’s master). Once Morgoth sets his will against you there is nothing you can do to stop it. The protagonist, Turin, isn’t completely aware of this doom, but as we follow him we see its affects again and again. Still Turin does his best to live a life that he can be proud of and one that does a lot of good (even if it also causes a lot of harm). The story is an epic tragedy in a way, but one governed by the will of Morgoth – now the will of Turin.

How does this tie to “Lord of the Rings” especially since it happen centuries before the more famous story? It actually tells you more about the One Ring. Morgoth doesn’t even need a ring to impose his will. He merely thinks of cursing you and you are cursed. This focused malevolence is made very clear in the book and gives us an idea of how his servant Sauron could create the Ring. The focusing of the will of Sauron into the Ring is much like what Morgoth did in this story.

That said, I think Tolkien fans will find a lot to like in the book. It’s not one I may revisit often, but when I’m in a melancholy mood, or just looking for a Tolkien fix shorter than Lord of the Rings, this will be an easy one to pick up.

What did you think of “Children of Hurin”? What do you think of J.R.R. Tolkien? What do you make of the idea of fate or Doom? Do you ever address that idea in your stories?

Matters of Perspective – Watchmen (novel)

“Watchmen” has been touted as one of the most important graphic novels in the history of the media. Reading a little about it you discover that is changed the way comic books were viewed, perhaps even leading to the phrase graphic novel. It has been called a deconstruction of the superhero storyline. It has been called a work of art. It has been called one of the greatest novels of all time.

So when you see all that hyperbole you can’t help but feel a bit antagonistic. I mean, it can’t be that good right?

What struck me the most while reading “Watchmen” was the fact its impact must have been monumental back in 1986 when it was published. Now, it’s like “Star Wars – A New Hope” or “Blue Suede Shoes” by Elvis. We can see how innovative it was during its time, but now it seems familiar or cliché (even if it invented the cliché in the first place). Now maybe I’m doing “Watchmen” a bit of a disservice. That is not my intention; I just want to put some perspective on my reaction to it.

When I was done, I felt a little annoyed that all that work went into what was essentially an anti-climax. I understand it was the point. The story is supposed to take all our conventions about super hero stories and shatter them. It did that. But a real great piece of art not only conveys its message but does so in a way that is affecting. Annoyance isn’t really affecting – it’s, well annoying. Did the artists mean to annoy me? You could argue one way or the other. I think they were trying to make me think – and they did a very good job of it.

Now, I’m willing to say that my exposure to the medium of super hero comics is fairly light. In my youth I read some “X-men” (Uncanny and regular). I read some “Transformers” back when those were the rage. I even had a couple compilations of “The Incredible Hulk”, “The Fantastic Four” and “The Amazing Spiderman” when I was really young. I don’t remember them too well, but my parents have stories of me yelling “Flame on!” when I was in my single digits. I have a sense of what super hero comics were before “Watchmen”.

The focus of most of these stories were good versus evil – with lines clearly drawn. It was about action and adventure. Sometimes the superheroes had personal problems, but it was rarely the kind of thing that turned into a feature storyline. The art supported the action and was very functional. Most mysteries were solved in the same issue they were presented. Again, these are broad generalizations based on my experience, I’m sure there were exceptions.

“Watchmen” does not have clearly drawn lines of good and evil. The story is not about action or adventure, but is theme based. “Watchmen” is the first superhero comic book I’ve read that is so rich in themes and ideas, and not only presents them, but also shifts perspectives to provide other views of the themes. All the super heroes have some kind of personal problems and these problems as well as their history take up the bulk of the story. These become part of the themes and feed into multiple ideas. The art not only illustrates the action, but it has deeper layers, sometimes providing ironic imagery, or illustrating the feelings behind the dialogue, or illustrating what is being said in a unexpected way. “Watchmen” forces you to examine nearly each panel and look back at previous panels after you proceed deeper into the book. Some of the questions presented in the book are never answered, and the ones that are only seem to lead to new questions. The world of the “Watchmen” is profoundly changed in the series, but I was left wondering what would happen after the events depicted.

It’s easy to see all the ways “Watchmen” have influenced the super hero genre in nearly all points. It’s a dark and cynical book. And that darkness and cynicism really affected the genre. So much so that most super hero films must be cynical, dark and moody. Just compare Richard Donner’s “Superman” with Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns”. They both portray the same set of characters and are connected even via narrative – and yet the feel between the two couldn’t be more different. “Superman Returns” reflects what audiences expect from comic book super heroes after “Watchmen” changed the game.

“Watchmen” plays with perspective. And as a modern reader, our perspective must be adjusted. Some of us only know the world after “Watchmen” and may not see anything extremely innovative in it now. But it takes more than just reading the surface of the book. It begs to be thought about and examined from all perspectives. It makes it unique and interesting and powerful.

I’m going to tackle the movie in a separate blog, so save your movie specific comments for the next installment.

Have you read “Watchmen”? What did you think of it? Was your perspective of comic book super heroes changed by it, or did your perspective of the genre affect what you thought of it?

Art of Animation – Miyazaki

Since “Ponyo” was released on American shores this past summer, I decided to revisit a book I had about Hayao Miyazaki, ironically called “Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation”. It gives a nice basic overview of the man’s career up to the release of “Princess Mononoke” in 1998. So it’s a bit dated. In a way it was a neat look back at the type of book that would be released before the internet really took off for all things Anime and a time when most of Miyazaki’s work hadn’t been released in the states. Reading now was a bit odd, because the bulk of it is synopsizes for movies that are readily available. But back in the late 90’s only three of his films were available (uncut) in the US market, “Princess Mononoke”, “Kiki’s Delivery Service” and “My Neighbor Totoro”. It is the history of his animation work as well as the creation of his own studio, Ghibli, that makes this an interesting read– if not covered in a lot of depth.

But why should anyone care about Miyazaki? Japanese animation is pretty prevalent now and it’s impact has crossed over into much modern American animation. For one thing Miyazaki is actually a master storyteller in the animated medium. Just looking at his filmography and you can see a wide variety of topics: a comedy adventure film about a thief with a heart of gold, an epic post-apocalyptic legend, the story of a young witch trying to make it on her own in a big city, the war of man against nature staged in a mythic samurai setting, and the tale of a little mermaid who nearly destroys the earth. What is amazing is that all the films are successful and a few would be considered gems in anyone’s career.

Comparisons between Miyazaki and Disney usually occur. Miyazaki strikes me as less of the showman and more of a storyteller. The writer of the book actually compares Miyazaki to another famous Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa of “Seven Samurai” fame. That does seem to fit a bit better. Miyazaki picks his stories with care and makes sure that even in the simplest story a couple of key themes are realized. One of these themes seems to be man’s place in the world with nature. This has been a key element since his first independent film “Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind” and continues twenty some odd years later into “Ponyo”. For some, and this includes me, it comes across a bit preachy, but if you look at Miyazaki’s main conceit, it isn’t that humans are bad and nature is good. It’s more like humans are a part of nature – neither above or below it. Humans must understand that when they harm nature they harm themselves. “Nausicaa” and “Princess Mononoke” show this most clearly, but “Totoro” and “Ponyo” have elements of this as well.

One thing that Miyazaki does excel at is making his character relatable and human (even if they aren’t strictly speaking human). This is something that Disney seemed to loose it’s grip on in the late 90’s and that Pixar quickly figured out. Nearly all the main characters in a Miyazaki film connect with the viewer on some level. We’ve all been the new person in a situation, or felt like we’ve been put into a situation we weren’t ready to accept, or just dealt with losing a friend because they move away. His use of animating the world around the characters in a way that allows us to view it as they do works wonders.

One of my favorite moments of this is when Kiki, the young witch looking for a place to set up her new life, flies into the city for the first time. Up to this point Miyazaki has kept things moving at a measured pace, keeping motion leisurely and relaxed. But the minute Kiki gets into the city everything is in motion. There is noise all over the place, and Kiki nearly ends up run over by a bus. The anxiety is perfectly captured in the animation, facial expressions and music of the scene. Kiki and the audience wonders if she’s just stepped into something way bigger than she is.

I could write reams about what Miyazaki does right in his films. But I urge you to check out one of his films if you haven’t already. Different people will need different starting points. Those who enjoy a bit more mythic and epic feels to their stories would probably want to start with Princess Mononoke or Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind which could fall into fantasy or sci-fi respectively. Looking for something more along the cute and harmless route? I suggest Kiki’s Delivery Service or My Neighbor Totoro. Enjoy Alice in Wonderland and want to see a darker Japanese version, Spirited Away is perfect for that. Love WW1 airplanes and screwball comedy, Porco Rosso is the movie for you. Jules Verne more your speed, Castle in the Sky is the one for you. Looking for a modern day fairytale: check out the “Little Mermaid” inspired, Ponyo. The only one I don’t have a category for is Howl’s Moving Castle. It’s very much like a fairy tale, but has an old world feel to it. Visually it’s amazing. But it’s the one place where it feels a little off in the story department.

My favorites? “Spirited Away” amazes me each time I watch it. Visually stunning, a solid story and an excellent score to boot. My second favorite would be “Kiki’s Delivery Service”. The movie fits the definition of delightful. Kiki’s a great character and her struggles in the second half of the movie will appeal to just about anyone who feels they have a talent, but also feels that they’ve lost touch with it. The movie never fails to make me smile.

Ever seen any of Miyazaki’s films? Do you have a favorite? Do you think animation can be used to tell a story with impact, or is it only a place for kids entertainment?

Check out a blog about Spirited Away and it's take on fantasy here.

One man’s mania – Virtues of War

Good old Alexander the Great, one of those historical figures that fascinates and torments historians. Was he a great leader, a mad man, or some combination of the two? Films and books have struggled with the man and his exploits, each tackling a different angle on him. Most recently I ending up reading “Virtues of War” by Stephen Pressfield.

The first thing Pressfield had to do was figure out how to approach Alexander. He doesn’t shy away at all. The book is written in the First Person point of view, so right off the bat you are put into Alexander’s mind. I thought this was a bold and unexpected movie. It presumes a bit that the author understands Alexander enough to give us an accurate picture

The story starts in India with Alexander facing what could be his greatest challenge. Not only is a vast army arrayed against him, but his men are losing faith in Alexander’s mission and without their fighting spirit Alexander fears that he may be unable to grasp victory. He brings in one of the young squires to see if the boy can give him a new perspective. Of course he has to bring the squire up to speed, and in the process he brings the readers up to speed as well.

This is Alexander’s history according to Alexander, and in a way it provides us with a view of his accomplishments and why he is so driven. It’s a character study with lots of battle scenes, plotting and of course dealing with the problems of a world conqueror. We come to understand Alexander’s drive, or at least see why he is so driven

Pressfield gives Alexander a belief in dualism of self. There is Alexander the friend and companion. Then there is Alexander the monster – a thing driven by the desire for glory and desire for the unobtainable. The two are often one being, but Alexander fears the monster inside him and what it will drive him to do. But this isn’t a split personality. It is part of Alexander, something he can not forget or ignore.

The book was a very good read. It provided a very interesting and believable view of Alexander the Great. It also gave a pretty interesting view of the most famous battle Alexander waged. Historians don’t’ really understand how some ancient warfare worked, but Pressfield does a great job of throwing you into the action and making is accessible and entertaining. Definitely a recommendation for anyone interested in Alexander or ancient battle campaigns.

What did you think of “Virtues of War”? What is the best version of Alexander the Great’s story you’ve encountered? Is there another way to approach the story of historical figure who is a real puzzle?