So, a couple of friends on facebook decided to post a list of their favorite anime series on facebook a couple of days ago. I did the same, but now I'm feeling compelled to expand on my choices a bit, and explain why these made my list over numerous others that could have been on it. If you're interested, keep reading! (Also, after the top 3, these are in no certain order.)
1. Rurouni Kenshin
Yes! My favorite anime of all time, hands down, despite the fact that the second half of it derails a bit. OK, it derails a lot, but even then it's a solid anime with an (overall) good voice cast for the main characters. Minus the voices of Kaoru and Yahiko, I like all of the main cast, especially Richard Cansino (also sometimes credited as Richard Hayworth) as Kenshin. He's the definitive voice of the character to me, and nails every emotion Kenshin goes through perfectly.
Why does Rurouni Kenshin top the list? Because it was the first anime that really got me invested in characters versus archetypes like the anime I'd watched before it. I still remember when Toonami aired the first episode, and I was watching the block because I wanted to see the latest episodes of G Gundam and DBZ. I'd seen the commercials for it, and didn't even care to watch it. I mean, how could it possibly compare to the over-the-top insaneness (yup, I'm coining insaneness as a word) of DBZ and G Gundam? Well, I had nothing else to watch anyway, so I just sat there and waited ... then the end of the episode came and I wanted more. Here was this hero (and he was a ginger like me!) who was the nicest, most soft-spoken and well-meaning guy you could meet who was only a pacifist because of his past life as a murdering assassin. And yes, he was nice to a fault ... until you threatened the people he cared about, and that really resonated with me.
Kenshin's struggle throughout the series to get away from violence while having to use violence to save his friends (usually because of his own past coming back to bite him) kept me coming back again and again. He was a character with a past and a heart, with a personality unique to him. He wasn't the same dumb, fumbling strong guy that wins through sheer luck; he wins because of his drive, skill and his training as a cold-blooded killer. His is a story that says: Just because your past is dark and you've made bad mistakes, that doesn't mean you can't turn it around and use it for good.
Anyone who knows me has probably heard me say a million times over, "I'm a sucker for a good redemption story." Well, what most of them don't know is that it all started with Kenshin.
2. Yu Yu Hakusho
As much as I loved DBZ as a kid, Yu Yu Hakusho replaced it as my go to high-octane Fighting Anime. I still like DBZ well enough, but I feel like Yu Yu Hakusho told a fuller, more complete story in about half the time it took DBZ, and I liked the characters a little bit better. Yuske, Kuwubara, Hiei and Kurama all go through significant changes as the series goes on, and it isn't just relegated to them getting stronger (I'm still looking at you, DBZ.) Every arc of the show challenged the group in new ways and forced them to become a better team. There was no Saiyan equivalent that made every other character useless by the end of the series; Hiei, Kurama and Kuwubara are all relevant right until the fourth season, where Kuwubara backs out because he wants to pursue his education, which made perfect sense for his character.
This is also the series I watched before writing Electus. It influenced it a good bit, I think, at least as far as pacing and characterization goes. I've always been a huge fan of how fast Yu Yu Hakusho moved through an arc compared to most big anime and it never felt like anything was sacrificed. More shows could learn from that.
3. Trigun
Just as I was coming off my Rurouni Kenshin high, I found a new hero on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block to fill my pacifist-hero-that-still-has-to-solve-problems-with-violence-because-he's-haunted-by-his-past fix. Man, that was a mouthful....
Anyway, Trigun was always fun for me because, unlike Kenshin, Vash was a bit of a perv and got himself into a lot of trouble he could've avoided because of that. Along the way you find out that the massive destruction caused by Vash years prior wasn't even his fault, but he's still forced to suffer the consequenses. The final episode, where we see Vash finally forced to fight his own brother to the death served as the perfect ending to a magnificent series.
4. Gankutsuo
I had friends who hated this series because of the art style, and I never understood why. To me, it's one of the prettiest series I've ever watched, and that's handy, because it's about all the flashiness you'll get out of this one. Gankutsuo is a re-imagining of The Count of Monte Cristo, so it's more political intrigue than slugfest. Unlike the film from years back, the anime is much more true to the Count's dark, selfish character; he's a monster consumed with the thought of vengeance and there's no room in his heart for anything else.
This one's probably the biggest oddball on my list, but it's one of those shows that just sticks out in my mind, and now I really want to find it on DVD and watch it again....
5. Saint Seiya
Saint Seiya (or Knights of the Zodiac as it was called in the States) is an interesting beast that starts out as a pretty standard fair team anime. You have this group of kids with clashing personalities who are chosen by fate to bear their respective symbols and they have to learn to work together to overcome the big cosmic baddie of the week. What set Saint Seiya apart for me was the fact that over time, they allowed their characters to suffer permanent damage. By the end, Swan loses an eye, while Shiryu is permanently blinded by Perseus, and despite the fact that they live in a world where miracles are possible, these are things they just have to deal with. (That doesn't really make sense, but I digress.)
Other than that, I always enjoyed its blend of Greek mythology and standard anime fare. The biggest twists come in the last season (which was delayed for several years) when we find out that the good guys weren't really the good guys, and ... wait, you mean they were? Oh, awesome, and then Athena has to be rescued and ... wait, they failed? No, it was her plan? So. Many. Twists. Just give it a watch and you'll see what I mean.
6. Ronin Warriors
Ronin Warriors is just plain fun. Picture a better, deeper version of Power Rangers and you're not too far off from describing the show. If you can manage to find it without paying through the nose, pick this one up. I can't really do it justice with a description, so you'll just have to see it for yourself.
7. Speed Racer
This is the one that usually has people scratching their heads, wondering where in the unholy hell this belongs on a list with all my other favorites. And really ... I don't have a good answer for that. I can tell you it was the very first anime I ever saw, and I still enjoy watching it today, even though it's the cheesiest thing you'll ever watch outside of an episode of The Brady Bunch. The characters are all archetypes and exhibit only the most extreme personalities and emotions and the animation is a bit dated. But it still looks alright, and I love it.
8. Cyborg 009
I didn't appreciate this show when I was a kid. I thought the art style looked dumb (and I still kinda do) and I didn't understand the story. But, when I got older and went back to watch it again, it struck a chord with me. When you get down to the meat of it, Cyborg 009 and the rest of his group are all pretty depressing. Maybe that's why I didn't like the show as a kid; this show is really sad. How the heck did it make it to Cartoon Network anyway?
9. Cowboy Bebop
...
...
Yeah, it's really good and no one really argues that, so, moving on....
10. Gungrave
Oy, saddle up for what is quite possibly the saddest anime of all time. What starts out as a story about two best friends fighting their way up from nothing ends with one of them becoming a big underworld leader and the other having to come back from the grave to kill his former best friend. This whole anime tugs on the heartstrings and the animation is beautiful. It's a wonderful anime, but I warn everyone to stay away from it if they don't want something that's going to stomp all over their emotions with as much remorse as my wife has for spiders.
11. Wolf's Rain
Remember earlier when I said Gungrave was super depressing? Well, Wolf's Rain gives it a hard run for its money. Between the two, I honestly can't tell you which one tugged at my heartstrings the most, and I also can't tell you which is the most beautifully told. But if I had to pick a favorite between the two, I'd give the nod to Wolf's Rain just because I really like wolves. But, again, if you don't like stories that were built from the ground up to stomp on your heart like your high school sweetheart the day before prom, steer clear.
12. RIN: Daughters of Mnemosyne
This one was fairly mainstream, and because of that it floored me with its level of ... Dark. Yeah, this show is so Dark that the d should always be capitalized. I've tried to get people into this anime in the past and only two of them were able to make it past the first episode. It's weird, it's Dark, it pulls no punches, it ... has one of the most interesting backstories of anything I've ever watched. Not for the feint of heart with all the violence (a good bit of it sexual in nature) and mutilation, but if you can get past that, the story is very rich. There are so many neat little details I catch when I rewatch it that I missed the second and third time I sat through it.
If you've ever watched something on the level of Gantz, then RIN probably won't bother you. Only, unlike Gantz, RIN is good. But there's your measuring stick.
13. Outlaw Star
Ah, my old friend. I remember this one from Toonami, and then again when they aired it on Adult Swim at launch. Then I owned it on DVD and watched again ... then my dumb ass decided to sell it. I made a lot of mistakes in my childhood, but that one still haunts me just because of the sheer stupidity? I mean, if I was that mind-numbingly idiotic, how did I remember to breathe?
Anyway, this anime is great! You want giant spaceship battles? You got it! Want a gun with bullets literally made of magic? Boom, all yours! Want an awesome Ronin chick that could probably kill you with a stare if she wanted? Yeah, she's here too! Want that kind of annoying sidekick character that pops up in most anime? Well, me neither, but we take the good with the bad.
I believe you can find this show now for pretty cheap, so give it a watch!
14. Mobile Fighter G Gundam
They say there's at least one Gundam show for everyone, and they're right! All Bandai had to do was make a show unlike any other Gundam show and I was hooked! Unfortunately, most Gundam fans HATE this show, and I never really understood why. It had fun characters and stylish action, and it didn't take itself too seriously, like most Gundam shows are guilty of.
The whole premise of the rich people floating above earth on space-continents (and no, I'm not joking) and using the planet as their own personal battleground for an annual tournament made so much sense to me. They don't care for the people actually living down there on the planet, they just want to have their tournament and float around on their space-continents (God, that's fun to say) and lord it over everyone else. So, if you've never seen, I recommend at least checking it out. And if you've suffered through Gundam Seed, then this will be like having a nice, juicy steak after 6 months of nothing but McNuggets.
Space-Continent!
15. Eden of the East
I didn't expect to fall in love with this show like I did. It was on Netflix at the time, and I watched it on a whim after hearing about it from a friend in passing. I made it through the whole main series in one day, and moved onto the two following films afterwards. The characters are likeable, the voice acting, animation and music are all top-notch. I really can't say enough good things about this show; it's serious when it needs to be, then it'll make you laugh and feel all fuzzy inside.
You know, I don't want to spoil a single thing about this one. Just go watch it. If you don't like it, I'll ... well, I'll probably just feel sorry for you, but yeah, check it out!
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
It Follows
Wow, I just got off of a very entertaining thrill ride called It Follows, a film written and directed by David Robert Mitchell, and I gotta tell ya, I haven't had a modern Horror film hit me like this in a very long time. It's well-shot, amazingly scored and features a cast of characters played by actors who are not only good at what they do, but look like ordinary people and not like the standard cheerleader and jock types we're used to seeing in these kinds of movies.
Another refresher is that we don't focus on the standard dumb teenager/young adult, and instead focus on fairly level-headed (or as close to level-headed as any of us were in our earliest 20's anyway) individuals who are forced to deal with a situation I don't even want to imagine myself in. This isn't a movie where you're going to see dumb kids making the same dumb mistakes we've seen a thousand times, but instead they make their own mistakes, due in part to their lack of familiarity with the creature they're dealing with. In a way it's a sort of allegory, with the lead girl being a fresh college student and feeling her way through adulthood, where every decision you make seems like the wrong one, no matter what you do.
I'll try to avoid spoilers here, but I will be touching on a scene here or there to cast some light of the various themes that can be pulled from the movie, so a minor spoiler or two is possible. So, with that in mind, read on at your own risk.
The movie starts with a girl running out of her house, frantic as her dad calls back from the house, asking if she's alright. Meanwhile, we notice her eyes focused on something in the direction of the camera. Something that the lady on the street next to her doesn't seem to notice. She runs back into the house, then runs back out a few seconds later with her keys, then hops in her car and drives away. Next, it's after dark and we see her sitting on a beach alone and her phone rings (it's interesting to note that this use of the cell phone is something you won't really see again) and she apologizes to her dad for being a bad daughter sometimes, and it becomes apparent that she's saying goodbye, having accepted her fate.
Skipping ahead, we meet our lead, Jay, played by Maika Monroe. She's swimming in the pool in her backyard without a care, minus the two neighborhood kids peeking in on her over the fence, but she doesn't even let that bother her, telling them with a smile that she sees them. Shortly after she's on a date with her new boyfriend, Hugh, played by Jake Weary, and everything is going pretty well. Watching this scene reminded me of how awkward first dates were when I was young. Even the best of first dates tend to have those awkward moments you can't get around when really getting to know someone for the first time. Very quickly though, once they get into the theater and sit down, ready to watch their movie, things take a turn. Hugh points out a girl in a yellow dress that Jay says she can't see. Hugh starts to panic and says they need to leave. Jay questions him about it outside, but he's deflective and won't tell her. To be concise, they do end up having a second date, where they have sex ... and then Hugh uses a chloroform rag to knock her out.
Now, here's where the meat of the story and the root for all of the movie's symbolism begins. Jay wakes up tied to a chair, scared and confused as Hugh talks to her and begins to tell her what he's done. There's this thing; it doesn't have a name, and he only knows it as, well, "It." He tells her that It will begin to follow her now, always at a walking pace and It can look like anyone. He warns her against going anywhere that only has one exit, because "It's slow, but It's not stupid." Then, after making sure she sees It and is convinced it's real, he pulls her away to his car and drives off, after suggesting that she has sex with someone else to pass it on. Apparently once it's passed on, It follows that person until they pass on the curse or It kills them. And after It kills someone, the last person in the chain is the next target. Oh, and only those touched by the curse can see It, and that's what makes It so terrifying.
The message(s) that this film tackles ... well, it doesn't shy away from anything. There are so many interpretations that can be gleaned from this movie it can make your head spin. It's the kind of thing you can watch with two other people and each of you can pull different meanings out of it, and none of them are any more right or wrong than the others. I wish I'd been able to watch it with a group the first time to see what my friends pulled from it, but I definitely plan to do that later. This movie has the kind of heart that Wes Craven's work is known for, and I applaud it for going the direction it went. Not to mention that Jay is, in my opinion, the best female lead in a Horror film since Nancy Callahan in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Yeah, I went there.
The last things I'm going to talk about are the period of the film, and the soundtrack. As far as the period goes, the director did a great job maintaining ambiguity. We see a cell phone or two, but the decor in the houses we see look very 80's or early 90's, which puts it somewhere between a nostalgia trip and our modern reality. It walks that line very well, and nothing ever feels out of place. Now, the soundtrack ... WOW. The composer is someone you may recognize if you've played the video game Fez, Disasterpiece. I already thought his work was good, but this film convinced me he's about a league past brilliant. Pulling a lot from John Carpenter's work, he weaves together a score that not only sends chills up your spine when it needs to, but conveys an almost dreamlike confusion at other times. I don't think I've ever been more impressed by the music in a Horror movie, ever.
I could go on, diving into the themes of the movie, talking about what Paul's relationship with Jay represents and maybe touch on the themes of sexuality throughout the movie, but instead I think I'll let you find that out for yourself. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie, preferably with a group, and really think about it. You won't regret it. I hope I've convinced you to give it a shot.
Another refresher is that we don't focus on the standard dumb teenager/young adult, and instead focus on fairly level-headed (or as close to level-headed as any of us were in our earliest 20's anyway) individuals who are forced to deal with a situation I don't even want to imagine myself in. This isn't a movie where you're going to see dumb kids making the same dumb mistakes we've seen a thousand times, but instead they make their own mistakes, due in part to their lack of familiarity with the creature they're dealing with. In a way it's a sort of allegory, with the lead girl being a fresh college student and feeling her way through adulthood, where every decision you make seems like the wrong one, no matter what you do.
I'll try to avoid spoilers here, but I will be touching on a scene here or there to cast some light of the various themes that can be pulled from the movie, so a minor spoiler or two is possible. So, with that in mind, read on at your own risk.
The movie starts with a girl running out of her house, frantic as her dad calls back from the house, asking if she's alright. Meanwhile, we notice her eyes focused on something in the direction of the camera. Something that the lady on the street next to her doesn't seem to notice. She runs back into the house, then runs back out a few seconds later with her keys, then hops in her car and drives away. Next, it's after dark and we see her sitting on a beach alone and her phone rings (it's interesting to note that this use of the cell phone is something you won't really see again) and she apologizes to her dad for being a bad daughter sometimes, and it becomes apparent that she's saying goodbye, having accepted her fate.
Skipping ahead, we meet our lead, Jay, played by Maika Monroe. She's swimming in the pool in her backyard without a care, minus the two neighborhood kids peeking in on her over the fence, but she doesn't even let that bother her, telling them with a smile that she sees them. Shortly after she's on a date with her new boyfriend, Hugh, played by Jake Weary, and everything is going pretty well. Watching this scene reminded me of how awkward first dates were when I was young. Even the best of first dates tend to have those awkward moments you can't get around when really getting to know someone for the first time. Very quickly though, once they get into the theater and sit down, ready to watch their movie, things take a turn. Hugh points out a girl in a yellow dress that Jay says she can't see. Hugh starts to panic and says they need to leave. Jay questions him about it outside, but he's deflective and won't tell her. To be concise, they do end up having a second date, where they have sex ... and then Hugh uses a chloroform rag to knock her out.
Now, here's where the meat of the story and the root for all of the movie's symbolism begins. Jay wakes up tied to a chair, scared and confused as Hugh talks to her and begins to tell her what he's done. There's this thing; it doesn't have a name, and he only knows it as, well, "It." He tells her that It will begin to follow her now, always at a walking pace and It can look like anyone. He warns her against going anywhere that only has one exit, because "It's slow, but It's not stupid." Then, after making sure she sees It and is convinced it's real, he pulls her away to his car and drives off, after suggesting that she has sex with someone else to pass it on. Apparently once it's passed on, It follows that person until they pass on the curse or It kills them. And after It kills someone, the last person in the chain is the next target. Oh, and only those touched by the curse can see It, and that's what makes It so terrifying.
The message(s) that this film tackles ... well, it doesn't shy away from anything. There are so many interpretations that can be gleaned from this movie it can make your head spin. It's the kind of thing you can watch with two other people and each of you can pull different meanings out of it, and none of them are any more right or wrong than the others. I wish I'd been able to watch it with a group the first time to see what my friends pulled from it, but I definitely plan to do that later. This movie has the kind of heart that Wes Craven's work is known for, and I applaud it for going the direction it went. Not to mention that Jay is, in my opinion, the best female lead in a Horror film since Nancy Callahan in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Yeah, I went there.
The last things I'm going to talk about are the period of the film, and the soundtrack. As far as the period goes, the director did a great job maintaining ambiguity. We see a cell phone or two, but the decor in the houses we see look very 80's or early 90's, which puts it somewhere between a nostalgia trip and our modern reality. It walks that line very well, and nothing ever feels out of place. Now, the soundtrack ... WOW. The composer is someone you may recognize if you've played the video game Fez, Disasterpiece. I already thought his work was good, but this film convinced me he's about a league past brilliant. Pulling a lot from John Carpenter's work, he weaves together a score that not only sends chills up your spine when it needs to, but conveys an almost dreamlike confusion at other times. I don't think I've ever been more impressed by the music in a Horror movie, ever.
I could go on, diving into the themes of the movie, talking about what Paul's relationship with Jay represents and maybe touch on the themes of sexuality throughout the movie, but instead I think I'll let you find that out for yourself. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie, preferably with a group, and really think about it. You won't regret it. I hope I've convinced you to give it a shot.
Friday, January 23, 2015
The Beginning
It's been awhile since my last post, and I hate that. My intention was to make a post at least every other week, but life's been giving me a rough time lately and I just haven't found the time. But, to be fair, I've tried more than once in the past month to sit down and write about something, but with my job leaving me so drained and stressed, I usually end up even more frustrated and push my computer away.
So, now that we have that out of the way, let's dive into today's subject: Storytelling.
I know that seems kind of vague, but what I'm going to be covering here are the right and wrong (as well as the subjective right and wrong) ways to go about telling a story.
Now, we'll start where all good stories start: The Beginning. This is where you hook your reader (or viewer if we're talking cinema) and proceed to drag them along for the ride. It's incredibly important that you get your claws into the audience here, at the very start of the story, or you might not get them at all. Today's society is a lot more fast paced than when I was growing up. Back then, people were reading Tolkien, and no one really questioned the painfully slow start to his stories; it was just what you had to go through to get to the meat of the story, and that was fine for the time, but if Tolkien were starting out in today's literary world, his books would most likely bomb. A lot of modern readers have been drawn into books from watching the movies they're based on (like Harry Potter, and a certain sparkling mess we won't mention.) Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that the type of storytelling that sells had evolved, because if you're coming from a movie diet into a book diet, then Lord of the Rings is a shock to the system.
Now, you could argue that the book sales of Harry Potter and the like was the reason the movies were successful, not the other way around, and that's somewhat true, or at least it was in the beginning. That said, a good half of my friends started with the movies because of all the hype, and it drew them to the books. So, I'd say it turned out to be a fairly equal marriage by the end of it all. And even if you don't agree, the current and last generations have grown up with so much more stimulation, specifically from TV and movies, than any generation before us. Like it or not, by the time we get to books, our idea of successful storytelling has already been altered from the old school mentality.
So what does this mean for the future of storytelling? Well, for one, if you're writing books, you'll have to start getting your hooks in the reader a lot sooner than, say, Tolkien did. I love The Fellowship of the Ring, but the first few chapters are tough to get through, with far too much exposition that could very easily be trimmed down. Back then, Tolkien was inventing a genre, and the expectations of literary stories were far different from today, so he got away with it. Now though, instead of the dull, drawn out opening Fellowship had, you'd need something with a little more flair to sell it to a modern audience. I personally think the way Peter Jackson handled the opening in the film was great; he set us up with a nice opening monologue from Galadriel, and we got to see an exciting fight scene. I disagree with a lot of the changes Jackson made, but this one made perfect sense to me.
I'll move past Tolkien for a minute and give you a more modern example. In Elantris by Brandon Sanderson, one of the main characters, Raoden "awoke early that morning, completely unaware that he'd been damned for all eternity." Now that's a hook! The very first line of the book, and I already want to know what the heck's going on. Elantris came out in 2005, and to this day I don't think I've read anything with a more in-your-face, inviting opener for a novel.
After reading that, I listened to a podcast where Sanderson was talking about successful opening lines for books, and how important they were in today's world. He cited that opening as one of his proudest moments, and rightfully so. But even after listening to the podcast, I still wanted to go deeper; I wanted to find the perfect formula for a good opening line. Did I ever find it? Maybe. I thought long and hard about it, and this is what I came up with: A good opening line, is an answer that makes you ask questions. Going back to the opening of Elantris, the fact that we know Raoden has been damned for all eternity if interesting, but why has he been damned? Who damned him? Is he going to die? (I think you get my point.)
After that, I started going back through some of my favorite books to see if they met this new criteria, and most of them did. The prologue to The Eye of the World certainly did, along with Dan Wells' I Am Not A Serial Killer. Is it indisputable? No, not at all. There are books even now that don't follow the rule and find great success, but a good number of those (at least in fiction) tend to be from authors who have already proven themselves and have a dedicated fanbase, like Stephen King or James Patterson. In my opinion though, for a writer starting out today, slaving over a killer opening line is one of the most important choices you can make. Do you have any idea how many people today will walk into a bookstore, pick up a book and decide whether or not they're going to buy it after the first line? I see it happening more and more. Even I've gotten to that point. With so many books out there that I'd like to read, I have to narrow things down somehow, and that's one of the quickest, easiest ways to do it.
You might be wondering if this is the definitive future of writing, and I doubt it. Just look at how far it's come since Tolkien's day. The most important thing for anyone looking to get their book published is to keep in touch with the times, and not fall into the Pit of Yesteryear, so to speak. Stay Current. Now, I'm not saying you should pick up the latest Stephen King or Dean Koontz novel and do exactly what they're doing, but you can probably pick up a few useful techniques from them to make your work more attractive to a wider audience. Pay attention to the way they kick their books off and how they set and maintain the pace. Despite their massive followings, most bestselling writers don't maintain the exact style from book to book, and if the big guys feel the need to keep things fresh, it should be a lesson to everyone else; don't let your work get stale.
Is following this advice going to magically get you published tomorrow? Well, if you're lucky, maybe, but either way it's a good way to catch the eye of an editor. So, the next time you sit down to write a story, hover over the beginning for a minute. You might be surprised what comes to you with a little patience.
So, now that we have that out of the way, let's dive into today's subject: Storytelling.
I know that seems kind of vague, but what I'm going to be covering here are the right and wrong (as well as the subjective right and wrong) ways to go about telling a story.
Now, we'll start where all good stories start: The Beginning. This is where you hook your reader (or viewer if we're talking cinema) and proceed to drag them along for the ride. It's incredibly important that you get your claws into the audience here, at the very start of the story, or you might not get them at all. Today's society is a lot more fast paced than when I was growing up. Back then, people were reading Tolkien, and no one really questioned the painfully slow start to his stories; it was just what you had to go through to get to the meat of the story, and that was fine for the time, but if Tolkien were starting out in today's literary world, his books would most likely bomb. A lot of modern readers have been drawn into books from watching the movies they're based on (like Harry Potter, and a certain sparkling mess we won't mention.) Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that the type of storytelling that sells had evolved, because if you're coming from a movie diet into a book diet, then Lord of the Rings is a shock to the system.
Now, you could argue that the book sales of Harry Potter and the like was the reason the movies were successful, not the other way around, and that's somewhat true, or at least it was in the beginning. That said, a good half of my friends started with the movies because of all the hype, and it drew them to the books. So, I'd say it turned out to be a fairly equal marriage by the end of it all. And even if you don't agree, the current and last generations have grown up with so much more stimulation, specifically from TV and movies, than any generation before us. Like it or not, by the time we get to books, our idea of successful storytelling has already been altered from the old school mentality.
So what does this mean for the future of storytelling? Well, for one, if you're writing books, you'll have to start getting your hooks in the reader a lot sooner than, say, Tolkien did. I love The Fellowship of the Ring, but the first few chapters are tough to get through, with far too much exposition that could very easily be trimmed down. Back then, Tolkien was inventing a genre, and the expectations of literary stories were far different from today, so he got away with it. Now though, instead of the dull, drawn out opening Fellowship had, you'd need something with a little more flair to sell it to a modern audience. I personally think the way Peter Jackson handled the opening in the film was great; he set us up with a nice opening monologue from Galadriel, and we got to see an exciting fight scene. I disagree with a lot of the changes Jackson made, but this one made perfect sense to me.
I'll move past Tolkien for a minute and give you a more modern example. In Elantris by Brandon Sanderson, one of the main characters, Raoden "awoke early that morning, completely unaware that he'd been damned for all eternity." Now that's a hook! The very first line of the book, and I already want to know what the heck's going on. Elantris came out in 2005, and to this day I don't think I've read anything with a more in-your-face, inviting opener for a novel.
After reading that, I listened to a podcast where Sanderson was talking about successful opening lines for books, and how important they were in today's world. He cited that opening as one of his proudest moments, and rightfully so. But even after listening to the podcast, I still wanted to go deeper; I wanted to find the perfect formula for a good opening line. Did I ever find it? Maybe. I thought long and hard about it, and this is what I came up with: A good opening line, is an answer that makes you ask questions. Going back to the opening of Elantris, the fact that we know Raoden has been damned for all eternity if interesting, but why has he been damned? Who damned him? Is he going to die? (I think you get my point.)
After that, I started going back through some of my favorite books to see if they met this new criteria, and most of them did. The prologue to The Eye of the World certainly did, along with Dan Wells' I Am Not A Serial Killer. Is it indisputable? No, not at all. There are books even now that don't follow the rule and find great success, but a good number of those (at least in fiction) tend to be from authors who have already proven themselves and have a dedicated fanbase, like Stephen King or James Patterson. In my opinion though, for a writer starting out today, slaving over a killer opening line is one of the most important choices you can make. Do you have any idea how many people today will walk into a bookstore, pick up a book and decide whether or not they're going to buy it after the first line? I see it happening more and more. Even I've gotten to that point. With so many books out there that I'd like to read, I have to narrow things down somehow, and that's one of the quickest, easiest ways to do it.
You might be wondering if this is the definitive future of writing, and I doubt it. Just look at how far it's come since Tolkien's day. The most important thing for anyone looking to get their book published is to keep in touch with the times, and not fall into the Pit of Yesteryear, so to speak. Stay Current. Now, I'm not saying you should pick up the latest Stephen King or Dean Koontz novel and do exactly what they're doing, but you can probably pick up a few useful techniques from them to make your work more attractive to a wider audience. Pay attention to the way they kick their books off and how they set and maintain the pace. Despite their massive followings, most bestselling writers don't maintain the exact style from book to book, and if the big guys feel the need to keep things fresh, it should be a lesson to everyone else; don't let your work get stale.
Is following this advice going to magically get you published tomorrow? Well, if you're lucky, maybe, but either way it's a good way to catch the eye of an editor. So, the next time you sit down to write a story, hover over the beginning for a minute. You might be surprised what comes to you with a little patience.
Friday, July 12, 2013
A Slave To Interpretation
I came across an interesting article tonight (well, technically it's morning) where a columnist was listing their 10 (from best to worst) Stephen King movie adaptations. I saw before I clicked over to the main article that The Shining was listed at #1, and immediately thought "Well, surely they're talking about the miniseries SK did in '97", but I was wrong. For some reason I couldn't fathom, they had not only put the Kubrick movie on the list, but at #1, above every other adaptation.
So, after reading the entire list, I went back to the top and re-read the description, which I'll just quote here:
"The Shining was one of King's best novels. The movie was outstandingly bad and I can't believe anyone who rates the movie highly even read the book. Stanley Kubrick is/was one of the world's most over-rated directors. The television mini-series version of "The Shining" was a vast improvement over the cinematic version."
"The Shining #1????? That was the most pathetic adaptation of a Stephen King book on record! Shawshank Redemption should have been #1 with The Mist a lot higher than it was ranked. The rest of the list is pretty well spot on."
But then I read further down and found comments like:
"" This is my number one Stephen King adaptation because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made." Agreed. Stephen King is my hero but I do agree that the movie was done well. It wasn't what he envisioned, but obviously it resonated with readers, and they have the book (as well as his own Shining movie series) for his idea. Besides, a major part of writing is begin interpreted in endless ways."
And there were a few others who agreed with this person which, as a writer, really bothered me.
Now, I don't claim to know everything about writing (which is part of the excitement that keeps me going) and I can't speak for every writer, but there are certain ways I NEVER want my work to be interpreted. If I feel it's a complete bastardization of the work I lovingly cultivated over months or years, then I have every right to fight against it, in my mind. The idea of a novel "transcending" the writer in a way the writer is vehemently against is something that should never happen, and yet it happens everyday.
Exhibit A: Alan Moore
Moore has been very outspoken over the years about not wanting his work, saying, "They were written to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema. So why not leave them as a comic, in they way they were intended to be?"
Initially, Moore was content to just take the money for the film and keep his mouth shut, then he stopped taking any royalties at all and insisted that his name be stricken from the titles. And I can see why after so many of his stories were outright ruined by Hollywood, even before Watchmen. For some reason, even with Moore's constant protests, studios continue to gain access to movie rights due to his publishers' moneygrubbing.
____
Now, I consider it different when a writer is closely involved with the filming process, like O'Barr was on The Crow. This was an instance where the writer personally signed off on everything the director wanted, and was pleased with the final product. In cases like this, if the writer has any complaints after filming, it's really their own fault.
Anyway, I guess the main thing that irked me about the article was the fact that people (most of whom didn't even seem to have read the book) were running to the defense of a pitifully-done adaptation of a great work. If the movie had been called anything other than The Shining, I probably wouldn't have any problems with it, in all honesty, but when you use the name, you're making certain promises to the viewer, and I felt that those promises were broken by Kubrick.
If you'd like to check out the article for yourself, I'm leaving a link below, so feel free to check it out. And if you get a chance, please comment and give me your opinions on this. Should a writer always be a slave to unwanted interpretation?
Stephen King's Books Turned to Films, From Best to Worst
So, after reading the entire list, I went back to the top and re-read the description, which I'll just quote here:
"Stephen King famously hated Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. His
major grievance with the Kubrick film is his feeling that the director
downplayed the supernatural element of the story as much as possible and
emphasized the psychological origins of main character Jack Torrance’s
madness. He also suggested, probably correctly, that casting Jack
Nicholson in the role would diminish the effect of an otherwise normal
man descending into derangement, as Nicholson had mostly played unstable
characters up to that point. However, I think what is so powerful about
The Shining is its open-endedness and the idea that we may never know exactly where
our demons are coming from. It would be easy enough to blame Torrance’s
meltdown on some external evil entity but the film is much more
compelling because that is not made explicit. All of this aside, Kubrick
is a visual master and a director whose vast attention to detail and
style give this film its unique and stunning look. This is my number one
Stephen King adaptation because it transcends King himself and is not
only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever
made"
Well, that's....
I'm sorry, but doesn't "best adaptation" imply that it's the most faithful to the source material? Am I missing something here?
The main part of that whole spiel that bothers me is the last line: "...because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made." So, in a roundabout way, it seems like the writer of this article is implying that King's beefs with the so-called adaptation are unfounded, which is wrong, in my opinion.
Anyway, after re-reading the description a second time, I decided to hit the comments and see what other people were saying about it, and the first couple of comments gave me hope, with people saying thinks like:
"Shawshank Redemption is one of the best movies of all time so it should be number 1 without a doubt. Kubrick’s self indulgent butchering of the story in The Shining should make it a choice on the worst list."
Well, that's....
I'm sorry, but doesn't "best adaptation" imply that it's the most faithful to the source material? Am I missing something here?
The main part of that whole spiel that bothers me is the last line: "...because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made." So, in a roundabout way, it seems like the writer of this article is implying that King's beefs with the so-called adaptation are unfounded, which is wrong, in my opinion.
Anyway, after re-reading the description a second time, I decided to hit the comments and see what other people were saying about it, and the first couple of comments gave me hope, with people saying thinks like:
"Shawshank Redemption is one of the best movies of all time so it should be number 1 without a doubt. Kubrick’s self indulgent butchering of the story in The Shining should make it a choice on the worst list."
"The Shining was one of King's best novels. The movie was outstandingly bad and I can't believe anyone who rates the movie highly even read the book. Stanley Kubrick is/was one of the world's most over-rated directors. The television mini-series version of "The Shining" was a vast improvement over the cinematic version."
"The Shining #1????? That was the most pathetic adaptation of a Stephen King book on record! Shawshank Redemption should have been #1 with The Mist a lot higher than it was ranked. The rest of the list is pretty well spot on."
But then I read further down and found comments like:
"" This is my number one Stephen King adaptation because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made." Agreed. Stephen King is my hero but I do agree that the movie was done well. It wasn't what he envisioned, but obviously it resonated with readers, and they have the book (as well as his own Shining movie series) for his idea. Besides, a major part of writing is begin interpreted in endless ways."
And there were a few others who agreed with this person which, as a writer, really bothered me.
Now, I don't claim to know everything about writing (which is part of the excitement that keeps me going) and I can't speak for every writer, but there are certain ways I NEVER want my work to be interpreted. If I feel it's a complete bastardization of the work I lovingly cultivated over months or years, then I have every right to fight against it, in my mind. The idea of a novel "transcending" the writer in a way the writer is vehemently against is something that should never happen, and yet it happens everyday.
Exhibit A: Alan Moore
Moore has been very outspoken over the years about not wanting his work, saying, "They were written to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema. So why not leave them as a comic, in they way they were intended to be?"
Initially, Moore was content to just take the money for the film and keep his mouth shut, then he stopped taking any royalties at all and insisted that his name be stricken from the titles. And I can see why after so many of his stories were outright ruined by Hollywood, even before Watchmen. For some reason, even with Moore's constant protests, studios continue to gain access to movie rights due to his publishers' moneygrubbing.
____
Now, I consider it different when a writer is closely involved with the filming process, like O'Barr was on The Crow. This was an instance where the writer personally signed off on everything the director wanted, and was pleased with the final product. In cases like this, if the writer has any complaints after filming, it's really their own fault.
Anyway, I guess the main thing that irked me about the article was the fact that people (most of whom didn't even seem to have read the book) were running to the defense of a pitifully-done adaptation of a great work. If the movie had been called anything other than The Shining, I probably wouldn't have any problems with it, in all honesty, but when you use the name, you're making certain promises to the viewer, and I felt that those promises were broken by Kubrick.
If you'd like to check out the article for yourself, I'm leaving a link below, so feel free to check it out. And if you get a chance, please comment and give me your opinions on this. Should a writer always be a slave to unwanted interpretation?
Stephen King's Books Turned to Films, From Best to Worst
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)