Elizabeth Einspanier asked me to review her novel "Sheep's Clothing". She describes it as a "Weird Western" because it takes place in the Wild West and involves the supernatural. I will examine Plot, Characters, and Polish before assigning a grade.
PLOT
A vampire hunter comes to the frontier town of Salvation chasing a Vampire Lord and he recruits the local doctor to finish the job.
I like this plot because it is straightforward, compelling and concise. It's like "this is the enemy, this is what we need to do to kill him, let's do it." It is neither too long with filler, stretches or otherwise unnecessary items, nor is it too short with unreasonable breaks for either side or idiot balls to facilitate action. Nor are there info dumps. Wolf explained as necessary, which informs his character as practical.
Miss.Einspanier straight away gets into the meat of the matter. The introduction scene is Doc Meadows pulling a piece of silver out of Wolf and remarking on the oddness of the injury and of his latest patient. By the start of the next day, they are a hero-sidekick pair.
There's a good deal of action here. Those seeking fight scenes will not be disappointed. However, the more important part is the investigation. Wolf and Meadow are similar to detectives in this regard because they have to discover Russeau's lairs before they can be destroyed.
Another thing I like is the discarding of the You Have to Believe Me trope. Doc Meadows is suitably skeptical of vampires and such, but after seeing the peculiar wound in Wolf and watching Russeau -minus glamor he is willing to listen. Other people in town are similar. There's none of that desperate straw pulling I've seen in other stories (novel and otherwise).
As for flaws I have only one and it is a minor one. I thought the fight against the second vampire minion was anti-climatic given her identity. Otherwise, no complaints.
Ending is fantastic. Conflict resolved, character development, all that good stuff.
This story is classic vampire hunting matched with Wild West Vigilantism. The word for that is "Cool!"
CHARACTERS
There is little time at the start to develop the protagonist (the doctor, not the hunter) and none of it is spent making him "relatable". It is a trick to make a first person narrator a fully fleshed character and it is even more impressive when they are a supporting protagonist. It is easy to tell and quick to catch that Nathaniel Meadows is a Gentleman and Scholar, a Cowardly Lion, and all around a Nice Guy.
Crowie Wolf is an excellent hero. He's gruff and foul mouthed but not a jerkass. He's full of heroic spirit but not a blindingly bright boy scout in a cape. It's difficult to hit that sweet spot. Another point I like about him is that he is an educated man but in a separate way from the doctor. You could say he has a Bachelor Degree in Supernatural Hunting and Lore.
Russeau is an old school Dracula style vampire; an evil blood sucking demon. No sparkling! He can look human but without his glamour it is clear to anyone that he's only pretending the part.
POLISH
I found one thing misspelled but I forgot what it was it was because it was just the one. Nothing wrong in terms of grammar.
I liked the use of the first person narration. It's not self-conscious or obstructive.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Sheep's Clothing" an A+
Click here for the next review request: "Disconnect"
Click here for the previous review request: "Kindling Ashes"
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Answering Review Request: Kindling Ashes
Laura Harris asked me to read her story "Kindling Ashes". It features a conflict between the Firesouls, who want to revive the dragon race, and the dragon slayers, who want to finish the job they started sixteen years ago. I will examine plot, characters and polish, and then then assign a grade.
PLOT
The story begins in the aftermath of a war between humans and dragons in the kingdom of Auland. It ended with dragon extinction, but unknown to most humans, the dragons have been hiding out inside humans as disembodied spirits. Now the dragons seek to regroup and return to dragon bodies before their hosts go up in flames. It's a sympathetic conflict and drives one of the two protagonists up the wall with in-decision.
There are two protagonist because this book features a dual-protagonist system. Every chapter switches the perspective of the story between Giselle, a firesoul sympathetic to the dragons, and Corran, a firesoul who wants to kill dragons. It works well not only because it underscores the grey and grey morality of the story. For instance, one chapter will have humans recall dragons tearing towers down and burning humans alive while the next will have dragons recall raids by humans that ended with dead mates and shattered eggs.
The cause and nature of the war is revealed over the course of the story. It's an interesting deconstruction of the age-old idea that dragons hoard treasure in caves.
It's not action packed by any stretch of the word but I read through it quicker than I do many review requests because the world building intrigued me and I liked the characters. Corran, in particular, was fun to dissect for his true motive and which side of the fence he would fall on.
There are a couple problems but all of them occur near the end of the story, leaving the rest spotless.
1. There's a Whatever Happened To The Mouse with a major villain, which is puzzling given the situation, but a protagonist notes the absence and also that there's a more pressing matter to tend to. Thus, it's easier to overlook.
2. There's a Diablos Ex Machina that prevents one of the two protagonists from living happily ever after as of this book, instead of waiting for the end of the series. It happens early enough, and there's enough development before and after that I feel it will become something more than that. Thus, it's also easier to overlook.
CHARACTERS
Giselle is the leading lady. I like her. She has this vulnerable toughness thing that makes her a endearing and sympathetic protagonist. There's also her fighting skills. Considering she's a host for a dragon, one would think the author would make her this super powered warrior but that's not the case. She's as strong and skilled as you'd expect a teenage street urchin whose never seriously fought before the story to be. When outmatched, she runs away or uses guile instead of god mode dragon powers.
Corran is the leading guy. What's interesting about him is that he spends the book pulled in three directions. He's from a family of dragonslayers, holds the soul of a dragon but isn't fond of either group because the former (save one member) is abusive and the latter he has been raised to hate as evil monsters. It's like he's walking on a fence for the entire story and wobbles this way and that while plotting his own course. It was fascinating to debate whether really wanted to kill dragons to be a hero or just wanted to show up his big brother bully; in other words, if he was a hero or a villain.
Frang gets a mention because he's my favorite character. He's a dragon soul stuck in Corran's head and a large part of the reason that Corran's side of the story (his mental processes and such) is so interesting. He shows the boy his memories as proof that dragons are not evil and so the boy has to go to greater lengths to justify his hatred. He's also a witty snarker that, at the same time, has a bigger role and wider personality than simple comic relief.
I could go on, but I only have more good things to say about the characters.
POLISH
No spelling or grammar problems. I like the split narration because it is consistent and adds value to the story. Other books I've reviewed use this technique but it reads like two or more separate stories. This is two sides of the same one because they reflect each other and constantly intertwine.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Kindling Ashes" an A+
Click here for the next review request: "Sheep's Clothing"
Click here for the previous review request: "The Underworld King"
PLOT
The story begins in the aftermath of a war between humans and dragons in the kingdom of Auland. It ended with dragon extinction, but unknown to most humans, the dragons have been hiding out inside humans as disembodied spirits. Now the dragons seek to regroup and return to dragon bodies before their hosts go up in flames. It's a sympathetic conflict and drives one of the two protagonists up the wall with in-decision.
There are two protagonist because this book features a dual-protagonist system. Every chapter switches the perspective of the story between Giselle, a firesoul sympathetic to the dragons, and Corran, a firesoul who wants to kill dragons. It works well not only because it underscores the grey and grey morality of the story. For instance, one chapter will have humans recall dragons tearing towers down and burning humans alive while the next will have dragons recall raids by humans that ended with dead mates and shattered eggs.
The cause and nature of the war is revealed over the course of the story. It's an interesting deconstruction of the age-old idea that dragons hoard treasure in caves.
It's not action packed by any stretch of the word but I read through it quicker than I do many review requests because the world building intrigued me and I liked the characters. Corran, in particular, was fun to dissect for his true motive and which side of the fence he would fall on.
There are a couple problems but all of them occur near the end of the story, leaving the rest spotless.
1. There's a Whatever Happened To The Mouse with a major villain, which is puzzling given the situation, but a protagonist notes the absence and also that there's a more pressing matter to tend to. Thus, it's easier to overlook.
2. There's a Diablos Ex Machina that prevents one of the two protagonists from living happily ever after as of this book, instead of waiting for the end of the series. It happens early enough, and there's enough development before and after that I feel it will become something more than that. Thus, it's also easier to overlook.
CHARACTERS
Giselle is the leading lady. I like her. She has this vulnerable toughness thing that makes her a endearing and sympathetic protagonist. There's also her fighting skills. Considering she's a host for a dragon, one would think the author would make her this super powered warrior but that's not the case. She's as strong and skilled as you'd expect a teenage street urchin whose never seriously fought before the story to be. When outmatched, she runs away or uses guile instead of god mode dragon powers.
Corran is the leading guy. What's interesting about him is that he spends the book pulled in three directions. He's from a family of dragonslayers, holds the soul of a dragon but isn't fond of either group because the former (save one member) is abusive and the latter he has been raised to hate as evil monsters. It's like he's walking on a fence for the entire story and wobbles this way and that while plotting his own course. It was fascinating to debate whether really wanted to kill dragons to be a hero or just wanted to show up his big brother bully; in other words, if he was a hero or a villain.
Frang gets a mention because he's my favorite character. He's a dragon soul stuck in Corran's head and a large part of the reason that Corran's side of the story (his mental processes and such) is so interesting. He shows the boy his memories as proof that dragons are not evil and so the boy has to go to greater lengths to justify his hatred. He's also a witty snarker that, at the same time, has a bigger role and wider personality than simple comic relief.
I could go on, but I only have more good things to say about the characters.
POLISH
No spelling or grammar problems. I like the split narration because it is consistent and adds value to the story. Other books I've reviewed use this technique but it reads like two or more separate stories. This is two sides of the same one because they reflect each other and constantly intertwine.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Kindling Ashes" an A+
Click here for the next review request: "Sheep's Clothing"
Click here for the previous review request: "The Underworld King"
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
How to Create Effective Cliffhangers
Cliff hangers are named thus because they evoke a sense of danger, as if hanging over the edge of a cliff. When used between chapters they create the "page turning effect" sought after by thrillers and other high octane genres. When used between books they can become distasteful if used improperly.
At that point, it's no longer a question of creative intent but business intent. To end a book on a cliffhanger is to presume that the reader would buy the next book simply to find out what happens next, instead of the book's inherent quality. This is especially the case if it is tacked on at the end for the sole purpose of a cliffhanger instead of events leading up to something meaningful. It's like pushing a reader off a cliff and refusing to hand them a rope unless they pay for it.
I also call this "The Missing Epilogue" because the problem could be corrected with a short epilogue. Something that shows the aftermath of the climax and closes up plot threads. It could even be a preview of the next book to increase anticipated sales, as long it closes the first book at the same time as opening the second.
It's about that sense of closure. For however many hundreds of pages, the plot is developed and brought to its climax, the highest point. After that, a reader expects some falling action and resolution. It doesn't have to resolve everything neatly (I've heard some authors don't like that for some reason, either creatively or out of a desire for realism) but I want to see the fallout of the climax. Don't stop at the tail end of the climax because the reader wants to see more. To exploit that desire with a "buy the next book" line is a business decision and likely to antagonize the reader.
Indeed, as a volunteer book reviewer I've read several books like that. They cut off at the tail end of the climax or introduce something new on the last page; some last second twist to stir the reader into a frenzy and buy the next book. Instead, I've thought "Ick!" and downgraded their final rank in my review. I don't read sequels to books like this because they are likely to have similar endings, final book included.
Driving sales can be the only deliberate intention of a goading cliffhanger. If someone denies this then it means that they are sloppy, lazy, and/or lack the skill to resolve the conflict they created. Conflict is created, developed and then resolved; that's the basic structure of a story. I don't want to hear any "I have to leave it unresolved for the next book!" whining. A sufficiently skilled author can close a book's conflict while leaving the series' conflict open.
Here are four examples of such writers:
1. Isaac Hooke did this for his "Forever Gate" series. The first one, for instance, ends the main narrative with a shocking twist and thus a cliffhanger because the reader does not know what's going on. However, the preview of the next book showed the aftermath of that twist and at the same time queues up the second one. This way the reader is not left hanging about the conclusion for the first and is instead excited for the second.
2. J.K. Rowling did a fantastic job of this in "Harry Potter". The conflict of the series was always about Harry clashing with Voldemort but the individual seven books each had their own conflict that was set up and resolved between the covers. The first book, for instance, has Voldemort attempting to restore himself with the Philosopher's Stone. While Harry prevents him from getting it, Evil Plan foiled, the evil wizard is still out there and he can try again.
3. Ranjit More does this in "The Underworld King" a little differently. There are two main conflicts; demons vs snake monsters and demons vs gods. It starts with the first and is primarily concerned with the first but the second is a significant plot thread. By the end of the book, the first conflict is resolved completely and the final lines signify that the second will be prominent in the next book. It's like shifting weight from one foot to the other.
4. The "Inspector Gadget" cartoon series. Every episode began with some Evil Plan by Dr. Claw and every episode ended with him shouting "I'll get you next time, Gadget! NEXT TIME!"
By using similar techniques as these four examples, a writer can engage their audience to a deeper degree and get them excited for the next adventure, without angering them with goading cliffhangers.
At that point, it's no longer a question of creative intent but business intent. To end a book on a cliffhanger is to presume that the reader would buy the next book simply to find out what happens next, instead of the book's inherent quality. This is especially the case if it is tacked on at the end for the sole purpose of a cliffhanger instead of events leading up to something meaningful. It's like pushing a reader off a cliff and refusing to hand them a rope unless they pay for it.
I also call this "The Missing Epilogue" because the problem could be corrected with a short epilogue. Something that shows the aftermath of the climax and closes up plot threads. It could even be a preview of the next book to increase anticipated sales, as long it closes the first book at the same time as opening the second.
It's about that sense of closure. For however many hundreds of pages, the plot is developed and brought to its climax, the highest point. After that, a reader expects some falling action and resolution. It doesn't have to resolve everything neatly (I've heard some authors don't like that for some reason, either creatively or out of a desire for realism) but I want to see the fallout of the climax. Don't stop at the tail end of the climax because the reader wants to see more. To exploit that desire with a "buy the next book" line is a business decision and likely to antagonize the reader.
Indeed, as a volunteer book reviewer I've read several books like that. They cut off at the tail end of the climax or introduce something new on the last page; some last second twist to stir the reader into a frenzy and buy the next book. Instead, I've thought "Ick!" and downgraded their final rank in my review. I don't read sequels to books like this because they are likely to have similar endings, final book included.
Driving sales can be the only deliberate intention of a goading cliffhanger. If someone denies this then it means that they are sloppy, lazy, and/or lack the skill to resolve the conflict they created. Conflict is created, developed and then resolved; that's the basic structure of a story. I don't want to hear any "I have to leave it unresolved for the next book!" whining. A sufficiently skilled author can close a book's conflict while leaving the series' conflict open.
Here are four examples of such writers:
1. Isaac Hooke did this for his "Forever Gate" series. The first one, for instance, ends the main narrative with a shocking twist and thus a cliffhanger because the reader does not know what's going on. However, the preview of the next book showed the aftermath of that twist and at the same time queues up the second one. This way the reader is not left hanging about the conclusion for the first and is instead excited for the second.
2. J.K. Rowling did a fantastic job of this in "Harry Potter". The conflict of the series was always about Harry clashing with Voldemort but the individual seven books each had their own conflict that was set up and resolved between the covers. The first book, for instance, has Voldemort attempting to restore himself with the Philosopher's Stone. While Harry prevents him from getting it, Evil Plan foiled, the evil wizard is still out there and he can try again.
3. Ranjit More does this in "The Underworld King" a little differently. There are two main conflicts; demons vs snake monsters and demons vs gods. It starts with the first and is primarily concerned with the first but the second is a significant plot thread. By the end of the book, the first conflict is resolved completely and the final lines signify that the second will be prominent in the next book. It's like shifting weight from one foot to the other.
4. The "Inspector Gadget" cartoon series. Every episode began with some Evil Plan by Dr. Claw and every episode ended with him shouting "I'll get you next time, Gadget! NEXT TIME!"
By using similar techniques as these four examples, a writer can engage their audience to a deeper degree and get them excited for the next adventure, without angering them with goading cliffhangers.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Answering review request: "Underworld King"
Ranjit Moore asked me to read his novel "Underworld King". It's an epic starring a demon king from Hinduism and his struggles with other rulers of this universe. I will examine plot, characters and polish before assigning a grade.
PLOT
There are several plot threads here but everything starts with Shukracharya telling Drumila that naaga (serpent monsters) are about to invade his kingdom. Because internal politics make the kingdom indefensible, Shukracharya tells Drumila to move himself and his loyal subjects to the surface and establish a new kingdom.
I like this part. Moving everyone is a complicated process of logistics, even for these omni-potent god-like characters. There's good detail here. It's also an interesting prospective on this type of premise. Other stories would have the king rally a group of warrior friends and stomp on the monsters 300 style. This is more politically nuanced; I have to say it's less exciting than the action-adventure route and so it won't hold the attention of adrenaline junkies. It was hard for me to get through the first few chapters. I find it better to read for the world building and political stuff than for the action itself because there is little at this stage.
Another plot thread is Shukracharya's attempts to breach the dimensional wall protecting the highest level of Heaven so Drumila can invade it. Because Drumila is invulnerable to divine weapons, the gods have to weaken him first, and to do this, they send a goddess disguised as a human to tire him out with excessive lovemaking.
I like this part and again it’s because the execution is unusual for this premise. In another story, this would be an excuse plot for a romance novel. The fighting would be in the background and the seduction would be the main plot. Here, it doesn't come up for fifty or so pages and is only prominent for a couple chapters. There's no smut or titillation. It is an important but minor plot thread in this tapestry.
I also like it for the perspective. It sounds like an audience surrogate set up that I've seen in a number of anime and other stories, but the angle is different. The audience is told the divine story upfront so there's no big reveal later and audience identification. Also, it’s funny. While Drumila and Shukracharya are talking over this supposedly human girl in a language she supposedly doesn't undestand about topics that she supposedly doesn't know about, she is pretending to be scared and silently snarking at them while thinking about how she's going to screw them over.
I have two complaints with this plot thread. I don't understand why the gods are focusing on Drumila, who is not interested in invasion and 99% invulnerable instead of Shukracharya, who is the one working on the ability to breach their defenses. My second problem has to do with Arundhati's love for Drumila. She claims he has a good heart, and he does, but I don't understand how she got that impression. As a devi, she first saw him slaughtering gods. As human, her first impression is sexual assault and then she spends several days having sex with him. Now, if she saw him in action outside the bedroom, I would understand, but she doesn't.
Overall the plot is good. There's a sound progression of events and the initial conflict is resolved. That is, the issue of the naaga invasion and Drumila’s new kingdom is settled. However, the end is not as neat as I prefer. It ends so swiftly after the climax that it’s like clipping the tail feathers off a bird with a kitchen knife.
CHARACTERS
There's a lot of grey in this cast. It's ogre demons vs snake demons vs gods but it plays out like three human nations going at it than celestial beings. Indeed, neither are more immune to things like sexual lust than humans despite their claims of superiority.
There is a wide cast of named characters here and most of them are made into individuals. I can recognize them by name but I cannot spell their names without looking them up; Asian Indian names and all. Below are three of them.
Drumila, the Underworld King in question, is a good protagonist. He is because one can see his desire to be a good king and look after his subjects. He has the unenviable task of trying to ensure a functional society made up of nether creatures ruled by tamas, or in the language of Tvtropes, they’re Always Chaotic Evil.
Shukracharya is Drumila's spiritual advisor. He's a demon but he's also an enlightened sage. He has fantastic powers ranging from teleportation to self-replication to reviving the dead. He's also wise and mystical. Thinking about him in retrospect, he's like the Hindu version of Saurman. (but not as cool.)
Arundhati could have easily been a Mary Sue; daughter of The Creator, immensely powerful, bewitchingly beautiful (even as a human), reincarnated into a wealthy human family, and effortlessly drives the Underworld King to distraction. However, she's not a Mary Sue. She has a small role here. It's an important role, no doubt about that, but it is a small role and a supporting role. Even when she decides act contrary to her father's plan, she can't do it alone and there are consequences to her actions.
POLISH
No trouble with spelling or grammar but I'm off a mixed opinion of the index. On one hand, I like seeing that extra detail and it works well for world building. This way the author can elaborate on some aspect of Hinduism without bogging down the story and I found many of them interesting. On the other hand, I think it is excessive. The index is ten pages long and most of the entries are more like translations than anything else. For instance, "dhanush" means "bow". It doesn't say anything else, like the kind of bow, and so I find this disruptive.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "The Underworld King" a B
Click here for the next review request: "Kindling Ashes"
Click here for the previous review request: "Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties"
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Difference Between "Fantasy" and "Wish Fulfillment"
There is a difference between Fantasy-The-Genre and Fantasy-As-Wish-Fulfillment. The former is it's own genre and big enough to have its own subgenres. The later is not a genre but a trope used by the author for their own sake or to appeal to a certain kind of reader. It is a unfortunate coincidence that a synonymy for "supernatural" is also the word for anything that one wishes to happen, supernatural, mundane or otherwise.
I strongly object to those that call fantasy novels for Audience X something that Audience X fantasize about. This is due to the kinds of characters and plots they create.
Its purpose is not to tell a story but give someone something they want while simultaneously reminding them that they don't have whatever that is. It's empty and hollow because it contains nothing but a spotlight. It's often poorly written, possess shallow side characters and a vague world because the page-space is used to show how great the protagonist is. It feels like junk food. I don't want genuine fantasy associated with these things.
A kid having magic powers can be wishful fulfillment and fantasy at the same time, but it is always the later and not necessarily the former. Dark Fantasy, for instance, would be about a magically powerful kid in a dark setting that no one would want to go to. That's for getting scared. Wish fulfillment is like this one book whose review I read. (It will remain nameless because I don't want to name it in a such a context). It was about this superpowered kid whose parents allowed him to drive a car, by himself, with only a learner's permit. The first part of that sentence is Fantasy the genre and the second part is a fantasy that a teenager might have. If the superpower were mind control it would make sense but it's not, so it feels like it was put there because a potential reader for this book would want to do such a thing.
This sort of Wish Fulfillment fantasy can be seen among the "Three Varieties Of Protagonists ", for all of them can be used in pseudo wish granting. The Champion is everything the reader wishes they were, The Loser is everything they're glad they're not (or someone that could hypothetically sympathize with them) and the Everyman is a self-deception so they can believe these things are happening to them personally instead of a story book character. Regardless of the kind of protagonist, everything is subordinate to this protagonist and how this protagonist can cater to the reader. The internet has given a name to such a character: Mary Sue.
In a nut shell, the Mary Sue is a overly idealized character that is often an Author Avatar. They were originally found in fanfiction where they outshined all the canon characters and since then they have expanded to original series. They can be both "mundane" with their perfection (beautiful, rich, skilled at everything school/work has to offer etc) but also supernaturally (god-like power with many possible uses). Both of these can be called "fantasies" but more accurately they are both Wish Fulfillment with the later adding a supernatural element. There's a plot trope that truly combines them both.
It's called the Vampire Werewolf Love Triangle . Here the protagonist can have a "special and exciting life" in addition to being fought over romantically. There's a certain infamous book series built around this trope and whose author has admitted to making the protagonist as featureless as possible so girls could be better slot themselves into her place. Therefore, a genuine plot and character development do not occur.
That's my problem with all of the above.
I strongly object to those that call fantasy novels for Audience X something that Audience X fantasize about. This is due to the kinds of characters and plots they create.
Its purpose is not to tell a story but give someone something they want while simultaneously reminding them that they don't have whatever that is. It's empty and hollow because it contains nothing but a spotlight. It's often poorly written, possess shallow side characters and a vague world because the page-space is used to show how great the protagonist is. It feels like junk food. I don't want genuine fantasy associated with these things.
A kid having magic powers can be wishful fulfillment and fantasy at the same time, but it is always the later and not necessarily the former. Dark Fantasy, for instance, would be about a magically powerful kid in a dark setting that no one would want to go to. That's for getting scared. Wish fulfillment is like this one book whose review I read. (It will remain nameless because I don't want to name it in a such a context). It was about this superpowered kid whose parents allowed him to drive a car, by himself, with only a learner's permit. The first part of that sentence is Fantasy the genre and the second part is a fantasy that a teenager might have. If the superpower were mind control it would make sense but it's not, so it feels like it was put there because a potential reader for this book would want to do such a thing.
This sort of Wish Fulfillment fantasy can be seen among the "Three Varieties Of Protagonists ", for all of them can be used in pseudo wish granting. The Champion is everything the reader wishes they were, The Loser is everything they're glad they're not (or someone that could hypothetically sympathize with them) and the Everyman is a self-deception so they can believe these things are happening to them personally instead of a story book character. Regardless of the kind of protagonist, everything is subordinate to this protagonist and how this protagonist can cater to the reader. The internet has given a name to such a character: Mary Sue.
In a nut shell, the Mary Sue is a overly idealized character that is often an Author Avatar. They were originally found in fanfiction where they outshined all the canon characters and since then they have expanded to original series. They can be both "mundane" with their perfection (beautiful, rich, skilled at everything school/work has to offer etc) but also supernaturally (god-like power with many possible uses). Both of these can be called "fantasies" but more accurately they are both Wish Fulfillment with the later adding a supernatural element. There's a plot trope that truly combines them both.
It's called the Vampire Werewolf Love Triangle . Here the protagonist can have a "special and exciting life" in addition to being fought over romantically. There's a certain infamous book series built around this trope and whose author has admitted to making the protagonist as featureless as possible so girls could be better slot themselves into her place. Therefore, a genuine plot and character development do not occur.
That's my problem with all of the above.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
The Problem with Paid Reviews
Definitions first: I define Paid Reviews as "money for a review" and Solicited Reviews as "free book exchanged for review". This is the distinction between biased an unbiased.
The Problem with Paid Reviews is they are paid. This leads to three more problems.
1. They are fake
2. Money and Integrity can be at cross-purposes
3. Paid reviewers have less vested interest in genre preferences.
The first problem with paid reviews is that they are fake. Astro-turfing is the practice of artificial support that is supposed to look like genuine and intrinsic endorsement. It's dishonest, it's distasteful, and ultimately it is counterproductive. Fake reviews make the author that buys them look bad; it's no different than buying copies of their own book to increase their rating. The only way around this is to make the review long, detailed and balanced. This way the reviewer has to actually the read the book they're reviewing, reflect on it, and then write a unique review that can't be copy/pasted to the next paying customer.
The second problem is the Four Point Scale. I read about it on Tvtropes and in a nutshell it's about the tendency to avoid writing critical reviews/low scores to avoid cutting into their bottom line/ratings. By keeping the review positive the reviewer can keep the author happy who then shares the review, which increases the reviewer's visibility and brings in more authors. As soon as money comes into the equation, it can become a factor against reviewer integrity. When money is absent then there is no conflict of interest.
The third problem with paid reviews has to do with genre preference. When the reviewer is reviewing for money in place of enjoyment then they don't care what genre they read. Different genre have different fans; a fantasy author is writing for fantasy fans, thriller for thriller, romance for romance etc. If I write a mystery novel then I do not care about the opinion of someone that does not read mystery novels. If I was the paid reviewer, my dis-interest in a given genre might color my perception and bias the review.
Nicola Matthews is working a similar article of her own and she's going to reblog this post along with Reviews Not Endorsements which covers reviewing style.
The Problem with Paid Reviews is they are paid. This leads to three more problems.
1. They are fake
2. Money and Integrity can be at cross-purposes
3. Paid reviewers have less vested interest in genre preferences.
The first problem with paid reviews is that they are fake. Astro-turfing is the practice of artificial support that is supposed to look like genuine and intrinsic endorsement. It's dishonest, it's distasteful, and ultimately it is counterproductive. Fake reviews make the author that buys them look bad; it's no different than buying copies of their own book to increase their rating. The only way around this is to make the review long, detailed and balanced. This way the reviewer has to actually the read the book they're reviewing, reflect on it, and then write a unique review that can't be copy/pasted to the next paying customer.
The second problem is the Four Point Scale. I read about it on Tvtropes and in a nutshell it's about the tendency to avoid writing critical reviews/low scores to avoid cutting into their bottom line/ratings. By keeping the review positive the reviewer can keep the author happy who then shares the review, which increases the reviewer's visibility and brings in more authors. As soon as money comes into the equation, it can become a factor against reviewer integrity. When money is absent then there is no conflict of interest.
The third problem with paid reviews has to do with genre preference. When the reviewer is reviewing for money in place of enjoyment then they don't care what genre they read. Different genre have different fans; a fantasy author is writing for fantasy fans, thriller for thriller, romance for romance etc. If I write a mystery novel then I do not care about the opinion of someone that does not read mystery novels. If I was the paid reviewer, my dis-interest in a given genre might color my perception and bias the review.
Nicola Matthews is working a similar article of her own and she's going to reblog this post along with Reviews Not Endorsements which covers reviewing style.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Answering Review Request: Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties
Chris Palmer asked me to read a story written by him and J Bean Palmer, "Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties". It's the third in a series but each one is a stand alone. It's about Elsbeth's ancestors calling her to old country to fight them against someone trying to steal the family's ancestral land. I will examine plot, characters and polish before assigning a grade.
PLOT
On the whole I have good things to say about the plot.
The prologue, for instance, is fantastic. It encapsulates the premise in a concise and poetic manner while also wrapping it in the airs of an epic. This book is not an epic but this prologue made me eager to read the rest regardless.
The build up to the main action, traveling to Ireland, builds up that eagerness. An acquaintance of Elsbeth, the South Wind, blows her ship across the Atlantic Ocean. She knows something strange is happening because South Wind wouldn't do that on his own. It's a sense of mystery that drives the story forward. There's also an amusing explanation for how the kids survive the long trip: the boat belongs to Robert's Uncle Preston and Uncle Preston really likes peanut butter so there's this huge stash of it on the boat.
I like the event in Ireland itself too. There's a good development of events, some interesting world building and a plausible reason for why the kids are solving the problem instead of adults. Thus, no use of the Adults Are Useless trope.
It's the climax and resolution that I dislike. There's this Idiot Ball that leads to the climax which creates a forced crisis. Then it's like the ball breeds and lots of people are holding one. It's jarring. Because of this idiot ball, the sense of triumph afterward falls flat for me.
However, even here I liked how the crisis is resolved. It's clever, it's foreshadowed instead of an Ass Pull, and it's karmarific. My only gripe is the path there.
CHARACTERS
Characters are also good. 9 out of 10 times it's a good idea to show rather than tell when it comes to character development and that is the case here. Rather than talk about Lisa Lee being smart, the reader sees her give exposition on ocean currents or mentally calculate the odds of something happening. Then there's this quote about Veronica. It fits her so "perfectly" that Tvtropes would call it an Establishing Character Moment:
"Veronica sped in right beside her on her perfectly clean new bike, perfectly dressed in crisp navy and white, perfectly prepared for a day at sea. In other words, perfectly Veronica." (2nd page of the 2nd chapter)
Gorgeous Banks also makes a good villain. He's introduced at the castle's doorstep, trying to charm his way inside while the local kids' parents are away. There's this sliminess to him and veiled menance. He convinces Robert to do something terrible for him by appealing to his love of treasure hunting. When parents warn their children about the "bad stranger", this is the guy they're talking about.
The three ghosts are good too but my favorite is Durst. He is what happens when an epic hero becomes a grumpy old man. He's a sympathetic character but at the same time, the contrast is comical.
My problem with the characters is the drop in IQ of the heroes as they go into the climax. Also, Gorgeous Banks decays into a caricature of greedy polluters and evil bureaucrats around the same time.
POLISH
For the grammar, I am of two minds: 1.) The many sentences starting with "and" or "but", among other things, make the book sound like it was written by a nine year old. 2.) The story is written for nine year olds from the perspective of a nine year old, and I am a Grammar Nazi.
Pacing, on the whole, is good. I feel like the plot spins its wheels in one specific spot, but this spot is short and easy to overlook.
If it weren't for the problems in the climax, I'd have no qualms about giving this book a B+, but as it stands I have those qualms.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties" a C+
Click here for the next review request The "Underworld King"
Click here for the previous review request "Destiny of the Wulf"
PLOT
On the whole I have good things to say about the plot.
The prologue, for instance, is fantastic. It encapsulates the premise in a concise and poetic manner while also wrapping it in the airs of an epic. This book is not an epic but this prologue made me eager to read the rest regardless.
The build up to the main action, traveling to Ireland, builds up that eagerness. An acquaintance of Elsbeth, the South Wind, blows her ship across the Atlantic Ocean. She knows something strange is happening because South Wind wouldn't do that on his own. It's a sense of mystery that drives the story forward. There's also an amusing explanation for how the kids survive the long trip: the boat belongs to Robert's Uncle Preston and Uncle Preston really likes peanut butter so there's this huge stash of it on the boat.
I like the event in Ireland itself too. There's a good development of events, some interesting world building and a plausible reason for why the kids are solving the problem instead of adults. Thus, no use of the Adults Are Useless trope.
It's the climax and resolution that I dislike. There's this Idiot Ball that leads to the climax which creates a forced crisis. Then it's like the ball breeds and lots of people are holding one. It's jarring. Because of this idiot ball, the sense of triumph afterward falls flat for me.
However, even here I liked how the crisis is resolved. It's clever, it's foreshadowed instead of an Ass Pull, and it's karmarific. My only gripe is the path there.
CHARACTERS
Characters are also good. 9 out of 10 times it's a good idea to show rather than tell when it comes to character development and that is the case here. Rather than talk about Lisa Lee being smart, the reader sees her give exposition on ocean currents or mentally calculate the odds of something happening. Then there's this quote about Veronica. It fits her so "perfectly" that Tvtropes would call it an Establishing Character Moment:
"Veronica sped in right beside her on her perfectly clean new bike, perfectly dressed in crisp navy and white, perfectly prepared for a day at sea. In other words, perfectly Veronica." (2nd page of the 2nd chapter)
Gorgeous Banks also makes a good villain. He's introduced at the castle's doorstep, trying to charm his way inside while the local kids' parents are away. There's this sliminess to him and veiled menance. He convinces Robert to do something terrible for him by appealing to his love of treasure hunting. When parents warn their children about the "bad stranger", this is the guy they're talking about.
The three ghosts are good too but my favorite is Durst. He is what happens when an epic hero becomes a grumpy old man. He's a sympathetic character but at the same time, the contrast is comical.
My problem with the characters is the drop in IQ of the heroes as they go into the climax. Also, Gorgeous Banks decays into a caricature of greedy polluters and evil bureaucrats around the same time.
POLISH
For the grammar, I am of two minds: 1.) The many sentences starting with "and" or "but", among other things, make the book sound like it was written by a nine year old. 2.) The story is written for nine year olds from the perspective of a nine year old, and I am a Grammar Nazi.
Pacing, on the whole, is good. I feel like the plot spins its wheels in one specific spot, but this spot is short and easy to overlook.
If it weren't for the problems in the climax, I'd have no qualms about giving this book a B+, but as it stands I have those qualms.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties" a C+
Click here for the next review request The "Underworld King"
Click here for the previous review request "Destiny of the Wulf"
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
16 Plot Holes and Idiot Balls
Disclaimer: The point of this post is not to trash "Destiny of the Wulf". It is to serve as an example of plot holes in general. A number of readers disagree with me and that's okay.
TvTropes defines "Plot Hole" as "gaps in a story where things happen without a logical reason". They can be deliberate or accidental but in both cases they can damage the Willing Suspension of Disbelief. These sorts of things include events that don't follow a logical cause-and-effect transition path, characters whose motives and actions don't make sense for their own characterization and worlds that don't work according to their own internal logic. If a work seeks to be taken seriously but has numerous plot holes than it will be mocked instead.
Tvtropes defines "Idiot Ball" as "A moment where a character's stupidity fuels an episode, or a small plot line."
It is a bout of temporary stupidity that is enforced upon a character by their writer so that the writer can direct the plot in the way they want. This trope is so commonly used and appears in so many ways that it has a long list of subtropes; from poor communication to forgetting about inconvenient superpowers to sudden relationship conflicts.
Idiot Balls are one of the things I look for when I review a book. I can't stand them because they damage the integrity of the book; the event is unnatural and so the events it spawns are unnatural and as a result I can't take them seriously. Characterization also suffers because it sets back development and turns them into plot props instead of true characters. If I don't see one of these, the worst I'll score your book is a C-.
This post will focus on last book I reviewed: Destiny of the Wulf by Harrison Davies. (You can read that review here) and the categories I will use are 1.) Bad Leadership, 2.) Because Destiny Says So. 3.) Bad Security and 4.) General idiocy.
WARNING! This list will cover the book from start to finish. If you don't want spoilers, do not read. I repeat. Cover-to-Cover spoilers await you further down this post.
Bad Security
1. The boys have this splendid destiny and yet they're raised in a small village without more protection than their parents. The Brotherhood knows how important these two are before they're born and their father is a high ranking member, yet he leaves the safety of the temple for this fishing village. There are many ways the boys could have died as a result of this decision. Then the Brotherhood would be without their pair of saviors before the story starts.
2. The Brotherhood's security is lacking. It relies on scary tactics and a single chasm that is enchanted to carry allies across but not enemies. There are no patrols or anything to monitor the chasm. For a bastion of good, there is surprisingly little stopping an invasion. This means it is easy for Draken to start one.
3. Draken is banned for life from the Brotherhood Temple and even after the boys insist he come with them (itself an idiot ball considering their relationship from previous chapters) he has a single person guarding him. This person pays little attention to him and is easily killed.
4. Merein, the former Curator, says there is no need for anyone to visit the Scroll of Life. Yet she shows Connin because she thinks he would find it interesting. This means disabling all the security measures to keep Death away for a moment's wonder. She admits that there is no way to stop Death if he ever got this far. This is like exposing one's heart to a dagger because it would be interesting.
5. Death possesses Connin. It's not explained how he does this (itself a plot hole) but what I'm focusing on here is that no step taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. This guy is one of the two leaders of the Brotherhood and one of the two saviors, yet the bad guy jumping into his mind doesn't worry anyone after the event.
Bad Leadership
6. The boys' village gets into famine trouble because beavers made a damn in their river. This by itself is a problem because couldn't they have located the problem earlier or found something else to eat?
7. As a result of the famine, the village makes a trade deal with an orc community to get by, and they don't keep up their end of the deal. This village believes the orcs to be savages and they lost men in the negations and yet they don't keep up their end of the bargain. This leads to an attack that kills most of the place, including the boy's parents and almost themselves.
8. General Jericho, decides to take a unnecessary risk because he's retiring soon and he wants a little extra glory. His home and way of life are on the line. It is unsurprising that he is captured as a result.
Because Destiny Said So
9. The boys are chosen for two of the three highest positions in the Brotherhood: Curator and General. There is no reason for this other than Because Destiny Says So. The current curator has been doing a great job so far so why doesn't she continue while the boys do their save the world thing.
10. If Destiny is going to say they have these roles then how about some battle plans or information on the locations of the Macguffins?
11. The Brotherhood at large believes that the boys' father left the Brotherhood to marry their mother. It later said that this is not the case but then why make that claim? It makes them antagonistic to the boys because of the Sins Of Our Fathers.
General Plot holes
12. After their parents are killed, the boys are raised by their evil uncle. He was a leader in a civil war that tried to take over the Brotherhood with dark magic. The other guy was thrown into a volcano but he was just banished. This is the guy that raised the two saviors. You'd think their parents would have a better role model waiting in the wing.
13. Because of their upbringing away from the Brotherhood, the boys dislike talk of destiny, detest the gods, lack training, and are thus unbelieving and uncooperative when they met the Brotherhood. If they were so destined to work for the gods then why don't their parents raise them this way? They tell the boys nothing when they were alive yet insist on it after they become Spirit Advisors.
14. The guide to the Brotherhood Temple (Trenobin) has one of the Swords of Cerathil (the ones mentioned in the blurb) and says that the others are lost and makes it sound like it's no big deal. "Sadly" isn't the word I'd use to describe something that would put the survival of the world in jeopardy.
15. Later on, Draken declares his intent to find the swords and says he needs the boys to help him do this. Trenobin acts like this is some terrible evil and declares that he's going to stop Draken. This is precisely what the boys need to do; find the swords. I can only assume that Trenobin was misinformed about what the swords are which is itself a plot hole because he's one that's supposed to use it for the world-saving-thing in five years.
16. The only thing worse is how Connin "defeats" Death. These two together come straight out of Harry Potter. It is not explained how submitting to Death allows one to expel Death from one's body. You'd think Death would be aware of something like that.
This book has some good world building, an interesting culture for the Brotherhood, and the makings of a great Order vs Chaos style struggle between the Brotherhood and its thus far nameless adversary. The boys themselves have this Brains and Brawns dynamic that worked well during a battle sequence. The problem are all these plotholes. They turn me off of future books in this series.
TvTropes defines "Plot Hole" as "gaps in a story where things happen without a logical reason". They can be deliberate or accidental but in both cases they can damage the Willing Suspension of Disbelief. These sorts of things include events that don't follow a logical cause-and-effect transition path, characters whose motives and actions don't make sense for their own characterization and worlds that don't work according to their own internal logic. If a work seeks to be taken seriously but has numerous plot holes than it will be mocked instead.
Tvtropes defines "Idiot Ball" as "A moment where a character's stupidity fuels an episode, or a small plot line."
It is a bout of temporary stupidity that is enforced upon a character by their writer so that the writer can direct the plot in the way they want. This trope is so commonly used and appears in so many ways that it has a long list of subtropes; from poor communication to forgetting about inconvenient superpowers to sudden relationship conflicts.
Idiot Balls are one of the things I look for when I review a book. I can't stand them because they damage the integrity of the book; the event is unnatural and so the events it spawns are unnatural and as a result I can't take them seriously. Characterization also suffers because it sets back development and turns them into plot props instead of true characters. If I don't see one of these, the worst I'll score your book is a C-.
This post will focus on last book I reviewed: Destiny of the Wulf by Harrison Davies. (You can read that review here) and the categories I will use are 1.) Bad Leadership, 2.) Because Destiny Says So. 3.) Bad Security and 4.) General idiocy.
WARNING! This list will cover the book from start to finish. If you don't want spoilers, do not read. I repeat. Cover-to-Cover spoilers await you further down this post.
Bad Security
1. The boys have this splendid destiny and yet they're raised in a small village without more protection than their parents. The Brotherhood knows how important these two are before they're born and their father is a high ranking member, yet he leaves the safety of the temple for this fishing village. There are many ways the boys could have died as a result of this decision. Then the Brotherhood would be without their pair of saviors before the story starts.
2. The Brotherhood's security is lacking. It relies on scary tactics and a single chasm that is enchanted to carry allies across but not enemies. There are no patrols or anything to monitor the chasm. For a bastion of good, there is surprisingly little stopping an invasion. This means it is easy for Draken to start one.
3. Draken is banned for life from the Brotherhood Temple and even after the boys insist he come with them (itself an idiot ball considering their relationship from previous chapters) he has a single person guarding him. This person pays little attention to him and is easily killed.
4. Merein, the former Curator, says there is no need for anyone to visit the Scroll of Life. Yet she shows Connin because she thinks he would find it interesting. This means disabling all the security measures to keep Death away for a moment's wonder. She admits that there is no way to stop Death if he ever got this far. This is like exposing one's heart to a dagger because it would be interesting.
5. Death possesses Connin. It's not explained how he does this (itself a plot hole) but what I'm focusing on here is that no step taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. This guy is one of the two leaders of the Brotherhood and one of the two saviors, yet the bad guy jumping into his mind doesn't worry anyone after the event.
Bad Leadership
6. The boys' village gets into famine trouble because beavers made a damn in their river. This by itself is a problem because couldn't they have located the problem earlier or found something else to eat?
7. As a result of the famine, the village makes a trade deal with an orc community to get by, and they don't keep up their end of the deal. This village believes the orcs to be savages and they lost men in the negations and yet they don't keep up their end of the bargain. This leads to an attack that kills most of the place, including the boy's parents and almost themselves.
8. General Jericho, decides to take a unnecessary risk because he's retiring soon and he wants a little extra glory. His home and way of life are on the line. It is unsurprising that he is captured as a result.
Because Destiny Said So
9. The boys are chosen for two of the three highest positions in the Brotherhood: Curator and General. There is no reason for this other than Because Destiny Says So. The current curator has been doing a great job so far so why doesn't she continue while the boys do their save the world thing.
10. If Destiny is going to say they have these roles then how about some battle plans or information on the locations of the Macguffins?
11. The Brotherhood at large believes that the boys' father left the Brotherhood to marry their mother. It later said that this is not the case but then why make that claim? It makes them antagonistic to the boys because of the Sins Of Our Fathers.
General Plot holes
12. After their parents are killed, the boys are raised by their evil uncle. He was a leader in a civil war that tried to take over the Brotherhood with dark magic. The other guy was thrown into a volcano but he was just banished. This is the guy that raised the two saviors. You'd think their parents would have a better role model waiting in the wing.
13. Because of their upbringing away from the Brotherhood, the boys dislike talk of destiny, detest the gods, lack training, and are thus unbelieving and uncooperative when they met the Brotherhood. If they were so destined to work for the gods then why don't their parents raise them this way? They tell the boys nothing when they were alive yet insist on it after they become Spirit Advisors.
14. The guide to the Brotherhood Temple (Trenobin) has one of the Swords of Cerathil (the ones mentioned in the blurb) and says that the others are lost and makes it sound like it's no big deal. "Sadly" isn't the word I'd use to describe something that would put the survival of the world in jeopardy.
15. Later on, Draken declares his intent to find the swords and says he needs the boys to help him do this. Trenobin acts like this is some terrible evil and declares that he's going to stop Draken. This is precisely what the boys need to do; find the swords. I can only assume that Trenobin was misinformed about what the swords are which is itself a plot hole because he's one that's supposed to use it for the world-saving-thing in five years.
16. The only thing worse is how Connin "defeats" Death. These two together come straight out of Harry Potter. It is not explained how submitting to Death allows one to expel Death from one's body. You'd think Death would be aware of something like that.
This book has some good world building, an interesting culture for the Brotherhood, and the makings of a great Order vs Chaos style struggle between the Brotherhood and its thus far nameless adversary. The boys themselves have this Brains and Brawns dynamic that worked well during a battle sequence. The problem are all these plotholes. They turn me off of future books in this series.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Answering Review Request "Destiny of the Wuf"
Harrison Davies asked me to read his fantasy novel "Destiny of the Wulf". It's about two brothers, Coinin and Marrok, and how they are chosen by destiny to save the world from the god of Death. I will examine plot, character and polish before assigning a grade.
PLOT
I have little good to say about the plot. There are so many plot holes, there's little left to speak well about. In the prologue alone, there are half a dozen idiot balls and because of this I could not take the plot seriously. I will post all of them in a separate post because they would take up too much room here.
I see nothing original in the plot but that by itself would not be a problem. I don't believe in 100 percent originality and I have written a number of blog posts to this effect: Originality is a Myth, Originality And Tradition and Inspirational Monday-TvTropes all talk about how 100 %originality is impossible so I don't hold that against anyone. My problem is when the tropes are used sloppily. It was like checking things off on a list:
1. Farm Boys (fishing boys in this case)
2. Trained for a great purpose that they are told nothing of.
3. Doomed hometown
4. Parental Abandonment
5. Dark and Troubled Past
6. Great Destiny!
7. Secret Heritage
8. War Sequence where they play a pivotal role
9. Parents as Spirit Advisors.
10. Beautiful girls in the new exotic setting that (in one case) immediately falls for one of the brothers.
Few of these make any sense, as I will talk about in detail in a future post, and so they sound like the author is following a formula without thought for the integrity of the novel as a whole. At times they seem to have no purpose other than wish fulfillment.
Normally, I would use this area to talk about the things I disliked, but this time I will talk about the things I liked instead.
1. Generally speaking, battles/action are good. For instance, The War Sequence when the Brotherhood Temple is attacked is pretty cool. My favorite part of it is when Coinin possesses an enemy mountain troll and tricks the other trolls into attacking the enemy goblins.
2. Coinin's initiation into the Brotherhood and the swearing-in ritual for the Curator are also well thought out and interesting. I would liked to have seen more of that.
3. Marrok's rediscovery of his faith is a powerful moment. It has the feel and atmosphere of a Christian Confession and Reconciliation.
Finally, the ending. The amazon blurb says "as the ultimate battle for survival begins..." which is accurate. This book is just a beginning. There is no resolution. It is a goading cliffhanger. I despise these for reasons that are also best left for a future post.
CHARACTERS
When it comes to the book's cast I have a mixed opinion.
By the third act, the brothers were well developed but until then they are distinguished primarily by "the one with mind swap power and the one without".
Of Draken, the brother's uncle, I have little reason to believe should be in this plot. The brothers do not like him as he was strict in their studies and fond of the lash. No one in the Brotherhood likes him because he did something worthy of exile. Going off these opinions and the brother's Great Destiny, he should have been excluded from this plot. His lack of motive and his drifting in and out of focus makes him feel more like a plot device than a genuine character.
I liked how Merein developed into a motherly figure for Connin. It is a vivid and consistent thing with little touches to fill in the gaps and make it real. It also makes sense for her to be so because she is the previous Curator and thus Coinin's predecessor. However, my problem is that it happens too quickly and it is jarring considering their first meeting; it involved death threats.
Talina has a decent backstory (which is more than others can say at this point) but her role is confined to Satellite Love Interest and disappears after this role is fulfilled. She doesn't even get a mention in the final section, despite the fact that the nature of this section is something Marrok thought would be a sticking point for courting her earlier in the novel.
Mort is a Generic Doomsday Villain, but when the villain is the personification of Death, this is forgivable and even understandable. However, he only has two scenes. The main villain or his chief enforcer should have a bigger presence in a story like this.
POLISH
Nothing wrong in the way of spelling or grammar errors. The problem is in the pacing.
The pacing was funky. Normally in a fantasy novel there is this sense of escalation leading to the climax, the highest point, but that doesn't happen here. It feels confused. The climax was twenty or so pages before the end of the book. That section would have better served as the prologue for the next book instead of a lame cliffhanger.
The three scenes I mentioned earlier save this book from the worst grade.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Destiny of the Wulf" a D-
Click here for the next review request: "Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties"
Click here for the previous Review Request: Dark Space 2: Invisible War
PLOT
I have little good to say about the plot. There are so many plot holes, there's little left to speak well about. In the prologue alone, there are half a dozen idiot balls and because of this I could not take the plot seriously. I will post all of them in a separate post because they would take up too much room here.
I see nothing original in the plot but that by itself would not be a problem. I don't believe in 100 percent originality and I have written a number of blog posts to this effect: Originality is a Myth, Originality And Tradition and Inspirational Monday-TvTropes all talk about how 100 %originality is impossible so I don't hold that against anyone. My problem is when the tropes are used sloppily. It was like checking things off on a list:
1. Farm Boys (fishing boys in this case)
2. Trained for a great purpose that they are told nothing of.
3. Doomed hometown
4. Parental Abandonment
5. Dark and Troubled Past
6. Great Destiny!
7. Secret Heritage
8. War Sequence where they play a pivotal role
9. Parents as Spirit Advisors.
10. Beautiful girls in the new exotic setting that (in one case) immediately falls for one of the brothers.
Few of these make any sense, as I will talk about in detail in a future post, and so they sound like the author is following a formula without thought for the integrity of the novel as a whole. At times they seem to have no purpose other than wish fulfillment.
Normally, I would use this area to talk about the things I disliked, but this time I will talk about the things I liked instead.
1. Generally speaking, battles/action are good. For instance, The War Sequence when the Brotherhood Temple is attacked is pretty cool. My favorite part of it is when Coinin possesses an enemy mountain troll and tricks the other trolls into attacking the enemy goblins.
2. Coinin's initiation into the Brotherhood and the swearing-in ritual for the Curator are also well thought out and interesting. I would liked to have seen more of that.
3. Marrok's rediscovery of his faith is a powerful moment. It has the feel and atmosphere of a Christian Confession and Reconciliation.
Finally, the ending. The amazon blurb says "as the ultimate battle for survival begins..." which is accurate. This book is just a beginning. There is no resolution. It is a goading cliffhanger. I despise these for reasons that are also best left for a future post.
CHARACTERS
When it comes to the book's cast I have a mixed opinion.
By the third act, the brothers were well developed but until then they are distinguished primarily by "the one with mind swap power and the one without".
Of Draken, the brother's uncle, I have little reason to believe should be in this plot. The brothers do not like him as he was strict in their studies and fond of the lash. No one in the Brotherhood likes him because he did something worthy of exile. Going off these opinions and the brother's Great Destiny, he should have been excluded from this plot. His lack of motive and his drifting in and out of focus makes him feel more like a plot device than a genuine character.
I liked how Merein developed into a motherly figure for Connin. It is a vivid and consistent thing with little touches to fill in the gaps and make it real. It also makes sense for her to be so because she is the previous Curator and thus Coinin's predecessor. However, my problem is that it happens too quickly and it is jarring considering their first meeting; it involved death threats.
Talina has a decent backstory (which is more than others can say at this point) but her role is confined to Satellite Love Interest and disappears after this role is fulfilled. She doesn't even get a mention in the final section, despite the fact that the nature of this section is something Marrok thought would be a sticking point for courting her earlier in the novel.
Mort is a Generic Doomsday Villain, but when the villain is the personification of Death, this is forgivable and even understandable. However, he only has two scenes. The main villain or his chief enforcer should have a bigger presence in a story like this.
POLISH
Nothing wrong in the way of spelling or grammar errors. The problem is in the pacing.
The pacing was funky. Normally in a fantasy novel there is this sense of escalation leading to the climax, the highest point, but that doesn't happen here. It feels confused. The climax was twenty or so pages before the end of the book. That section would have better served as the prologue for the next book instead of a lame cliffhanger.
The three scenes I mentioned earlier save this book from the worst grade.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Destiny of the Wulf" a D-
Click here for the next review request: "Elsbeth and the Call of the Castle Ghosties"
Click here for the previous Review Request: Dark Space 2: Invisible War
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Advantages and Disadvantages of Pantsing
By "pantsing" I do not mean the prank by which someone pulls down the pants of another in public in order to cause them public exposure shame. Instead I mean the abbreviation of the phrase "Writing by the seat of one's pants" which in other words has the meaning of "making it up as you go". As I rewrite Looming Shadow and consider how much time I need to do so, I reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of this writing style.
Ever since I started writing fanfiction back in Middle School I have been a "pantser". I didn't plan out the whole story in advance, and I certainly didn't plan out the individual arcs or scenes. I would write down ideas as I had them and keep a rough idea of the general arc of the story in mind as I wrote, but everything was subject to change as I wrote the story and the plot took shape. Even when I went to college and structured my class papers (thesis-general outline-specific outline etc) I continued writing my novel as it came to me. (This was A Mage's Power but at the time it was called "Trickster Help Service".) I wrote two sequels before publishing the first one. My intention was to go back to the first when the last was done and revise once I knew what I was doing with the plot.
Advantages of Pantsing
1. 90% of writing time was spent on genuine writing; not prewriting.
---As a full-time college student, I had precious little free time and so I did not want to squander it on something that I did not believe was progress. The end result was a novel whose first draft was completed within a year. I had nothing to compare this to but considering my rewrite took longer, I believe it is quick.
2. Natural Flow of Cause and Effect
---As I wrote A Mage's Power, I had only a vague idea of what would happen next. I would make something up; anything that was funny or gave me a chance for world building. Because I didn't force characters or events to happen I believe I avoided problems such as idiot balls.
3. Focus on Characters
I'll never forget what I learned from a speaker in a creative creating course; "Plot is nothing more than a character in trouble." Without a top-down plot, I had to understand my characters and what they would do with each step. That lead me to get to know them better. The plot follows their traits instead of their traits following the plot.
The changes to the first draft of A Mage's Power were legion but on the whole they were superficial so I felt that my approach was justified. Now I am not sure.
I started revising Looming Shadow around this time last year. The first arc required few changes and the second more and the third arc more still. It was like overturning a rock and finding all sorts of bugs and rust. Every arc required more rewriting. In places, I was chucking entire chapters out. Other stuff was moved around. In short, I rebuilt it from the first floor up because I didn't have a plan.
Disadvantages of Pantsing
1. More Rewriting
---Looming Shadow had no plan. I had a premise but it ceased to be a driving point in a certain arc and sputtered out without a sense of resolution. Then something happened that blindsided me. Yes, the author himself didn't expect this twist. I couldn't carry on with my previous idea and so the rest was only tenuously tied together. When I looked back on it, I realized how loose and unappealing it had become. The only solution was to rewrite the story with a plan that could hold everything together. The end result is a novel that has taken twice as long to complete as its prequel and it's still not done yet.
2. Disorganized
---Pantsing is useful for getting ideas on paper and forging a trail. However, this trail lead through a dense forest whose leaves blocked out the sun. I had no idea where I was going and in many places the trail looked forced. There was no continuity or purpose; only a series of independent events happening to the same person.
3. Who's on First?
Characters drive Plot but how to know which and how many characters are involved with the plot? A single ingredient can radically alter the flavor of a dish and so can a single character send a plot down a drastically different path. What if such a character shows up at the end of the novel and you wonder why they didn't show up earlier? In reverse, what if such a character shows up early but you later decide it makes more sense for them to turn up later?
It would have been nice to have a plan.
When I write Eric 3, the change will be even more dramatic and widespread. I have a second draft 95% done, and I might have to chuck the whole thing out. I hope it doesn't come to that.
For more posts about editing see ""BLAM and the Author's Knowledge" and "Outlines-Character Action List"
Ever since I started writing fanfiction back in Middle School I have been a "pantser". I didn't plan out the whole story in advance, and I certainly didn't plan out the individual arcs or scenes. I would write down ideas as I had them and keep a rough idea of the general arc of the story in mind as I wrote, but everything was subject to change as I wrote the story and the plot took shape. Even when I went to college and structured my class papers (thesis-general outline-specific outline etc) I continued writing my novel as it came to me. (This was A Mage's Power but at the time it was called "Trickster Help Service".) I wrote two sequels before publishing the first one. My intention was to go back to the first when the last was done and revise once I knew what I was doing with the plot.
Advantages of Pantsing
1. 90% of writing time was spent on genuine writing; not prewriting.
---As a full-time college student, I had precious little free time and so I did not want to squander it on something that I did not believe was progress. The end result was a novel whose first draft was completed within a year. I had nothing to compare this to but considering my rewrite took longer, I believe it is quick.
2. Natural Flow of Cause and Effect
---As I wrote A Mage's Power, I had only a vague idea of what would happen next. I would make something up; anything that was funny or gave me a chance for world building. Because I didn't force characters or events to happen I believe I avoided problems such as idiot balls.
3. Focus on Characters
I'll never forget what I learned from a speaker in a creative creating course; "Plot is nothing more than a character in trouble." Without a top-down plot, I had to understand my characters and what they would do with each step. That lead me to get to know them better. The plot follows their traits instead of their traits following the plot.
The changes to the first draft of A Mage's Power were legion but on the whole they were superficial so I felt that my approach was justified. Now I am not sure.
I started revising Looming Shadow around this time last year. The first arc required few changes and the second more and the third arc more still. It was like overturning a rock and finding all sorts of bugs and rust. Every arc required more rewriting. In places, I was chucking entire chapters out. Other stuff was moved around. In short, I rebuilt it from the first floor up because I didn't have a plan.
Disadvantages of Pantsing
1. More Rewriting
---Looming Shadow had no plan. I had a premise but it ceased to be a driving point in a certain arc and sputtered out without a sense of resolution. Then something happened that blindsided me. Yes, the author himself didn't expect this twist. I couldn't carry on with my previous idea and so the rest was only tenuously tied together. When I looked back on it, I realized how loose and unappealing it had become. The only solution was to rewrite the story with a plan that could hold everything together. The end result is a novel that has taken twice as long to complete as its prequel and it's still not done yet.
2. Disorganized
---Pantsing is useful for getting ideas on paper and forging a trail. However, this trail lead through a dense forest whose leaves blocked out the sun. I had no idea where I was going and in many places the trail looked forced. There was no continuity or purpose; only a series of independent events happening to the same person.
3. Who's on First?
Characters drive Plot but how to know which and how many characters are involved with the plot? A single ingredient can radically alter the flavor of a dish and so can a single character send a plot down a drastically different path. What if such a character shows up at the end of the novel and you wonder why they didn't show up earlier? In reverse, what if such a character shows up early but you later decide it makes more sense for them to turn up later?
It would have been nice to have a plan.
When I write Eric 3, the change will be even more dramatic and widespread. I have a second draft 95% done, and I might have to chuck the whole thing out. I hope it doesn't come to that.
For more posts about editing see ""BLAM and the Author's Knowledge" and "Outlines-Character Action List"
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Three Varieties of Protagonists
As I travel the vast distances of Tvtropes, and examine various stories across the mediums, I find some archetypes that are meant to relate to the audience; be relatable to them and form a connection to them. It relates to the power of the protagonist to inspire or comfort.
I don't buy into this "relatable/identifiable protagonist"; I can enjoy Big O's Roger Smith, Evangelion Shinji Ikari, Ranma 1/2's Ranma Saotome and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann's Kamina all the same. However, I see that sort of thing on TvTropes and in reviews. One review in particular, one for my own A Mage's Power is the inspiration for this post and another one.
I've written about two of these types before, the Loser and the Champion, but that one was more my personal feelings on the matter. I hope to make this one more objective and informative.
The first type is The Champion. I see this type as a larger than life presence. Someone that is bursting with confidence and drive to achieve their goals, and their goals will be just as ambitious and lofty as their personality. They're likely to be loud but just as likely to more of a tranquil focus. The point is to create a dynamic personality that can both carry and drive a plot, who is also fun to cheer for.
Example: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagan: Kamina is technically not the protagonist (a matter of heated debate in the fandom) but he is pretty close nonetheless. He is so popular that he has become a meme for badass masculinity; his sunglasses are photoshopped onto unrelated characters to make them more badass because in doing so they become more like him.
Th second type is The Loser. The protagonist has flaws upon flaws that make them fail at everything. I don't understand why anyone would do this. I see a few possibilities such as a Seinfeld style comedy or some philosophical drama about a guy whose life gets progressively worse, but these are limiting and would get old and confining quickly. Generally it's better to have a flawed protagonist than an outright loser.
Example: Shinji Ikai from Neon Genesis Evangelion. He's a whinny and weak willed and overall he's depressing to watch. He would have died in the first episode if his mom didn't go berserk and tear the Third Angel apart on his behalf. A lot of his fanfiction involves him growing a spine in one way or another and some of the more popular (as I've seen on TvTropes and Fanfiction.net) make him into an outright champion.
These two are a contrast of "Wishing you were" vs "Glad you're not". Oddly enough, both shows have enjoyed tremendous popularity. In the middle of these two is the third kind.
The Everyman:
A nice person without distinguishing traits; no eccentrics, no major virtues, nor any outstanding vices. Their personal history is different and their story but they themselves are more cookie cuter. They exist to be "relatable" and this is supposed to work by appealing to the lowest common denominator and giving them traits that the target audience as a whole supposedly has.
I can't think of any use for this kind of character other than Audience Surrogate and so they will likely be a Supporting Protagonist or a Pinball Protagonist because they're too bland to carry the story on their own.
Naturally, there are more than just these three kinds of protagonists but I pointed them out to sketch a way stories geared toward a particular audience are viewed and made. The Protagonist is designed to appeal to and/or relate to this audience because the writer/publisher/etc believe that will increase sales/viewership/etc. This is not the case with me.
When I wrote A Mage's Power, I was more interested in the world that Eric would inhabit than Eric himself. I put great thought into how the magic system worked, the gods and their purpose in this world, justifying the existence of monsters and respawning like in RPGs, and the social/political culture of kingdom that Eric lives in. Eric himself received little attention in the pre-writing stage because he was less important. As a result, he became generic, and because my self-imposed "Zero to Hero" challenge, he was spineless and incompetent.
In other words, he became a hybrid of the Loser and Everyman. This lead to other reviews that said the plot lacked direction. Indeed, because Eric has no goal beyond getting by in the first book, he does not drive the plot and so indeed he gets involved in a number of different activities and not one of them commands the spotlight.
I came to this conclusion after receiving a certain review. It praised the supporting case but was critical of the protagonist. These supporting characters all had more thorough backstories than Eric starting off and developed more quickly during the drafts. It is only while rewriting the second book, Looming Shadow, that I feel I have truly gotten to know my protagonist.
I don't buy into this "relatable/identifiable protagonist"; I can enjoy Big O's Roger Smith, Evangelion Shinji Ikari, Ranma 1/2's Ranma Saotome and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann's Kamina all the same. However, I see that sort of thing on TvTropes and in reviews. One review in particular, one for my own A Mage's Power is the inspiration for this post and another one.
I've written about two of these types before, the Loser and the Champion, but that one was more my personal feelings on the matter. I hope to make this one more objective and informative.
The first type is The Champion. I see this type as a larger than life presence. Someone that is bursting with confidence and drive to achieve their goals, and their goals will be just as ambitious and lofty as their personality. They're likely to be loud but just as likely to more of a tranquil focus. The point is to create a dynamic personality that can both carry and drive a plot, who is also fun to cheer for.
Example: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagan: Kamina is technically not the protagonist (a matter of heated debate in the fandom) but he is pretty close nonetheless. He is so popular that he has become a meme for badass masculinity; his sunglasses are photoshopped onto unrelated characters to make them more badass because in doing so they become more like him.
Th second type is The Loser. The protagonist has flaws upon flaws that make them fail at everything. I don't understand why anyone would do this. I see a few possibilities such as a Seinfeld style comedy or some philosophical drama about a guy whose life gets progressively worse, but these are limiting and would get old and confining quickly. Generally it's better to have a flawed protagonist than an outright loser.
Example: Shinji Ikai from Neon Genesis Evangelion. He's a whinny and weak willed and overall he's depressing to watch. He would have died in the first episode if his mom didn't go berserk and tear the Third Angel apart on his behalf. A lot of his fanfiction involves him growing a spine in one way or another and some of the more popular (as I've seen on TvTropes and Fanfiction.net) make him into an outright champion.
These two are a contrast of "Wishing you were" vs "Glad you're not". Oddly enough, both shows have enjoyed tremendous popularity. In the middle of these two is the third kind.
The Everyman:
A nice person without distinguishing traits; no eccentrics, no major virtues, nor any outstanding vices. Their personal history is different and their story but they themselves are more cookie cuter. They exist to be "relatable" and this is supposed to work by appealing to the lowest common denominator and giving them traits that the target audience as a whole supposedly has.
I can't think of any use for this kind of character other than Audience Surrogate and so they will likely be a Supporting Protagonist or a Pinball Protagonist because they're too bland to carry the story on their own.
Naturally, there are more than just these three kinds of protagonists but I pointed them out to sketch a way stories geared toward a particular audience are viewed and made. The Protagonist is designed to appeal to and/or relate to this audience because the writer/publisher/etc believe that will increase sales/viewership/etc. This is not the case with me.
When I wrote A Mage's Power, I was more interested in the world that Eric would inhabit than Eric himself. I put great thought into how the magic system worked, the gods and their purpose in this world, justifying the existence of monsters and respawning like in RPGs, and the social/political culture of kingdom that Eric lives in. Eric himself received little attention in the pre-writing stage because he was less important. As a result, he became generic, and because my self-imposed "Zero to Hero" challenge, he was spineless and incompetent.
In other words, he became a hybrid of the Loser and Everyman. This lead to other reviews that said the plot lacked direction. Indeed, because Eric has no goal beyond getting by in the first book, he does not drive the plot and so indeed he gets involved in a number of different activities and not one of them commands the spotlight.
I came to this conclusion after receiving a certain review. It praised the supporting case but was critical of the protagonist. These supporting characters all had more thorough backstories than Eric starting off and developed more quickly during the drafts. It is only while rewriting the second book, Looming Shadow, that I feel I have truly gotten to know my protagonist.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Medieval is Not Fantasy
Far too often I see mundane medieval labeled as "Fantasy". It's not Fantasy unless it has fantastic elements. You can have Low Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Fantastic Horror, Romantic Fantasy etc but it has to have fantastic elements. Having knights and princesses in a civilization that resembles Medieval Europe does not count as Fantasy. I don't understand how someone can make that mistake. It's infuriating.
I assume that this misconception comes from the fact that traditional fantasy stories are set in the distant past and especially the Medieval European period. Back then you had priests that claimed to draw power from various gods, magicians with their spells and potions, wide-spread beliefs about a bestiary of monsters and spirits that roamed the countryside. It's easy to place a fictional story about evil sorcerers and dragons and other such supernatural things in such a setting and this setting also contains knights and princesses and other mundane things that go hand in hand with the supernatural. Therefore, it's easy to accept that they were associated over time and then lumped together further once society moved from the Medieval to the Modern. Some stories go as far as to state that the two are incompatible. TvTropes has several entries for this sort thing:
1. Magic Versus Science-The two are seen as rivals either in their operating principles or in their users.
2. Science Destroys Magic-The two literally cannot coexist.
3. Doing in The Wizard and Doing In The Scientist-One is explained as the other.
There are more but I believe I've made my point here. Scientists are seen as belonging to the Modern Era and Wizards/Witches/Magicians etc as belonging to the distant past. This is why I can understand someone calling a Medieval Setting "Fantasy" because even if there is just superstition instead of the real deal, it can still count as a fantastic element. I understand it but I don't agree with it. Unless it's real it doesn't count.
On one hand it's a matter of being accurate. I have different expectations of a Fantasy novel and Historical novel and I want to know which one I have in my hands before going in. On another hand, I feel like it's a cheap marketing gimmick to draw in readers.
For instance,
I once had a review request from someone who had zero fantastic elements calling their story "Fantasy". I asked him about this and he replied that his events "were implausible" in real life and that it was made them "Fantasy". Furthermore, he said the fantastic elements would make his story cliché. He wanted to be unique, not predictable and for that reason he didn't add fantastic elements. The result of this is teenagers fighting terrorists with toys. How is one supposed to accept such a premise? I imagined all them getting gunned down in their first confrontation. The third point was the most upsetting; he said that adventure and heroism made it "Fantasy" and in this way claimed that any story with a Hero's Quest/Journey is automatically "Fantasy".
A "Hero Quest" does not make something into a Fantasy! That can exist in any story of any genre! Joseph Cambell proved this with his model of the Hero's Journey. It is a universal template: "Supernatural Aid" does not have to be from a god or a fairy godmother but from a mundane and earthly friend or parent or anything like that, nor do "Threshold Guardians" have to be a troll guarding a bridge, it can be a bully or a test or something else mundane. "The Unknown World" can be a mysterious forest, a new school, or simply a changing social environment. Challenges, danger, and courage are things that exist in many genres, not just fantasy.
This is why I don't accept review requests from people that push a "Fantasy" novel that is clearly not Fantasy.
I assume that this misconception comes from the fact that traditional fantasy stories are set in the distant past and especially the Medieval European period. Back then you had priests that claimed to draw power from various gods, magicians with their spells and potions, wide-spread beliefs about a bestiary of monsters and spirits that roamed the countryside. It's easy to place a fictional story about evil sorcerers and dragons and other such supernatural things in such a setting and this setting also contains knights and princesses and other mundane things that go hand in hand with the supernatural. Therefore, it's easy to accept that they were associated over time and then lumped together further once society moved from the Medieval to the Modern. Some stories go as far as to state that the two are incompatible. TvTropes has several entries for this sort thing:
1. Magic Versus Science-The two are seen as rivals either in their operating principles or in their users.
2. Science Destroys Magic-The two literally cannot coexist.
3. Doing in The Wizard and Doing In The Scientist-One is explained as the other.
There are more but I believe I've made my point here. Scientists are seen as belonging to the Modern Era and Wizards/Witches/Magicians etc as belonging to the distant past. This is why I can understand someone calling a Medieval Setting "Fantasy" because even if there is just superstition instead of the real deal, it can still count as a fantastic element. I understand it but I don't agree with it. Unless it's real it doesn't count.
On one hand it's a matter of being accurate. I have different expectations of a Fantasy novel and Historical novel and I want to know which one I have in my hands before going in. On another hand, I feel like it's a cheap marketing gimmick to draw in readers.
For instance,
I once had a review request from someone who had zero fantastic elements calling their story "Fantasy". I asked him about this and he replied that his events "were implausible" in real life and that it was made them "Fantasy". Furthermore, he said the fantastic elements would make his story cliché. He wanted to be unique, not predictable and for that reason he didn't add fantastic elements. The result of this is teenagers fighting terrorists with toys. How is one supposed to accept such a premise? I imagined all them getting gunned down in their first confrontation. The third point was the most upsetting; he said that adventure and heroism made it "Fantasy" and in this way claimed that any story with a Hero's Quest/Journey is automatically "Fantasy".
A "Hero Quest" does not make something into a Fantasy! That can exist in any story of any genre! Joseph Cambell proved this with his model of the Hero's Journey. It is a universal template: "Supernatural Aid" does not have to be from a god or a fairy godmother but from a mundane and earthly friend or parent or anything like that, nor do "Threshold Guardians" have to be a troll guarding a bridge, it can be a bully or a test or something else mundane. "The Unknown World" can be a mysterious forest, a new school, or simply a changing social environment. Challenges, danger, and courage are things that exist in many genres, not just fantasy.
This is why I don't accept review requests from people that push a "Fantasy" novel that is clearly not Fantasy.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Answering Review Request: Dark Space 2, Invisible War
Jasper Scott asked me to review his second Dark Space Novel, Invisible War. I gave his first book an A+ , and to this day it shares this honor with few others. I had high expectations of this book, but unfortunately, I was disappointed. I will examine Plot, Characters, and Polish before assigning a grade.
PLOT
There are a lot of problems here. 1.) The title says "Invisible War" but it's more like a roadtrip with bickering children. 2.) The stupidity of many characters. 3.) The Scythians' disparity of power. 4.) There are three (possibly four) plotlines in this story that never intersect and have no bearing on each other. 5.) There's no resolution for any of the plotlines at the end of the book.
The main plot is entirely moving from Point A to Point B. I figured, "Okay, they'll be there by the end of the next chapter and then we can move on." Instead of a quick trip, the event is stretched out over hundreds of pages. The interludes to other plotlines make it feel even longer. There's no plot development. It's just a series of things going wrong to make the overall situation worse. By the end it was starting to feel like there was a sadistic game master in charge of this plot instead of the talented author from the last one.
Everyone's carrying an idiot ball to facilitate this cosmic train wreck.
1. The previous overlord made a video of the "holo-skinner disguised as the overlord" thing, including directions where to find spare holoskins, it's labeled "legacy" and Atton doesn't delete it when the Big Bad is moments from taking over his ship. You'd think he'd have a "Emergency Delete" program for a case like this. This leads to Brondi's expanded evil plan.
2. Ethan makes no attempt to resemble the previous overlord except for his holo-skin, which makes everyone suspicious of him, and he steamrolls people with Supreme Overlord authority. This makes everyone happy to overthrow him. He gives Kurlin a sample of his blood which leads to the man learning his secret, and when blackmail comes, he fails to point out that Kurlin and himself were in a position of Mutually Assured Destruction until it was no longer helpful, and instead, a spiteful Taking-You-With-Me move.
3. In addition to his failed computer security, Atton silences loose ends in the worst possible way which makes him look worse later. On Tvtropes, it's what we call a "Revealing Cover Up".
4. Kurlin is obsessed with getting off the Vailant because he thinks its dangerous despite the entire universe being dangerous to humans at this point. For some reason he thinks he will be safer in one space station than another when both are in enemy territory.
There are three plotlines here (maybe four). There's the ship moving to Obsidan Station, Brondie dealing with an invisible soldier in his stolen ship, and Destra (Ethan's wife) doing stuff ten years before this story starts. None of them intersect or influence each other. Anyone of these could be a full story (and no doubt a good one based on the last book) if they were given the space of a full book, but they're not. They're compressed together and the author switches based on a reason that I cannot fathom. It's the same mistake highschoolers and college freshman make; your premise is not specific enough and so your paper is a generalized and unfocused mess. It's especially appalling because the first book was so focused and cohesive.
There is no ending for any of the storylines. The action simply cuts off at the darkest point. It's that Goading Cliffhanger that infuriates me. It's not an author tactic; it's a business tactic. I don't like being left hanging. I want closure for the book's conflict, especially in a series. To do otherwise is lazy and greedy.
CHARACTERS
From a character perspective, the only good part of this story was Alara's identity crisis. In the last story, a slave chip was implanted in her that overrode her personality with a different one and the bulk of her scenes in this plot are about her dealing with that dissonance. It was interesting to see her perspective on it contrasted with that of others that knew her before, and those that didn't.
The section on Idiot Balls from the previous section states how I feel about the other characters.
The Scythians are still a void. After two stories I expect to learn something about them but I know nothing about them. They might as well be random space monsters for all the influence they have on the plot. It was okay in the first book because they were in the background, but now they're not, and so I want to see some motivation.
POLISH
Nothing major in terms of spelling or grammar. The only polishing problem is the story splicing mentioned earlier.
I considered giving this book the lowest grade but I ultimately decided against that. It has some good points and it's not as bad as another book I reviewed.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Dark Space II: Invisible War" a D-
Click here for the next review request: "Destiny of the Wulf"
Click here for the previous review request: "Journey to Altmortis"
PLOT
There are a lot of problems here. 1.) The title says "Invisible War" but it's more like a roadtrip with bickering children. 2.) The stupidity of many characters. 3.) The Scythians' disparity of power. 4.) There are three (possibly four) plotlines in this story that never intersect and have no bearing on each other. 5.) There's no resolution for any of the plotlines at the end of the book.
The main plot is entirely moving from Point A to Point B. I figured, "Okay, they'll be there by the end of the next chapter and then we can move on." Instead of a quick trip, the event is stretched out over hundreds of pages. The interludes to other plotlines make it feel even longer. There's no plot development. It's just a series of things going wrong to make the overall situation worse. By the end it was starting to feel like there was a sadistic game master in charge of this plot instead of the talented author from the last one.
Everyone's carrying an idiot ball to facilitate this cosmic train wreck.
1. The previous overlord made a video of the "holo-skinner disguised as the overlord" thing, including directions where to find spare holoskins, it's labeled "legacy" and Atton doesn't delete it when the Big Bad is moments from taking over his ship. You'd think he'd have a "Emergency Delete" program for a case like this. This leads to Brondi's expanded evil plan.
2. Ethan makes no attempt to resemble the previous overlord except for his holo-skin, which makes everyone suspicious of him, and he steamrolls people with Supreme Overlord authority. This makes everyone happy to overthrow him. He gives Kurlin a sample of his blood which leads to the man learning his secret, and when blackmail comes, he fails to point out that Kurlin and himself were in a position of Mutually Assured Destruction until it was no longer helpful, and instead, a spiteful Taking-You-With-Me move.
3. In addition to his failed computer security, Atton silences loose ends in the worst possible way which makes him look worse later. On Tvtropes, it's what we call a "Revealing Cover Up".
4. Kurlin is obsessed with getting off the Vailant because he thinks its dangerous despite the entire universe being dangerous to humans at this point. For some reason he thinks he will be safer in one space station than another when both are in enemy territory.
There are three plotlines here (maybe four). There's the ship moving to Obsidan Station, Brondie dealing with an invisible soldier in his stolen ship, and Destra (Ethan's wife) doing stuff ten years before this story starts. None of them intersect or influence each other. Anyone of these could be a full story (and no doubt a good one based on the last book) if they were given the space of a full book, but they're not. They're compressed together and the author switches based on a reason that I cannot fathom. It's the same mistake highschoolers and college freshman make; your premise is not specific enough and so your paper is a generalized and unfocused mess. It's especially appalling because the first book was so focused and cohesive.
There is no ending for any of the storylines. The action simply cuts off at the darkest point. It's that Goading Cliffhanger that infuriates me. It's not an author tactic; it's a business tactic. I don't like being left hanging. I want closure for the book's conflict, especially in a series. To do otherwise is lazy and greedy.
CHARACTERS
From a character perspective, the only good part of this story was Alara's identity crisis. In the last story, a slave chip was implanted in her that overrode her personality with a different one and the bulk of her scenes in this plot are about her dealing with that dissonance. It was interesting to see her perspective on it contrasted with that of others that knew her before, and those that didn't.
The section on Idiot Balls from the previous section states how I feel about the other characters.
The Scythians are still a void. After two stories I expect to learn something about them but I know nothing about them. They might as well be random space monsters for all the influence they have on the plot. It was okay in the first book because they were in the background, but now they're not, and so I want to see some motivation.
POLISH
Nothing major in terms of spelling or grammar. The only polishing problem is the story splicing mentioned earlier.
I considered giving this book the lowest grade but I ultimately decided against that. It has some good points and it's not as bad as another book I reviewed.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Dark Space II: Invisible War" a D-
Click here for the next review request: "Destiny of the Wulf"
Click here for the previous review request: "Journey to Altmortis"
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Blog Tour-Book Interview with Micheal Gilwood
This week is something different. I got an email from Tracy Kauffman asking for potential stops for her "Literary Book Tours". My experience with Book Tweeting Service has been positive so far (I assume that's where she got my email and interest) so I decided to help out.
Today's post is an author interview between Tracy Kauffman and Michael Gilwood
1. Would you tell the readers a little bit about yourself?
Everything has to start from somewhere.. even an author has to begin with that first paragraph before molding it into an art. I typed my first paragraph at the age of nine on my dads typewriter for my next door neighbors dad after he’d asked me to say something in a sports column. He was so impressed that he gave me the column for quite a while.
2. Which book or books are you currently promoting?
The book I am presently promoting is Anomaly.
3. How did you come up with the idea for this book ?
The idea I came up with originally when I was twelve. It is a book I started seven years ago.
4. What can you tell us about your main characters?
The characters are all scientists.
5. What made you decide to become a writer?
Writing is something that I have always done from a very young age.
6. Do you have a general idea of what direction you want the plot to take ahead of time? Yes, most definitely.
7. Have you ever had second doubts about a story you’ve written?
No
8. What other projects are you currently working on?
I am presently completing a compilation of short stories. Two novels are in their final stages and I have nine more novels in a variety of stages of completion.
9. How long have you been writing?
Forty years.
10. Is there anything else you would like to tell us that we have not already covered?
My next novel is called The Tower. I am a musician coming from a very musical family.
11. Tell me something about yourself that might be funny to others? (other than writing)
I once went to a general meeting. There must have been two hundred people present there. The spokesman was quite boring and quite honestly didn’t stop talking. I am pretty good at imitating and so I started to mimic him. At precisely that moment, he stopped talking and everyone in the meeting turned around and looked at me.
12. Tell us something that you did that might be considered dangerous.
When I was younger I went to catch a train and I was mugged at knifepoint. They took whatever I had on me.
13. What is your day job?
I teach English.
14. Tell us the worst criticism that you’ve received about your book.
Up until now, I haven’t received any bad criticism.
15. What advice would you want to give other writers?
Only to keep at it and never give up. Write whatever you feel, whatever you see.. try and see it from a different perspective then write what you see. Write your feelings, what you smell and taste.
Today's post is an author interview between Tracy Kauffman and Michael Gilwood
1. Would you tell the readers a little bit about yourself?
Everything has to start from somewhere.. even an author has to begin with that first paragraph before molding it into an art. I typed my first paragraph at the age of nine on my dads typewriter for my next door neighbors dad after he’d asked me to say something in a sports column. He was so impressed that he gave me the column for quite a while.
2. Which book or books are you currently promoting?
The book I am presently promoting is Anomaly.
3. How did you come up with the idea for this book ?
The idea I came up with originally when I was twelve. It is a book I started seven years ago.
4. What can you tell us about your main characters?
The characters are all scientists.
5. What made you decide to become a writer?
Writing is something that I have always done from a very young age.
6. Do you have a general idea of what direction you want the plot to take ahead of time? Yes, most definitely.
7. Have you ever had second doubts about a story you’ve written?
No
8. What other projects are you currently working on?
I am presently completing a compilation of short stories. Two novels are in their final stages and I have nine more novels in a variety of stages of completion.
9. How long have you been writing?
Forty years.
10. Is there anything else you would like to tell us that we have not already covered?
My next novel is called The Tower. I am a musician coming from a very musical family.
11. Tell me something about yourself that might be funny to others? (other than writing)
I once went to a general meeting. There must have been two hundred people present there. The spokesman was quite boring and quite honestly didn’t stop talking. I am pretty good at imitating and so I started to mimic him. At precisely that moment, he stopped talking and everyone in the meeting turned around and looked at me.
12. Tell us something that you did that might be considered dangerous.
When I was younger I went to catch a train and I was mugged at knifepoint. They took whatever I had on me.
13. What is your day job?
I teach English.
14. Tell us the worst criticism that you’ve received about your book.
Up until now, I haven’t received any bad criticism.
15. What advice would you want to give other writers?
Only to keep at it and never give up. Write whatever you feel, whatever you see.. try and see it from a different perspective then write what you see. Write your feelings, what you smell and taste.
Buy Links:
Amazon: http://amzn.to/1bp8VOI
Barnes and Noble: http://bit.ly/1femO70
Facebook Fanpage: http://on.fb.me/1e4WlIY
The preceding interview was conducted by Tracy Kauffman of Literary Book Tours. It does not reflect the views or opinions of Trickster Eric Novels or any of its associates or subsidiaries. (I've always wanted to say that!)
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Inspiration of the Protagonist in Genres
Previously, I've written about the dichotomy of the protagonist (Loser or Champion) and how they can be used for escapism (Pros and Cons). This post is going to be more about fictional inspiration and what happens when a protagonist does not bring this sort of strength to bear in a story.
It all started with a review I received for A Mage's Power. It spoke of its reviewer's dislike of the protagonist and how much more interesting the secondary characters are in comparison.
My protagonist, Eric, was written to be an archetypal loser. When I started writing him I wanted him to have nothing going for him; no special excellence to set him apart. This was to be a self-imposed challenge because of a trend I saw in the anime I watched at the time. They all had special protagonist powers: great strength of will, hidden talents/chosen one status, or a superpowered evil side. I wanted Eric to have nothing and work up to the level of hero without such privileges.
At the time I didn't know as much as I do now about protagonists in general and that medium in particular. I didn't know that I was writing something similar to a Harem Hero but without the harem. The usual case for that sort of protagonist is that they are indeed less interesting than the characters around them.
Tiza is a tomboyish glory seeker, Aio is a high energy prankster, Basilard is a veteran mercenary and all around strong individual. Even Nolien is defined with his healing and shifts between gentlemanly and snobbish behavior. Looking back on it now, I see that if one that does not feel sympathy for Eric then they consider him inferior.
I believe this has to do with what a reader is looking for. In other words, what they want out of the protagonist. When it comes to fantasy/adventure, Tiza or Basilard are closer to traditional protagonists, instead of Eric, who goes with the flow. This review was lukewarm; praised the secondary characters but didn't like the primary one.
Readers want to cheer for the protagonist. There are exceptions to this but, in many cases, they want to cheer. It's like a race; the front runners are the cause of excitement and the spectators are rooting for them. Eric is somewhere in the back of the pack, where no one can see him. The goal of my self-imposed challenge was to develop him into someone that was cheer worthy by the end of the book, but then the book's over and there's nothing to cheer.
Fortunately, there's the second book. I can safely say that the Eric of "Looming Shadow" is not the archetypal loser of "A Mage's Power".
It all started with a review I received for A Mage's Power. It spoke of its reviewer's dislike of the protagonist and how much more interesting the secondary characters are in comparison.
My protagonist, Eric, was written to be an archetypal loser. When I started writing him I wanted him to have nothing going for him; no special excellence to set him apart. This was to be a self-imposed challenge because of a trend I saw in the anime I watched at the time. They all had special protagonist powers: great strength of will, hidden talents/chosen one status, or a superpowered evil side. I wanted Eric to have nothing and work up to the level of hero without such privileges.
At the time I didn't know as much as I do now about protagonists in general and that medium in particular. I didn't know that I was writing something similar to a Harem Hero but without the harem. The usual case for that sort of protagonist is that they are indeed less interesting than the characters around them.
Tiza is a tomboyish glory seeker, Aio is a high energy prankster, Basilard is a veteran mercenary and all around strong individual. Even Nolien is defined with his healing and shifts between gentlemanly and snobbish behavior. Looking back on it now, I see that if one that does not feel sympathy for Eric then they consider him inferior.
I believe this has to do with what a reader is looking for. In other words, what they want out of the protagonist. When it comes to fantasy/adventure, Tiza or Basilard are closer to traditional protagonists, instead of Eric, who goes with the flow. This review was lukewarm; praised the secondary characters but didn't like the primary one.
Readers want to cheer for the protagonist. There are exceptions to this but, in many cases, they want to cheer. It's like a race; the front runners are the cause of excitement and the spectators are rooting for them. Eric is somewhere in the back of the pack, where no one can see him. The goal of my self-imposed challenge was to develop him into someone that was cheer worthy by the end of the book, but then the book's over and there's nothing to cheer.
Fortunately, there's the second book. I can safely say that the Eric of "Looming Shadow" is not the archetypal loser of "A Mage's Power".
Brian Wilkerson is a independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).
His fantasy series, Journey to Chaos, is currently available on Amazon as an ebook or paperback.
His fantasy series, Journey to Chaos, is currently available on Amazon as an ebook or paperback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)