Fourth-day Universe

What happens on the fourth day?

2010-09-18T18:36:00.000-07:00

Fourth-day Universe is no longer just a blog, and it is no longer solely authored by myself.

Over the last year, Fourth-day Universe has grown from a place to post the occasional writing tip or update on my literary efforts to a receptacle for reviews of movies, conventions, and other sci-fi/fantasy "events". It's become a full website, in fact, that you can visit at FourthdayUniverse.com.

Why sci-fi, particularly? Isn't that just for "freaks and geeks"? As I've posted before, science-fiction is an extremely versatile genre. The avenues of exploration, whether personal, interpersonal, societal, or otherwise, that fiction writers strive to create are greatly expanded when the boundaries of "reality" are crossed. We're given the opportunity to examine a whole host of issues in new and exciting ways. That's why Fourth-day Universe will continue to highlight the fantastical, whether in romance, mystery, horror, adventure, drama, comedy, or whatever other theme may be used.

We'll have plenty of reviews for you to read. Movies such as M. Night Shyamalan's "Devil" and Daniel Stamm's "The Last Exorcism" have already been reviewed on the site, as has this year's Dragon*Con in Atlanta, the largest sci-fi convention in North America. In the coming months, we'll have interviews with such prolific sci-fi authors as Michael Stackpole, Gail Z. Martin, and Jennifer St. Giles. And when the site's Bookstore opens for business, you'll even be able to read original works of fiction written by Fourth-day contributors, such as myself.

Fourth-day will also branch out into other areas of the online community. We already have a Twitter account, updates of which can be read on this blog, or you can simply Follow us on Twitter @4thdayU. We have a YouTube account as well, where we will post short video reviews of some select book, TV, and movie titles. We'll host forum discussions from our site for fans of sci-fi, fantasy, paranormal fiction, alternate realities, and graphic lit. And, while you wait to check out original fiction and other products by Fourth-day's collection of authors, artists, actors, and other contributors, you can check out our Zazzle store for all kinds of merchandise.

So head over to our new site, and see if you can find the answer to the question "what happens on the fourth day?"

Make a personalized gift at Zazzle.

Scott Pilgrim gets a life (like some movie reviewers should).

2010-08-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

You know, I thought it was bad when graphic novels (aka comic books, to those who still don't think you can tell a good "grown-up" story in pictures) had to struggle with getting respect from the "critics". I mean, "Watchmen" came out in the mid-80s, and it made Time Magazine's list of the one hundred greatest novels ever. If you need more proof that the genre is perfectly capable of producing good literature, then you've probably never actually read any comic more sophisticated than "Garfield".

That brings us to the Scott Pilgrim series. The first volume was released six years ago, and the last (volume six) just came out last month. Yes, the movie finished shooting before the series had issued its final chapter. They accomplished this by having Bryan Lee O'Malley, the series creator, working closely with the director, Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz"), on the whole project; which is something every director should do when adapting someone else's work (again, reference "Watchmen"). Though the comic series and the movie both feature plenty of eye (and ear) candy for the video game/comic book/battling rock bands crowd, its base appeal is something far more profound than I think most movie reviewers even noticed.

I thank Linda Holmes of NPR for compiling a list of pretentious reviewers who not only miss the point entirely, but do a pretty good job of underestimating (and insulting) the fans in the process. One actually complained that the movie made the audience laugh too much. *rolls eyes* (You can read the list here.)

Anyway, what those reviewers all seem to miss is something that I missed when watching a highly-editted version of "The Breakfast Club" as a kid: that the movie is about the characters themselves. Where they are and what they're doing is (almost) incidental. First, of course, there's Scott Pilgrim, a dorky, depressed, delusional bass player in a band. When the movie begins, we learn that Scott, age 22, is dating a high schooler, Knives, age 17 ("and she's Chinese"). Scott's not trying to take advantage of her or anything ("We haven't even held hands"); he just likes hanging out with her, playing arcade games, and letting her listen while his band practices. It's a pretty nice arrangement (except for the fact that Knives is falling in love with Scott).

One day, Scott meets the girl of his dreams (literally). Her name's Ramona Flowers ("She's got battle scars"). Miracle of miracles, she seems to like him, too. Unfortunately, before they can live happily ever after, Scott needs to defeat Ramona's seven evil exes. It won't be easy; especially since Superman (Brandon Routh) and the Human Torch (Chris Evans) are playing two of her exes. Also, how will Knives react to Scott's leaving her? (Spoiler alert: not well.) Scott's band, of course, tries to be supportive, but they have their own lives (and the future of the band itself, of course) to consider. And then there's Scott's gay roommate Wallace Wells (played by the scene-stealing Kieran Culkin) who offers Scott sometimes-sage advice in between his own ... pursuits.

Okay, so it's not exactly "The Breakfast Club" with video game effects (although the fact that everyone Scott beats turns into coins is pretty awesome by itself). But neither is it "Mortal Kombat" with more laughs. The difficulty in adapting the graphic novel series is the same with adapting anything: knowing what to cut, what to add, and what to change. There are some backstory elements to both Scott's and Ramona's lives that can't be included because of time constraints, and others that seem out of place because, well, they are. At just under two hours, there's neither time nor room for the movie to take the sometimes leisurely pace the graphic novels take, and so the storylines dealing with the characters and their personal conflicts can feel a little rushed or canned at times.

That doesn't make it any less enjoyable, though; or any less insightful. The video game elements are a perfect metaphor for Scott's struggle; and it's a familiar struggle, one for both love and self-respect. Even Ramona has to decide how she wants her life to unfold, and whether, after accumulating seven "evil" exes, she's even capable of having a good relationship. It's a parable; maybe not the kind of which Shakespeare or Chaucer wrote, but it's still profound. I'd encourage anyone to both watch the movie and read the books (not necessarily in that order).

(Read the original review here.)

Old vs. New: The Last Airbender Movie

2010-08-03T09:24:00.000-07:00

"Avatar: The Last Airbender" is one of Nickelodeon's finest accomplishments. It is the story of a young boy chosen by destiny to wield the four ancient elements of Fire, Earth, Water, and Air to bring peace to the four nations built upon those elements. Afraid of his destiny and the sacrifices he would need to make to fulfill it, Aang, already a master of the Air element (or Airbender) runs away from the monastery that is his home. He accidentally binds himself unconscious for a hundred years, which allows the Firebending Nation to destroy the other Airbenders and begin to conquer the Waterbending and Earthbending Tribes.

When Aang is revived by a young Waterbender named Katara and her older brother Sokka, he sees what his absence has done to the world. He resolves finally to fulfill his destiny and balance the elements once more. To do this, he must complete his training and master the three remaining disciplines. Katara and Sokka join him in his quest, and along the way they help to free other tribes and villages from the Fire Nation's oppression.

It's an epic fantasy in every sense, and when the movie adaptation was announced (especially with award-winning director M. Night Shyamalan at the helm), it caused no small amount of excitement among fans of the series. However, when the movie was released, it caused no small amount of disappointment. Critical and fan reviews alike have been unsparing in criticism, and I cannot disagree. Aside from stunning visuals and spectacular fight scenes, the film doesn't have much to offer viewers.

You can't take six half-hour TV episodes, put them back to back, and call it a movie. Unfortunately, that seems to be what Mr. Shyamalan has done. When adapting a TV show into a movie, you often are forced to package a ridiculous amount of exposition into the screenplay, depending on how long the show has been running. If the show is still on the air, then you are further forced to keep the movie in the same vein as the show without interrupting the continuity. If it's been cancelled, then your film is generally the capstone, the sequel or "final episode" that everyone really wanted to see.

That's not what you get with "The Last Airbender". It is, in short, a recap of the "most important" moments from the first season of the show. There was no great or noticeable deviation from the storyline, and nothing exciting or new was added. The film was merely a live-action version of the cartoon series. It was a wasted effort, in my opinion. By picking and choosing what information and scenes from the cartoon to adapt into the film, much of the richness of plot and character development was left behind. At just under ninety minutes, even actors like Dev Patel ("Slumdog Millionaires") and Jackson Rathbone (the Twilight saga) don't have much time to bring their respective characters of Prince Zuko and Sokka to life in the way their cartoon counterparts were able to. Newcomers Noah Ringer and Nicola Peltz gave good performances, but even they did not have the life or likeability that cartoon Aang and Katara had.

It wasn't a bad movie; not as bad as most think, at least. I'd recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen the TV series (though I'd recommend they choose the TV series instead); but for anyone who has seen Nickelodeon's "Airbender", you'll get nothing from this adaptation, and you even may find that you've lost something in the process. In my opinion, this will be the last Airbender movie.

(Read the original review here.)

Two words to describe "Inception"

2010-08-03T09:15:00.000-07:00

Christopher Nolan, the visionary director behind "Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight", and "Memento", has finally brought to life his project of more than twenty years. Featuring a cast of some of the world's greatest stars, both young and old, and having been filmed in locations in six different countries, "Inception", in the words of the L.A. Times, "blends the best of traditional and modern filmmaking".

Leonardo DiCaprio headlines as Cobb, a con man who specializes in stealing people's secrets from within their very minds. Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("3rd Rock from the Sun") gives a remarkable performance as his partner in crime. Tom Hardy ("Star Trek: Nemesis"), Dileep Rao ("Avatar"), and Ellen Page ("Juno") round out a team of highly talented "intrusion experts". They are hired by Ken Watanabe ("The Last Samurai") to do the impossible: rather than steal an idea from their target's (Cillian Murphy, "28 Days Later ...") mind, they are to plant an idea through a process called "inception".

There are many words to describe this movie. "Crime drama", "sci-fi thriller", "international intrigue", and "mind-bending masterpiece" all would certainly be on the list. Nolan keeps you on the edge of your seat until the very last second, barely giving you time to breathe as you try to peel the layers and decide what is real and what is illusion. There are many questions to answer as you follow the characters ever deeper into the world of dreams. The greatest questions, however, surround Cobb himself and his motives.

Cobb is not your typical thief taking on "one last job". While his partner believes Cobb is just hoping to complete the job so he can see his children again, Page's character begins to suspect that he is seeking something more. She soon learns that Cobb is haunted by the memory of his dead wife, played by Marion Cotillard ("Public Enemies"), who does far more than simply distract him from his duties. After all, in the world of the subconscious, even the smallest distraction can take you in directions you never expected to go.

Like the layers of the dream worlds the team constructs for their marks, this movie is crafted to convey one story; one single point that comes delivered wrapped in marvelous visual effects, pulse-pounding action sequences, intelligent dialogue, and even a fair amount of humor. That single point, the two words I would use to describe this movie, is "love story". The great mystery of "Inception" is the story of Cobb and his family, his wife and children, what he has done to them, and how far he will go to recover them. While most reviewers may focus on the spectacular special effects or the unique storytelling elements, I believe the central theme of "Inception" is the unraveling of Cobb's character. Everything else is a vehicle for this storyline.

As a writer, I think this is one of the finest examples of good storytelling I've seen. As a moviegoer, I can't think of a better way to spend my money. I would recommend "Inception" to anyone, be they seeking an action movie, an art film, a mystery thriller, or a science-fiction wonder ride. For me, it is all those things and more; but at its heart, it is a poignant love story.

(Read the original review here.)

Hollywood Hates Westerns. Or, Why Clint Eastwood Should Have Been Cast as Jonah Hex ... 30 Years Ago

2010-06-26T09:14:00.000-07:00

Jonah Hex, to most people, is an obscure character from DC Comics; and it looks like his debut feature film is destined for even greater obscurity.

While no one expected him to be as famous as some of his counterparts in the DC Universe, such as Batman, Superman, or Wonder Woman, there can be little doubt as to the devotion of the following he has earned for himself. The original Hex was a simple bounty hunter in the Old West, with a horribly scarred face and a ruthlessness that would shock even the Dark Knight. He would have made a great classic-styled Western movie hero; except that Hollywood doesn't seem all that interested in making classic Westerns anymore. Instead of facing cattle rustlers and train robbers, Hex's nemesis is Quentin Turnbull, a "terrorista" bent on stealing an 1800's era weapon of mass destruction. Hex is recruited by the U.S. government to act as Jack Bauer, basically; which at least helps preserve his basic character.

Most comic book heroes are one of two kinds: the straightforward good versus evil type, or the morally ambiguous thought-provoking types. Hex is a third kind. He's one of the first anti-heroes in comic literature, and one of the few to survive as such over the decades. Bounty hunters in general aren't seen as being that heroic. "They'll do the right thing, if the price is right" is the attitude with which they're regarded.

Jonah Hex, especially the Hex of the movie, fits that mold. While he may have acted bravely during the Civil War, refusing orders from Turnbull (his commanding officer at the time) to slaughter innocent lives, his descent from heroism is complete by the time the Union Army enlists him to find and stop his former commander. It is only the prospect of revenge against the man who killed his family, burned his face, and left him for dead that entices the murderous Hex to assist the Army in stopping Turnbull's plot to destroy America on the very night of its centennial.

Attempts are made to humanize Hex. Flashbacks to his days as a family man, his rescue by the Indians which led to his supernatural abilities (not present in the original comics), and even his friendship with Turnbull's son are meant to show the audience the man he was. In the end, though, we're left with the man he is.

Megan Fox gives a decent performance as Lilah, the frontierswoman who attempts to draw Hex away from the life he's built for himself. Her character, though, is clumsily patched on to the Hex universe (she's also absent from the comics), and her scenes feel accordingly out of step with the rest of the movie. Her character could easily have been written out of the film.

Some have wondered what the problem was with writing a straightforward Western-style script for Jonah Hex's first introduction to the big screen. As I mentioned before, the answer is most likely in Hollywood's attitude towards Westerns. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is the only one in the last decade that comes to mind, and I'm certain they only made that movie because of the success of the novel. Jonah Hex, on the other hand, is a "superhero" story, even if it is about one that didn't have superpowers. Westerns used to be gritty, with leading men like Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, and even Yul Brynner. That would have been the perfect era for a Jonah Hex movie, without a single mention of superpowers, terrorists, or weapons of mass destruction.

(Read the original review here.)

Old vs. New: "Clash of the Titans"

2010-04-02T20:49:00.000-07:00

***Warning: May Contain Spoilers***

Remakes, you could say, comprise a large portion of the movies Hollywood produces year after year. Add in sequels and adaptations of books, TV shows, comics, games, and of course classical mythology, and you might think Hollywood had no imagination anymore. Not so fast, there.

This latest offering, for example, has been and is being met with skepticism from fans of the original masterpiece by legendary producer and special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen. From the 50s all the way to early 80s, Harryhausen was responsible for the creature effects of such epic films as "Jason and the Argonauts", "The 3 Worlds of Gulliver", several "Sinbad" movies, and of course, the 1981 version of "Clash of the Titans". The comment I've heard/read most often is they expect the new movie to be all special effects and no real plot. That's funny to me; and not funny "ha ha". In my own humble opinion, the same criticism could very well apply to the original movie.

That's not to suggest the first "Clash" lacked a plot, mind you. In the style of classic Greek myths, it featured a hero, the classic Greek hero Perseus, the mortal son of the King of the Gods, Zeus. Perseus embarks on a quest to save the princess Andromeda and her home city from a fearsome sea monster. Along his way, he faces gigantic scorpions, a trio of hideous witches, a rejected beast of a man named Calibos, and the cursed creature Medusa. It's an interesting enough plot, and one that the new movie emulates to a degree; but the pacing of the original movie and the unfolding of the plot were both rather ... haphazard.

Perseus' presence in the city is the doing of the sea goddess Thetis, who is jealous of the fact that Zeus' son is blessed with everything her son, Calibos, is not; including, apparently, the love of the princess. Thetis transports Perseus to the city, apparently on a whim, where he learns of Calibos' efforts to ruin Andromeda's happiness and the city's future. When he intervenes and frees Andromeda of the deformed man's influence, and when Andromeda's mother Cassiopeia suggests that her daughter is more beautiful than any goddess, Thetis places a curse on the city which can only be lifted if Andromeda is sacrificed to the dreaded Kraken.

There's nothing wrong with a hero traveling from here to there, rescuing cities, slaying monsters, and marrying princesses; in fact, it's kind of the entire job description. On the other hand, it's not very imaginative. Harry Hamlin, who plays Perseus in the 1981 version, goes from scene to scene with all the intensity of a teenager on a scavenger hunt. Sam Worthington, on the other hand, adds something Hamlin's Perseus was lacking: motivation. Worthington's Perseus didn't arrive in Andromeda's city by chance; his adopted family were caught in the crossfire of a rebellion between Men and Gods, and only his own divine heritage kept him from dying with them. His quest is fueled by a desire to avenge their deaths on the God Hades, who stole their lives and (in this version) called for Andromeda's sacrifice.

As a writer, there's nothing I can stand less than when a character does something, anything, without a "good reason". Worthington's Perseus had good reason to hate the gods, or at least be suspicious of them. His love of his adopted family and grief over their deaths at the hands of a god led him to reject any connection to the gods, even his father Zeus. Played in the 2010 version by screen great Liam Neeson, Zeus is sympathetic to the plight of humanity. However, his anger at the rebellion, which culminated in a group of soldiers tumbling a colossal statue of him into the sea, led him to allow his brother Hades to remind mankind "of the order of things". Nevertheless, he does try to help his son on his quest. There are overtones of an almost Christian relationship between Zeus, Perseus, and humanity at large in this remake.

A few of the more obvious differences between the original and the remake include Perseus' companions in his quest. Originally, most of the soldiers who accompanied him had neither names nor much character development. Now, Perseus follows the soldiers, rather than leading them. They all have names, backgrounds, and their own personal feelings about a "demi-god" joining them in their efforts to save their home.

Another character who is "between" Men and Gods is the immortal Io, played by lovely British actress Gemma Arterton. Cursed to stay young while those she loves grow old and die, her extended lifetime of acquired wisdom and knowledge makes her an invaluable guide for Perseus. She fills two roles from the original movie: the wise mentor, originally filled by Ammon, played by film legend Burgess Meredith; and the love interest, originally filled by Princess Andromeda herself.

I must say, that second revision came as somewhat of a relief to me. Perseus had hardly any time (or reason) to become as heavily invested in Andromeda as he did in the first movie. Certainly, when you save someone's life, it's expected that a bond will form between you; but for Hamlin's Perseus, it was apparently love at first sight. I'm romantic enough to let that slide (usually), but Worthington's onscreen romance with Arterton was much more believable, in both my mind and my heart.

Now, let's tackle the "purist" objections. It's usually my position that, in the case of sequels at least, you should adhere to the source material as closely as possible. Remakes, however, are supposed to stray where it is reasonable to do so. Did Perseus and Io have a relationship in the previous movie, or even in the original Greek myths? No. On the other hand, Perseus didn't ride Pegasus, the winged horse, in the original Greek myth, as he did in both movies; he wore winged shoes given to him by the gods. The thrilling line "Release the Kraken!", delivered by Zeus in both movies, was never uttered by classical Zeus, simply because the Kraken wasn't a creature from Greek myth. Was Hades ever an actual villain, as he is so often portrayed in film? No; he was simply the God of the Underworld, a position he was never "tricked" into accepting.

It's called artistic license. If remakes were supposed to be "faithful", then we wouldn't need them, would we? We'd just watch the original again, which I did before watching this one. With all due respect to Ray Harryhausen, I prefer the remade "Clash of the Titans". Director Louis Leterrier did a fine job diagnosing what worked from the original film and what didn't, cutting scenes here and amending them there. What he ultimately produced may fit the label of a "rock 'n roll epic", but it also fits the label of a "classic epic", one with a believable hero, courageous companions, and pulse-pounding adventure. More than just an action flick, it is a portrait of one man's journey to discover his true heritage.

(Read the original review here.)

Six Impossible Things I Can Believe About 'Alice in Wonderland'

2010-03-08T14:53:00.001-08:00

Tim Burton has said he never felt an emotional connection to any of the previous movie or television incarnations of 'Alice in Wonderland' and always thought it was a series of some girl wondering around from one crazy character to another. Well, as someone who's read both "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and the sequel "Through the Looking-Glass (and what Alice found there)", I can tell you that is exactly how Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) originally intended the Alice stories to be. There was no narrative, no framework in his mind as he invented these stories for Alice Liddell and her sisters; it was merely a series of adventurous meetings. "Looking-Glass" followed a more logical progression, but they're still children's tales.

Burton wanted more structure, though. I don't actually blame him. He created a very good movie, after all. Apart from the visual effects, which were stunning in some cases, he also had an excellent cast to bring his movie to life: newcomer Mia Wasikowska as the grown-up but still childlike Alice; Johnny Depp, as mad as any hatter could be; the lovely Anne Hathaway as the White Queen; Helena Bonham Carter as the threatening but vaguely sympathetic Red Queen; and the inestimable Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. With this ensemble, Burton was able to present an adventure story that I believe Lewis Carroll might actually enjoy. And it isn't as if any previous incarnation was or could have been entirely faithful to the source material.

The purist in me wanted to hate the movie before it was even completed; but, when in Wonderland, you must be willing to let go of everything you know and embrace what you see. And so, as Alice herself did, I'll list the six impossible things I can believe.

***Warning: May Contain Spoilers***

The first is Alice herself. She's no longer a little girl, but a grown woman who needs to decide what direction to follow in life. The adventures of her childhood, she's now convinced, were simply dreams. Now, when the White Rabbit leads her down to Wonderland, it is no chance encounter. The narrative woven by Tim Burton is one of a chosen protector, a champion whose intervention will free the inhabitants of Wonderland from the dominion of a tyrant. That champion, of course, is Alice.

The tyrant is the Red Queen, who years ago usurped the crown from her sister, the White Queen. This is the second impossible thing. The character of the Red Queen is blended with that of the Queen of Hearts, as she often is. Originally, though, the Queen of Hearts was always the ruler of Wonderland, lording (or ladying?) over the other Suits (Diamonds, Clubs, and Spades). The Red and White Queens lived in Looking-Glass Land, and despite their chess battle, they were actually quite friendly with each other. That was the first thing that bothered me about this new movie when I learned about it. However, if you're going to have an epic battle, which this movie does, then you can either face the Queen of Hearts against the other Suits (which may or may not have been a good idea) or you can do what Tim Burton did. One thing you cannot do is have an 'Alice' movie without the Queen yelling "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"

The Jabberwock is number three (and yes, it's Jabberwock, not Jabberwocky). The fearsome dragon of Looking-Glass Land never quite made an appearance in the book, or most of the movies. However, it does make an appearance in this movie, as the Red Queen's resident beastie. It doesn't just inhabit the Tulgey Wood anymore, and it isn't just a foe for young knights who want to prove their mettle. Now, it is the creature that Alice must slay if she is to end the Red Queen's reign of terror.

Some very unlikely characters help Alice in her quest. The Cheshire Cat, originally so enigmatic as to be entirely unhelpful, now is almost eager to put his very life on the line for Alice, the White Queen, and even the Hatter himself. Still an enigma, and still charmingly puzzling, he is another indispensable character, wonderfully played by British character actor Stephen Fry.

If the Cheshire Cat is one example of an unlikely character coming to the rescue, then the Hatter is an even better one. Still mad, and still drinking tea with his friends the March Hare and Dormouse when Alice finds him, the Hatter is perhaps the one resident of Wonderland who has been most affected by the Red Queen's rule. His desire to see the "bloody bighead" fall prompts him to risk his life for Alice time and again, even though he is only one of a few in Wonderland who actually believes she is the intended champion. "I'd know you anywhere," he declares, helping her escape capture at the hands of Stayne, the infamous Knave of Hearts, played by Crispin Glover.

The sixth impossible thing is how much I actually liked this movie. Despite the changes made, the end product is quite a good story. Several characters from the books and previous movies didn't quite make the cut, of course. The Walrus and the Carpenter, the Duchess and the Cook, the Griffin and the Mock Turtle, and the Lion and the Unicorn all were left off the guest list. One character I would have really liked to see would have been the White Knight from Looking-Glass Land, who was Alice's escort for part of her journey and would have been more believable in the role filled by the Mad Hatter. I also would've liked the angle I proposed earlier, with the Red Queen appearing completely as the Queen of Hearts and facing Suits rather than the White Army in the end. It would have made more sense to me.

But this is Wonderland; a world of adventure, not logic; of madness, not sanity; of childlike wonder, not cynical criticism. Some say this movie lacked heart; I say the heart is where this movie's strength truly rested. I came close to walking into the movie with my mind made-up, having already decided what it had done "wrong" and how it "should" be. In that sense, I was a little like Alice, falling into a world she had visited before, facing a host of changes, firmly convinced that she would wake up at any moment to what she "knew" was right. I decided not to be that way; not to lose, in the words of the Hatter, my "muchness".

So, if you want to be like Alice, constantly trying to make sense of the madness in this movie, then that's up to you; but I recommend, instead of falling into the rabbithole, you jump in with both feet.

- Stephen Monteith

(read the original review here on Facebook)

Do you like sci-fi? Sure you do.

2010-03-04T21:15:00.000-08:00

Science-fiction has a bad reputation. It's not (all) about pimply-faced basement-dwellers who war with each other online and at conventions about which spacecraft from which series could destroy all the others one-on-one (it's the Super Star Destroyer from "Return of the Jedi", by the way *grins*). Sci-fi has its fingers in a lot of pies.

In the old days (and I mean really old, like Henry Kuttner old), it was called "speculative fiction"; meaning, more than just regular made-up stuff, the type of fiction that asked "what if the world worked differently than it does?" That's why you'll see science-fiction and fantasy on the same shelves together; because they both deal with worlds that operate differently than ours does. The classic sci-fi series "Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" explored any number of possible avenues for "alternate reality"; but speculative fiction has far deeper roots than television.

The original science-fiction novel is "Frankenstein" by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. There have been other, earlier stories of magic, monsters, demons, ghosts, and gods; but while other mythological creatures and characters endure because of cultural forces, "Frankenstein" from its inception was accepted as a work of fiction (and art) and has endured as such for almost two centuries, spawning any number of sequels, spin-offs, spoofs, and adaptations.

In its wake came a host of sci-fi/fantasy novels, including "Twenty-Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" by Jules Verne, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll, and of course, Bram Stoker's "Dracula". These and other novels have fueled our imagination at almost every level, appealing to everything from our childlike sense of wonder to our appetite for adventure to our deepest fears and desires. Parables like Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and Robert Louis Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" force us to look inward to see who we really are. It's a bit of introspection that every great author inspires, but that sci-fi authors can address in unique ways.

They also have greater width for conceiving and creating adventure stories. "The Lord of the Rings", widely considered the greatest modern epic, is fantastical at every level, even to the point of taking place on another world, another earth. The same is true of "The Chronicles of Narnia" and just about every major epic fantasy to follow. More recently, popular series like "Harry Potter" have blended fantastical worlds with our own.

Television, of course, has always had its space operas. When James Kirk captained the Enterprise on "Star Trek", his mission was "to seek out new life and new civilizations". The human race has always sought the next horizon, whether it was across the ocean, from sea to shining sea, or among the stars themselves. I love a good biopic on Christopher Columbus as much as the next blogger, but to see the same voyage wrapped in a good space battle? Who can resist that?

Science-fiction is a pretty subtle, pretty savvy poker player. It holds adventure, drama, comedy, horror, and romance in its hand; but it bluffs you with a geeky exterior, a loser persona that wears rumpled t-shirts and glasses held together with superglue. It learned from the best; classical masters like Ray Bradbury and Orson Welles, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Philip K. Dick, as well as a few modern ones like Joss Whedon and James Cameron. It'll slow-play you with a splashy galaxy quest, and then sneak in with piratical precision. Go ahead; take another look at your favorite flicks, your newest novel. Any appearances by aliens, or traveling through time? Some magic with your mayhem, or a bit of technology out of place? Yes, it may be funny or pulse-pounding, romantic or very scary; but it's more than just plain old fiction.

That's a little ... Seuss-ical

2010-03-01T08:49:00.000-08:00

I've never been that great a poet (though I am occasionally very poetical). I could never quite get the knack for meter and rhyme. So, when I wrote this poem, I invented a lot of words on the spot to help the flow:

There once was a man who lived on a street
Two blocks and a half from a good place to eat.
He jogged every morning, six days of the week.
He ate with his family, friends, and his threek.

Now what is a threek, you may say to yourself.
A threek is a creature who lives on a shelf
And who feeds on the dust that collects in the corners
And reads to the children and also the horners.

And what are the horners, you ask yourself next.
They love to learn lessons right out of the text.
Lessons like adding, subtracting, and such,
But they themselves cannot read anything much.

They see all things backwards, so nothing is straight.
They're nothing at all like the Snagglethorphate.
She listens intently to everything said
And plainly remembers all things in her head.

The Snagglethorphate is not nearly as bright
As a Tippenthroe out on a full-moonlit night.
For the Tippenthroe's mind is unleashed by the moon
And knows anything, everything, at least until noon.

Then at noon, the Tippenthroe seeks out a bed.
He takes one vacated by a Simmolothedde
Who wakes and who rises at noon everyday
And who, without thinking will go where he may

But will always return just in time to dine
With threeks, snorks, and snoozles at twenty to nine.
Before he retires, he jogs down the street
Like the man who lives down from the good place to eat.

- Stephen Monteith

Stephen Responds to Tony Horwitz

2010-02-20T17:20:00.000-08:00

I posted this on my "Free Exchange" blog, but the subject matter also falls under the heading of "writing", so I'm posting it here as well.

Best-selling author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tony Horwitz recently wrote an essay on the Commonwealth of Virginia for the book "State by State". Meant to provide a "portrait" of the United States, this book features authors, celebrities, even a chef or two who all contribute chapters on every state in the union.

My verdict? If the chapter on Virginia is typical of the entire book, then every copy of it should be dumped in a pile and burned.

This is a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Horwitz, copied to one of the book's editors, Matt Weiland.

Dear Mr. Horwitz,

My name is Stephen Monteith. I work at a Barnes & Noble in Virginia Beach, VA, and recently discovered the book "State by State". Fascinated by a book that purports to portray "the beauty, the kitsch, the unexpected and the quintessential things that make each state distinctive", and having lived in Virginia my whole life, I first turned to your essay on the Commonwealth to see what was written.

Mr. Horwitz, I am deeply disappointed at the tone your essay takes, the picture it paints of one of the earliest states of the union. In eight and a half pages, you have rarely a good word to say about Virginia, its history, its culture, and most especially its residents. Like the fourth-graders you almost apologetically mention in your opening, you see, and report, only a "charnel house", one "steeped in gore".

You talk of the Civil War battles throughout much of your essay and the "evil" and "carnage" perpetrated therein; but you never once mention the Revolutionary War, in which so many Virginians took up the charge issued by our first governor Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death!" You omit almost any references to the eight presidents who came from Virginia, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, choosing instead to highlight William Henry Harrison, and him only because of his relation to a slave-owning ancestor of his. You spend an entire page and more detailing our involvement in the persecution, death, and "ghoulish afterlife" of Nat Turner, but you do not mention even once Douglas Wilder, the nation's first black governor.

Mr. Horwitz, I have no doubt that your time in Bosnia, Iraq and the Sudan was served with distinction; but perhaps spending so much time in those "history-haunted lands" has left you with a black-lensed perspective of the rest of the world. I don't expect or desire anyone to turn a blind eye to Virginia's dark periods; but in an essay meant to "reveal a state’s beauty marks and moles", I do expect to find much greater balance. This was the first chapter I read from the book, and after reading it, I put it down in disgust; and partially in fear of discovering that every state had received similar treatment. On the other hand, if ever I felt the argument needed to be made that Virginia was a wretched place to be, then you would be the man I would choose to make that argument.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

UPDATE - Mr. Horwitz's response, and mine in turn:

Stephen, thanks for your note and think I've been to that B and N one one of my visits to SE Va. I'm sorry you felt that way about my essay, and all I'll say in defense is that I'm not responsible for the marketing you quote, and regret that you opened the book looking for balanced or comprehensive approach to each state. My assignment, if you can call it that, was to try and find a personal and perhaps quirky take on Virginia. Since I'm a history nerd, with somewhat of an eye for the dark underside of history, this seemed a way to frame the piece and I just dove in after a few false starts in other directions (I tried writing about my love of the Blue Ridge since childhood, but am not very good at nature). If I could do it again, I guess I'd convey that I do love Virginia--in part for the history I outlined in the piece. Obviously, we don't share a common approach to or view of the past. I go there looking for great stories, tragedy, humor, irony and what I feel is the truth. If it makes me feel good about my country, great, but I'm not seeking that. And if I were there and we could debate this over a beer, I'd argue that the whole "liberty or death" line is pretty hollow given that one fifth of the nation was enslaved. Anyway, if you can bear to read a different take on Virginia that you might find more loving, at least at times, I wrote a book called "Confederates in the Attic" that gets into Wilder and other aspects of Virginia's healthy contemporary response and debate on racial and other matters. All the best, Tony

Mr. Horwitz,

I appreciate your reply to my letter last week. I realize you had nothing to do with how it was marketed, but still, with only eight pages or so to give people a snapshot of the Commonwealth, I had hoped you would have taken a somewhat lighter tone, at least.

I took your advice and have begun reading "Confederates in the Attic". It is an interesting read, going farther in depth, of course, than your contribution to "State by State", and written with more apparent affection. I look forward to finishing it.

I apologize, Mr. Horwitz, if my first letter to you seemed overly defensive or confrontational. With the recent death of Howard Zinn, there's been a lot of discussion of just how much we need to peel back the covers of history. No one, I'm sure, wants to review the past with any parts omitted, no matter how ugly; but at the same time, we can't ignore how exceptional, how extraordinary, and how inspiring our forebears were, their faults notwithstanding.

In particular, I've grown rather protective of Virginia in light of the national attention we've received with our recent elections. The written word is more powerful than the spoken word, as I'm sure you know; and though newspapers and magazines can and frequently do print retractions, books are harder to revise once they are on the shelves, and even harder to dispute. I suppose, when I read your chapter, I felt it was my duty to respond. Perhaps I've grown too sensitive.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my letter. I look forward to reading more of your work.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

UPDATE: Tony gets the last word

Don't worry, your letter wasn't confrontational, it was polite and thoughtful, certainly as compared to most I receive, always happy to have honest criticism and disagreement. I've never been a big fan of Zinn, and certainly don't endorse a knee-jerk rejection of everything American, but again, I guess I don't go searching in our history for great moral lessons, pro or con. To me, what's fascinating is how someone--to take the obvious example, Jefferson--can be brilliant, visionary, and yes, inspirational, while also being a terrible hypocrite etc. Saints, if they
exist, aren't very interesting to me, nor are unalloyed villains. Or rather, forget if they're interesting, I just don't think seeing things in black and white is true to history or the human condition. Can't one love Virginia in the same way one loves family? Can't John Smith or Jefferson or Stonewall Jackson be seen as critical figures in our history, worthy of
study, without glossing over their (in our eyes) faults? Are those faults in some sense inseparable from their greatness? Anyway, no one could ever accuse Virginia of being boring. Best, Tony

In development - The Curse and the Order

2010-01-31T09:50:00.001-08:00

As I posted earlier, I'm writing a series of short stories/novellas featuring Seffin Phel, a young man in a medieval adventure setting. Though I haven't had the first story published yet, the following episodes are in development.

This is a short reading I've done of a conversation between Seffin and a man who isn't quite what he seems. (Please excuse the quality of the reading, by the way. I'm a writer, not an actor.)

Old versus New: The Prisoner

2009-11-22T18:35:00.000-08:00

Last week, AMC premiered a six-part series, "The Prisoner", based on a 1960's series of the same name. The original series was conceived, starred, and mostly written by screen legend Patrick McGoohan ("Escape from Alcatraz", "Braveheart") and ran a total of 17 episodes.

The new series stars Jim Caviezel ("Passion of the Christ") and Sir Ian McKellen ("The Da Vinci Code", "The Lord of the Rings"). I hadn't seen the original before watching this version, though thanks to restrospectives and sci-fi specials, I've been aware of it for some time. After watching AMC's presentation, though, I went to AMC.com and watched the entire series. Frankly, I felt AMC's version to be slightly superior. There were many elements of McGoohan's series, not the least of which being his performance as the eponymous Prisoner, that outstripped AMC's version; but overall, I consider the new to be the better program. I know that position won't endear me to many fans of the original series. I'm a purist, myself, and I can't stand many of the remakes that have been produced recently (I still refuse to go see Will Ferrell's "Land of the Lost"). That doesn't mean that I can't like the new better than the old, though.

**Warning: Contains Spoilers**

First of all, in this case you can hardly compare the two together. McGoohan's "Prisoner" was about a secret agent who resigned and was abducted by persons unknown until he would reveal the "true reason" for his resignation. Caviezel worked for a company apparently engaged in researching persons who possessed access to higher states of consciousness. In both series, the Village is a place to hold the Prisoner until he is feeling cooperative, but what "they" want from the Prisoner is different in each case. The new Village isn't even a village, per se; it's apparently some sort of astral projection in which the residents all share with the help of Number Two and his wife. In short, the two stories are similar in name only.

This makes comparing the merits of the two stories vaguely like comparing Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series; some elements remain the same, some archetypes are common, but the plots, characters, and moral (the fundamentals of every story) are widely divergent. No one can doubt McGoohan's vision or creativity in what is rightly considered a masterpiece of the sci-fi/adventure genre; but his is not the only vision out there. Should the nominal aspects of McGoohan's "Prisoner" have been appropriated for the new version? Maybe, maybe not; but it certainly wouldn't be the first time a beloved series has been "updated" for a new generation (see Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, et al).

As a consequence of the new nature of the Village, some elements were necessarily eliminated or adjusted. First of all, the nature of Number Two has significantly changed. Before, Number Two was an administrator/warden tasked with extracting information from the "Villagers", including Number Six (McGoohan). To keep the focus on Number Six, every time Number Two failed to learn why Six resigned, a new Number Two was chosen to replace him. Some few Two's managed to retain their position longer than others, but all eventually failed when faced with Six's iron will.

McKellen's Number Two, though, could hardly be replaced so easily or so readily. Running a prison, even one disguised as a village, is quite a different task than controlling another plane of consciousness; especially one that is ever-expanding. When Caviezel's character proves his resilience, rather than continuing in their efforts merely to integrate him in society, it is apparently decided to annoint him as the new Number Two. McKellen's character, after all, is getting on in years, and he would need a successor eventually, anyway. This arrangement, though integral to the new storyline, places far more emphasis on Two than in the original series, even to the point of giving him a wife and son. Such an emphasis calls for the kind of acting that only a man of McKellen's caliber could deliver, which has led many to claim that Two upstages Six in this version. Apparently, though, that's how it's supposed to be.

By the way, if you've noticed me using the word "apparently" a lot in connection to AMC's "Prisoner", you're right. I'm guessing at much of what takes place in the new series. There's more mystery in the new version; still, it's left me with fewer questions than the original series. For example, when "Number One" is finally revealed in McGoohan's series, I couldn't have been more confused. They never quite reveal the real reason why Number Six resigned, nor do they even make clear during the series whether there is a "real reason" or if his captors merely think there is. And though one can hardly fault how well the writers and creators worked with what they had (i.e. a 1960's working knowledge of science), some of the episodes dealing with surveillance, medical science, and especially hypnotism were rather hard to swallow.

Finally, fans of the original series like to say there's no way anyone could live up to McGoohan's performance as Number Six. As for myself, I couldn't care less. We expect each actor to approach roles differently, even when it's the same role. Daniel Craig was a far different James Bond than Sean Connery, but that didn't make either one "superior" to the other; merely different. And this can hardly be considered the "same role". When you consider all the ways in which the stories diverge, the motivations differ, and the distance between the aims, you can't expect any of the characters to adhere to the original. Was McGoohan's performance superior to Caviezel's? Perhaps; but only in the same sense that Peter O'Toole's performance as King Henry was superior to Richard Harris' performance as King George.

- Stephen Monteith

(read the original post on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=186592026543 )

Dragon*Con 2009

2009-09-09T14:27:00.000-07:00

As my friend Lillian stated often over this last weekend, "There's too much to do!"

Dragon*Con boasts the largest science fiction/fantasy/gamer/writing/paranormal romance/comic book/video game/movie convention in North America. After four days of running (in some cases literally) between four very large hotels in downtown Atlanta, rushing to meet some of our favorite authors, actors, and entertainers, at the same time dodging and admiring the costumes of thousands of other attendees, I see no reason to dispute that claim.

We arrived relatively early in Atlanta on the morning of the 4th. Our first task, after finding a parking space in the middle of an invasion of rental cars, was to get our badges for the convention. Just standing in line was a bit of an adventure. The line had the feel of an amusement park line; a little frustrating, but in that "so close, yet so far away" sense of the word. My travel companion was soon enchanted by the many costumed characters around us, and began taking the first of many pictures and videos.

(A little side note, here: when selecting a digital camera for ... well, for anything, make sure you pick one that doesn't draw a great deal of energy; or make sure you carry a double handful of spare batteries with you at all times.)

By the time we got our badges, the convention was already under way. We missed a rare joint appearance by Star Trek legends William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, the kickoff event of the convention. However, we were able to meet and even schmooze a little with some of our favorite stars and authors. Dragon*Con has a Walk of Fame practically crammed with celebrities. We met some of the biggest names in science fiction and fantasy, gathering not a few autographs for ourselves and our friends and families.

For two aspiring authors like ourselves, this convention was something of a dream come true. Lillian, a budding romance author, rubbed elbows and even had a few drinks with some of her favorites in the field, networking as well as gathering several autographs. I'm not much of an "autograph guy", myself, but I did get a signature from one of my favorite authors, Timothy Zahn. His Thrawn trilogy is widely acknowledged as the greatest Star Wars trilogy since the original. I've often thought that he should have been contracted to write the screenplays for Episodes I, II, and III.

In addition, we attended a twelve-part seminar on writing offered by two more giants in the Star Wars universe: Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allston. The topics ranged from developing important skills and habits before you begin writing, to exercises that will prepare you to write your novel, to improving your manuscript once it's written, to what you can expect the writing world to resemble in the "post-paper era". Their advice is available on their own websites, so I won't try to recreate it here.

http://www.stormwolf.com/

http://www.aaronallston.com/

It wasn't strictly a nerd- or geekfest, though. You might look at the convention as an event that has something for everyone. The guest list for this year, I conservatively estimate, had over four hundred names on it. They ranged from Star Wars and Star Trek alumni to Robert Jordan and J.R.R. Tolkien panelists. Video gamers, board gamers, LARP and RPG aficionados each had their own venues to frequent. Artists and authors all had space to display the fruits of their labors. Dealer and exhibitor booths peppered the hotels, with musicians playing in every hotel.

And the costumes. What can I say about the costumes? They were, no pun intended, fantastic! To be sure, there were plenty of people in the traditional sci-fi/fantasy/comic book costumes. There were elves, Vulcans, robots, X-Men, jedi, Halo Master Chiefs, and a fair number of Ghostbusters. However, there were also many people dressed in original costumes. Skeletons and pirates, literary figures both classic and modern, World of Warcraft characters and, of course, every kind of vampire were all in attendance.

I didn't dress up this year, but if I go next year, then I may go in "steampunk". A subgenre that has gained a significant amount of ground in the sci-fi community over the last couple of decades, steampunk centers around Victorian-era settings in which modern-day and even future innovations already exist in the form of brass-encased, steam-powered inventions. Think the original "Time Machine" novel by H.G. Wells, or the more recent collaboration "The Difference Engine", by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling. I found the steampunk costumes to be very visually interesting; they were my favorite of all.

If there's too much to do at Dragon*Con, then there's also far too much to say about it. I knew before I even agreed to go that I wouldn't be prepared for everything that I'd want to do, or have time for it if I was. I frequently caught myself thinking, "This is my Dragon*Con dry run. Next year, I'll be much better prepared." I haven't actually decided whether or not I will go next year, but I can tell you that it's more likely than not.

The Trials of Seffin Phel: Bandits of Moftal

2009-08-26T00:12:00.000-07:00

Dear Editor,

My name is Stephen Monteith. I'm submitting my story, The Trials of Seffin Phel, a fantasy story of approximately 12,000 words. It begins the adventures of a young man in a medieval setting who starts as a simple blacksmith's son and becomes a crime lord's apprentice, a cursed fugitive, a demon-fighting monk, an adoptive father, and eventually a hero of the continent.

This is the first step in Seffin's remarkable evolution, his introduction to the most powerful man in the kingdom. I've also included the first chapter of the next installment so that you may have a better idea of where I hope to take the series, should you choose to publish it. I have several more adventures outlined for him that take him across kingdoms, through warlords' territories, and into wizards' castles. Along the way, he'll meet magicians and monks, kings and warlords, priests and thieves, and more than a few demons. He'll be hated and reviled at times, but eventually he'll find what he left his home to find in the first place.

I look forward to hearing from you, one way or another. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

Searching a drawer, Seffin found some flint and steel and he lit a nearby lantern, filling the shop with a soft, golden glow.

"Why'd you light that lantern, boy?" Tren growled from his seat. "I'm trying to sleep."

Seffin shook his head. "You can sleep later, Tren. We need to talk." He pulled another chair over and sat down across from the older man.

"If it's about my drinking, then you're wasting—"

"It's not about you," Seffin interrupted him. "I need your help."

"You need my help with what?" Tren demanded, lifting his head. "What's so important that it couldn't wait until I'm good and sober?"

"Is there anything that can wait that long?"

Tren's eyes narrowed. "Was that supposed to be funny?"

Seffin sighed. "You're not as drunk as you look, are you Tren?"

The cobbler rose to his feet, wavering only slightly as he did so. "Never as drunk as I look, Seffin." He went to a cabinet, removed two goblets and a bottle, and poured a drink for both of them. Leaning back in his chair, Tren took a long drink. "Now tell me why you're looking for me at this time of the night."

Seffin picked up his goblet and looked into it for a while before speaking. "Lan beat me tonight." He took a gulp of the red liquid, coughing briefly after he swallowed.

Tren squinted, his eyes yellow in the lantern light. "Well, that was predictable."

"What did you say?" Seffin demanded.

"Oh, be reasonable, boy. You're a thief and you were caught stealing. You're fortunate a beating is all you got in return."

"I won't be beaten again."

"You're only fourteen," Tren responded, taking another drink. "Life's got a great number of beatings still in store for you, rest assured."

"Not from him." Seffin got out of his chair and started pacing. "He's not my father; I won't take anymore beatings from him." His chest and face still ached from the punches he had received. He brushed his hair out of his face and lightly rubbed his jaw, wincing as he did so. That's going to be sore for a few days.

Seffin stopped pacing and turned to his old friend. "I need your help."

"What, you want me to threaten him?" Tren scoffed. "No, I don't think I will. He's stronger than I am, and just a bit younger besides." He raised his cup to his lips again.

"I'm running away, Tren."

"Are you, now? Well, I hope you're not planning on staying here." He took a drink.

"I'm not." Seffin took a breath. "I need you to help me find Arka Subo."

Tren choked and sputtered, spilling his drink all over himself. He thumped his chest and coughed several times to clear his airway. "Are you insane, boy? What do you want with him?"

"I want a job."

Tren shook his head. "You'd be better off shoveling dung out of the elders' stables. Arka doesn't take apprentices."

"He'll take me."

Tren slammed his goblet down, pointing a bony finger at Seffin. "Whatever crazed plan is rolling around in that head of yours, knock it loose right now. You're not going to work for him."

"I don't care if you think he'll make me his apprentice; I just need to know where he is."

"And what are you planning to do once you've found him? He won't take you on just because you ask him to."

"I'll buy my way in."

"With what?"

"Everything I've stolen this last year; everything you've been holding for when he next visits. There's quite a lot of it, as you know, and I want it all."

Tren rose to his feet and stood nose-to-nose with Seffin. "Listen to me, and listen well: I deal with Arka Subo; you don't. We're thieves, you and I. We steal, and that's all we do."

"And Arka buys what we steal and sells it in some other part of the kingdom," Seffin said, backing up slightly. "I want him to teach me that. I don't want to just be a thief."

"I don't care what you want," Tren practically roared. "He's not just a buyer, Seffin. He's part of something bigger than swiping gold coins and candlesticks, and the less you're a part of that, the better."

"What do you care, Tren? You've been a part of it for years. You made me a part of it yourself."

"That wasn't my idea. I've been acting on orders. Remember that silver goblet that you stole from Elder Nutgui during the winter? The one I agreed to hold for you until you felt like giving it back?"

Seffin shrugged. "What about it? Arka bought it; and you said he wanted to buy more things from me."

"Exactly; he wanted you to keep stealing. I didn't even want him to see that damned cup. If he hadn't seen it, then I'd have talked you out of this life a long time ago."

"Oh, be reasonable," Seffin mimicked Tren's earlier plea. "Do you mean to say that you didn't want me to be a thief, but you taught me to be an even bigger one just because Arka asked?"

"That is what I'm saying, Seffin. In this lifestyle, there are no personal decisions, no ideologies. When men like Arka give orders, you follow them. Their authority is more absolute than the king's."

The younger man paused for a moment, considering Tren's words. "Well, maybe I'd like to have that kind of authority someday."

"You still don't get it, do you, Seffin?"

"No, you don't get it, Tren. I will find Arka, with or without your help. If I have to, then I'll wait until the next time he comes to Dennai and talk to him myself. I just need the things I stole. Hand them over now, and I'll never bother you again."

"If you go looking for Arka Subo, then you won't bother anyone ever again."

"I can take care of myself." Seffin stooped and picked up the empty leather satchel off the ground, holding it open in front of him.

They stood for a moment like that, the old thief and the young thief, watching each other with iron-hard stares. It was Tren who moved first, finally daunted by Seffin's determination. He sighed and picked the lantern up off the table. "Follow me."
_____________

He led Seffin out the back door and into a shed. Inside were needles, cutters, spools of thread, and other tools of his trade. He set the lantern on a table and walked over to a barrel that stood in a corner. "Help me roll this." Together, they moved the barrel off to one side. Tren picked up a shovel then and started digging up the ground where the barrel had been.

A foot or so into the ground, Tren uncovered the first of the items. He pulled out a small leather pouch, jingling with coins. "Keep this on your person," he instructed. Next, he pulled out a three-branched silver candelabrum, wrapped carefully to prevent tarnishing. He wordlessly handed it to Seffin, who tucked it inside his satchel.

By the time they had finished pulling treasures out of the ground, the satchel was half-full. Seffin hefted it a few times, noting how heavy it had become. "Where do I find Arka?" he asked, helping Tren to refill the hole.

"He's based in the city of Moftal, on the south side of the forest."

"That's not too far from here."

"No, but those packs you're carrying will slow you." They rolled the barrel back into place and returned to the house. "You'll need to stay to the highway, besides."

"I can make better time cutting through the woods."

"There are bandits in those woods, boy. Where's your sense? Carrying that much loot with you, you'd be dead by the end of your first night out there." Tren sighed, setting the lantern back on the table inside the house. "Now that I think of it, you'd be better off riding my horse."

He looked at the older man in surprise. "You want me to take your horse?"

"I never ride her, anyway," Tren said, pouring himself another drink.

Seffin dropped the satchel full of treasure next to one with his clothes and other personal items. "I thought you didn't even want me to go."

"I don't want you to get yourself killed along the way, either, do I?"

"Be honest, Tren." He sat down across from him again. "You were yelling at me just moments ago, so why are you helping me now?"

The old cobbler took a deep breath and leaned back in his chair, rolling his cup between his hands. "Three things can come of you seeking out Arka Subo. One, he could kill you just for asking him. That's not very likely to happen, though, especially if you come bearing gifts. Most likely, he'll just turn you around and send you right back here, which is what I hope he'll do."

"You don't think he'll take me on as an apprentice." It wasn't a question.

Tren shrugged. "He could decide to do that. Arka can be ... unpredictable at times. It's one of his more dangerous characteristics." He sighed again and took a long drink. "I never meant for you to remain a thief, Seffin. I wanted you to stay away from this life; I owe that much to your father. But, you've taken to it; like a drunkard to cheap wine." As if to emphasize his point, he took another drink.

They sat in silence for a while. For some reason, Tren's invocation of his father touched Seffin more deeply than when anyone else had mentioned him. He looked back and forth between Tren and the satchel at his feet, weighing the one's warnings against the power represented by the other. I know what my father wanted for me. He wanted me to build a life here; but there's nothing for me here. He told himself that quickly, and clung to it as the truth.

"Do you mind if I sleep here tonight?" he asked aloud. "I can leave at first light tomorrow."

"You'll have to sleep here in the shop," Tren murmured, staring into his empty cup. "There's only the one bed in my room."

"That's fine with me."

"Oh, that's fine with you, is it?" Tren slammed his cup down again and stood up. "You have no idea what you're getting in for, boy." He turned his back on Seffin and climbed the stairs. "No idea."

Seffin watched him go, almost rising to follow. Then he sighed and hung his head. Moving over to a bench, he pulled off his boots and soft-leather vest and lay back on the hard wood. Tomorrow, everything will be different.

Six years in the making ...

2009-08-26T00:11:00.001-07:00

So, with the three blogs that I keep, you might expect that I would post more often. Lately, though, I've been finishing a project that has meant a great deal to me over the years.

It started a little over six years ago, when I took a creative writing class in college and my professor told me that I needed to work on "creating a scene". Apparently, I spent too much time on dialogue and not enough on descriptions of characters and settings (a problem I still have, at times). Anyway, one week I decided to engage in a little exercise. I described a man taking a walk down a forest trail, including the sights, sounds, smells, feel, and even taste of the forest. I was rather pleased with the result, actually.

Not one to let a good (or even a bad) piece of writing go to waste, I decided to give the man a story of his own. I created a world (a very rudimentary one at the time), gave him a mission, several companions, and a barebones personal background. Two years later, I had a short story ready to send to a fantasy magazine. At least, I thought I did. It was rejected, as it should have been. The plot was interesting, but the story was a piece of crap. The narrative was boring, the characters were underdeveloped, and the writing was so horrible that a friend of mine later was prompted to say "Surely such a thing could not have come from you!" Okay, she was exaggerating a little, but it was pretty awful just the same.

After I got the rejection notice, I started over. I spent more time developing the characters and the world they inhabited. I especially spent more time on my main character, his own history and personality. I thought I could get by with just outlining his early years, the events that led him to the point where the original story began; but every step along the way, I found myself narrating the events instead of just outlining them. As I did, I realized that his story started much earlier than I had originally thought.

I finally was able to work my way back to the "beginning". The story that I just now completed was not the first major or significant event in his life, but it is the first time his life changed through his own doing and not someone else's. It's taken me about four years to reach this point, but I've finally submitted another story for publication.

Intergalactic Medicine Show is an online magazine founded by Orson Scott Card, one of the most renowned science-fiction and fantasy authors of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. I submitted my story "The Trials of Seffin Phel: Bandits of Moftal" to the magazine this week. Now begins the waiting, which could take as long as three months, until I learn whether or not they feel it's right for their publication. In the meantime, I'll be working on the next story in the series; and when that one is finished, I'll work on the next one.

I'll be posting my submission letter and a segment from Trials for you to read. If you'd like to read more, or have any questions, comments, or suggestions, then please feel free to let me know.

Keeping the Faith

2009-05-16T12:25:00.000-07:00

Dan Brown has angered many a Catholic with his unflattering portrayals of Catholic history and practices in his bestselling novels "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels & Demons". Was that his intent, though? Or was he just really hoping to tell a story set in this world?

Epic adventure in modern times almost always centers around paganism, or pseudo-paganism. Stories about demons and dragons, gremlins and goblins, wizards and witches, and even the occasional superhuman mutant or alien tend to have more ... flexibility as far as plot goes. The Chronicles of Narnia, for example, while a parable for Christianity, is still set in a fantastic realm. Even J.R.R. Tolkein, a devout Catholic himself, went the other-worldly route with The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter is a bright, young modern hero, but he is training to be a wizard, not a priest.

Where are all the Christians? In classic times, Christianity was the basis for every epic. King Arthur, despite traveling with the wizard Merlin, was a Christian, and famously searched for the Holy Grail. The Three Musketeers were all Christians; one studying for the priesthood, in fact. In modern times, though, Christianity just doesn't have the same "epic" appeal. With the exception of Indiana Jones (the first and third movies), regular old Christian "superheroes" just aren't that popular.

Dan Brown may be anti-Catholic; he may even be anti-religion. That's not the issue, I feel. The issue is, can a good epic fantasy center around the Christian faith? He's proven that it can; though that fact may not make Christians happy. Because, you see, every adventure needs a little conflict, a little drama, a little controversy; otherwise, whether your hero lives in Middle Earth or the Vatican, he's just going to sit around all day. Anybody can do that. We pick up books to read about what people not ourselves are doing.

Does that mean you should go see the movies, or even read the books? *shrugs* Nope. That's still your decision to make. I don't plan to, personally. I just appreciate that someone out there recognizes that a great fantasy story can be told in this world.

A Few Tips ...

2009-04-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

It seems that everyone out there is looking for tips on writing. I try to stay away from giving advice, normally. Not because I don't think I have valuable advice, mind you; but rather, because there just isn't that much "advice" to give. What I have, though, I'll share (I'm not greedy, after all).

Your best bet is to read other books and study how other authors write. Not other books on writing, just other books. You see, there are any number of hack writers out there who can give you the ten rules or the eight rules or the hundred rules that every writer needs to follow; but creativity is not found in a how-to manual. We're not talking brain surgery or rocket science, where you have firmly established procedures to follow. If you want to know what works in writing, then see what has worked for others.

Don't stop there, though. Simply copying others' works won't make you a success; and it'll probably prove to be illegal, anyway. Before you can put your creativity to work, though, you do need some idea of what actually works. Published novels and short stories are the best place to find elements that actually work.

After you've done that, then sit yourself down and write. Write every chance you get. Write every place you are. Write every word you think. Don't stop writing for any reason (within reason, that is). The second most frustrating thing about successful writing (after the fact that there is no set guide for successful writing) is the amount of time you must spend on it. Unlike brain surgery and rocket science, writing is hard work.

How will you know when you're good? You won't. You will never know, even after you've been on the bestseller list for ten weeks in a row. Remember, even Paris Hilton wrote a bestselling book. Your best bet is to get as many different opinions on your writing as you can. Success, after all, is often measured by how much other people like your work. So get as many critiques as you reasonably can.

And remember, no matter how harsh the criticism may be, there are two things that you must never do: never ignore it (because they may be right), and never trust it (because they may be wrong). Take what other people say to heart, honestly try to incorporate it in your work, but in the end, trust yourself.

Always keep in mind that creativity is relative. What you find clever, someone else might not; and what someone else finds creative, you may find incomprehensible. You have to use what you feel is right for your story. Don't let others write it for you; follow your own instincts. It's the only way to do it.

Food, clothing, shelter, and that other thing ...

2009-03-31T10:48:00.000-07:00

I work in a bookstore, and a woman today commented on the price of a book she was holding. She said to me, "There goes my grocery money." She meant it as a joke, and we both laughed about it, but after she walked away, I sort of stood there for a moment thinking about what she said.

Entertainment is one of the most important aspects of our lives. More than just something we want, I believe it is an actual necessity. We all need our health to live, and money to provide the means; but entertainment can help us feel that life is worth living. We shouldn't spend our food money on books and DVD's, of course, but we should always set aside time (and occasionally money) for the things we enjoy.

People have always acknowledged this in one way or another. In the Middle Ages, before television, electricity, and even before most people could read, you could still make a decent living as an entertainer; a bard, or a storyteller, or if you were really lucky, as a court jester for kings and queens. Though people didn't always have money, if they had food or a place to stay, then they would gladly trade it in return for a well-delivered song or story.

Today, we find ourselves in roughly the same situation. We buy tickets to professional sporting events, concerts, movies, plays, theme parks, and museums. We fill our homes with books, stereos, TV's, and other types of media. News programs sensationalize the most mundane events in attempts to draw more viewers, because they know they need to make it "entertaining". Even the president of the United States is now just as likely to choose a late night talk show as a venue for educating the public as he is to choose a traditional news outlet.

Some would say we place too much emphasis on entertainment. I say, seeing as how it has stood the tests of time and innovation, that we should all reexamine its role in our own lives. Workplaces now allow music to be played, because it increases productivity. A happy worker is a productive worker, after all. Companies that produce video games have been developing learning programs for young, and some not-so-young, children because it helps speed the learning process. Some of the best television shows and movies today are hailed as such because they "make people think" at the same time. I've always felt that entertainment didn't have to be single-minded. You can inspire and enrich, as well, if you just make the effort.

Granted, in my own country as in others, we could all probably spend a little less time in front of the television; but that doesn't make it wrong. We simply need to be wise about how much time we spend on any activity. We also need to be wise about how that time is spent. Some say moderation is the key. I say the key is in balance. Some people actually do spend their grocery money on music and movies. Money spent on iPods and portable DVD players could just as easily, and much more wisely, be spent on health insurance, or saved against possible future emergencies. You don't always need to save every penny, of course, but you should always have balance in how you use your money.

There are many different kinds of entertainment, of course, and not all of them cost money. In my life, the emphasis has always been on storytelling (I was never very athletic growing up). From Kindergarten to my senior year, the schools I attended always gave us books, short stories, plays, and musicals to read and study. I was an avid reader, though I watched my share of TV, as well. All that I asked was that the story be a good one, and that they tell it well. That's the standard I set for my own writing, my own storytelling.

Hopefully, I'll be able to do more than simply entertain with my words. I do hope to enrich and inspire at the same time. I certainly hope that people continue to place importance on entertainment, and not because I want to make a living as a writer someday. It's a necessity, as important as food or water. I'm going to close this blog with one of my favorite quotes; from a movie, in fact:

"We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race, and the human race is filled with passion. Now medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life; but poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for." - Robin Williams, Dead Poets Society

The Other Face of Plagiarism

2009-03-11T10:29:00.000-07:00

This is a repost from an older blog:

When I first started writing stories, I shamelessly copied others' works, changing little more than the names of characters and certain stylistic aspects of the plots. I say 'shamelessly' because, being only seven at the time, I didn't realize that it was a shameful thing to do. I was proud of what I had written. I was proud that I had written anything. As I grew older, I became aware of what it meant to plagiarize. By the time I was twelve, there was almost nothing as important to me as writing my own original epic fantasy. So you can imagine how I felt to learn that an actual author, a member of the profession to which I had aspired virtually since I could spell, would have taken the route I had learned to shun.

I recently read The Sword of Shannara, the first in a long and very successful modern fantasy saga. It was written in 1977, and sequels and prequels to it have continued to be written ever since. Most who've read The Sword of Shannara would defend it with terms such as "derivative" or "in the style of"; but as I read it, as I pushed myself to finish it, the entire book seemed nothing more or less than a poorly disguised copy of The Lord of the Rings. I finished reading it out of pure stubbornness, but I felt that nothing could change my mind. Terry Brooks had plagiarized the entire work, it seemed.

Today, though, listening to a classic R n' B song, another defense of the work surfaced in my memory: "You gotta keep the classics alive somehow." You see, the song I was listening to had become fodder for a modern musician who had made a practice of taking classic hits and updating them, as it were, for our day. I used to listen to this musician, once upon a time. I had seen what he had done with his music and eventually concluded that "you gotta keep the classics alive somehow."

The Lord of the Rings needs no help in preserving itself; anyone can see that; but there are archetypes that crop up in literature. I won't get into a discussion of them, except to say that they can be found everywhere, not just on the page. They take different forms, certainly, but every form they take expands and even reinforces our understanding of them and their deeper meanings. Why have these archetypes found the places they have? It is because of the places they already hold in our lives. As entertaining as these books are, each one holds a deeper appeal: the presence of characters whom we recognize in ourselves and in those around us.

C. S. Lewis once said, "Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original; whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it." His words were not written to excuse plagiarism, which is intentionally passing off someone else's work as your own; but as I read these words, I find I can imagine a young writer, just starting out, crafting a world, a philosophy of life, and a cast of characters which, though they may have been based on someone else's work, were still uniquely his own. I can see the formation of a plot, simple and derivative at first, but growing in complexity and originality as each character in the story began to assert himself, or herself.

I am able, in part because of my own struggles as a writer, to appreciate the challenges this writer would have faced, even if he had had the collected works of Tolkein at his fingertips throughout the entire writing process. And I am more than a little interested to see where Mr. Brooks has taken his saga in the almost thirty years since book one was first published. Plagiarism? No; I believe that he was just trying to keep the classics alive.

Keep Writing

2009-03-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

Everyone talks about the "rules" of writing. They make lists, of the ten things, or the fifteen things, or the fifty things that writers "need" to do, or "must" do. I've never much cared for lists or rules, myself. At one point, I was convinced that the only rule that mattered was "know when and how to break the rules".

I was mostly right, too, I feel. There is one other rule, though, that means more than all the others combined: keep writing.

Keep writing. Critics, especially family and friends, rarely have anything useful to offer. Either they like it or they don't, and it's either because of how they feel about you or how they feel about the book, and it's next to impossible to determine which it is. Besides, they may not be your target audience, anyway.

Keep writing. You may not be good, but if you stop writing then you'll never get better. Read books (not books on writing, just regular books), and study how the author writes. Ask yourself what works for you and what doesn't. Take classes, read articles, ask questions, and take notes, but don't stop writing. It's like a muscle: if you stop exercising it, then it will only get weaker.

Keep writing. You may be tempted to take the whole project and toss it in the sewer, but don't throw anything away, ever. You'll never know when something that you've written for one project will prove useful or even vital in another. If it came from your mind, then it is never worthless, so never treat it as such. You just may write the "great American novel" from something that you once decided was pure garbage. Compost makes great fertilizer, after all. File it for future reference, but don't discard it.

Keep writing. It's hard, it takes forever, and you'll almost never be satisfied completely with what you've created, but none of those are reasons to quit. If your story isn't going anywhere, then give it somewhere to go. Create a conflict, and then, in the course of the story, resolve it somehow.

Keep writing. Even if you never believe that you'll accomplish anything, and even if no one else ever believes it, you can only succeed if you act regardless of what anyone, including yourself, believes.

Just keep writing.

On the third day, it didn't fall apart

2009-03-02T17:31:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite quotes about writing instructs us "to build a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later". The quote belongs to Philip K. Dick, one of the most influential science fiction writers of the late twentieth century. His writing credits include the short stories "Paycheck" and "Minority Report", which inspired the movies of the same names. The speech in which he popularizes the above quote contains many instructive lessons about writing in general and the power of words:

"I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing ... The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

My motives are fairly simple, I believe: I want to create a universe that doesn't fall apart on the third day. I want to write a book that people will read once, and then again when they are finished, and then again and again because they simply like it that much. I want them to show it to their friends and family. After I've written a book like that, I want to write another that produces the same result. And then, I want to write another.

I've been writing stories, in one way or another, since I was about six or seven years old. My family had a big, loud, clunky electronic typewriter, with keys that made sounds like pistons cranking and a hum that could have been heard in the middle of a rainstorm. My first efforts at writing stories were ... not that bad for a six or seven-year old, I felt. I was an avid reader, and I always wanted to write stories like the ones I had read, or like the shows I watched on TV. My first completed stories were a little too much like the stories I had read, in fact; they were simply copies of those stories I loved with different names for the characters. Still, like I said, they weren't bad.

Over time, I realized how important it was to create an original world, or universe, with my own original characters and adventures. As I grew older and my taste in books became more sophisticated, so did the stories that I tried to write and the worlds they inhabited. I drew maps and charts of their homelands, and sometimes of their homeworlds. I created whole generations of peoples and families. In my science fiction efforts, I invented whole classes of starships and weaponry, constructing rough diagrams on my family's brand new (for that time) computer. I examined the possibilities for intergalactic politics, warfare, and intrigue, creating governments and shadow organizations, each vying for power. I even tried my hand at creating alien languages, alphabets, and mythologies of the different species. All this I did before I was even old enough to drive a car.

As I grew older, though, I started to suspect that I had bitten off more than I could chew. My project seemed too big to ever succeed, and in my teenage mind I decided it would be better to shelve it all than to try and fail. I finished my high school years and served a two-year mission for my church, trying to refocus on the world and universe in which I already lived. When I returned home, I looked into a job and higher education, looking to a future that I realistically could expect to create.

Those other worlds wouldn't let me forget about them, though. I picked up some of my old materials, stored in cardboard during my two years away, and reexamined the possibilities. I started just a little more simply than I had before, working on an adventure story set in a simpler time and place; my first epic fantasy adventure. I started reading books, magazines and journals on writing to learn more about the practical side of a writing career. I took creative writing courses to learn how to craft more than just a world, but the sort of dialogue and prose that would make that world come alive, and invite readers to explore it with my characters.

I have been home from my mission for almost seven years, now. I'm close to finishing what I hope will be my first novella. I've learned a great deal, I believe, and I'm writing this blog to share my ideas and lessons learned on how to create a universe that won't fall apart on the third day. I even hope to answer the question, "What happens on the fourth day?"