Anyway, I’m still working on my top secret project I’m not allowed to talk about.  So why bring it up?  Because what’s the point of working on a top secret project if you can’t mention it?  This is probably why I’d be a lousy spy.  The details will remain undisclosed, but I’m optimistic at this stage that this could be awesome.  I could be wrong.  It’s happened once or twice before.

But while I have a free moment, I figured I’d drop by, confirm that I am still alive, and maybe share some random thoughts.  People do seem to like that sort of thing.  Maybe because as a sort of famous person, they’re under the illusion I have something interesting to say.  Or maybe we all have something interesting to say, and I just happen to be lucky enough to have an audience.

So I’ve been playing Skylanders on my Wii.  If you’re unfamiliar with it, it’s a video game with a gimmick.  You get a wireless “portal” device that connects to your system and when you put the Skylander figures onto the portal, they appear in your game as characters for you to control.  Think of it as Pokemon, but without having to capture the damn things and instead just going out and buying them.  It is a gimmick, and psychologically, it should be annoying that you’re basically paying to unlock things that are already in the game.  But it’s a tremendously charming game with a lot going for it.

For one thing, the game is a bit old school and aimed at a younger audience.  It’s not tremendously difficult and most of the levels are straightforward, even if there is a bit of puzzles here and there.  For some reason, Skylanders reminds me a lot of that old classic Gauntlet.  Only instead of running around in a dungeon with four characters to choose from, there are 32 different Skylanders (if you should happen to buy them all).

What elevates this beyond a gimmick for me is that the game is genuinely fun to play.  And each character has their own unique style.  They aren’t just interchangeable with different special effects.  Trigger Happy carries a pair of pistols that shoot gold coins and can spray the screen with a deadly barrage.  Meanwhile, Terrafin is a landshark who can swim through rock and punch the enemy with tremendous force.  The more you play the game, the more you unlock on the characters.  It’s all a very elaborate system of enticement, but so cleverly done that it seems rewarding rather than manipulative.

It’s the difference between a game with a gimmick and a gimmicky game.  Skylanders is certainly designed to sell collectible figures, but they went above and beyond to create a fun experience that continues to reward me.  If I were less secure, I might feel weird admitting how much I’m enjoying a game aimed at kids, but I’m a professional novelologist.  And I fear the day I can’t see the beauty of playing a game where I can be anything from a rock dinosaur to a cyber dragon to a very angry tree who spits out giant spiked acorns that he rolls over the forces of evil.

Meanwhile, I’ve also been enjoying Castle Empire Online, a free online game that’s about managing a small kingdom.  It’s a different animal than Skylanders, but fun.  Worth checking out, if you’re so inclined.  I play under the name EmperorMollusk.  Send me a friend request.  Maybe I’ll trade you some fish for coal.  (I’m always short on coal.)

But what about the real world?  What’s going on there?

How quaint of you to ask.

Got that secret project thing.  Hush hush.  But it’s coming along.

Working on Helen and Troy’s Epic Road Quest, my next manuscript (prob out in 2013).

Oh, and that Mack Megaton story…it’s still coming.  I promise.

Finally, I’d like to offer my thoughts on the topic of skepticism.  The problem with your average person’s view of skepticism is that it seems to mean “Non-Believer”.  When I say I’m skeptical of ghosts, for instance, it’s often assumed I don’t believe ghosts exist.  In point of fact, I am a genuine skeptic when it comes to the paranormal.  I remain unconvinced but open to it.

And, yes, I understand there there is “evidence” for the paranormal.  It’s just not very good evidence.  And it certainly isn’t very convincing evidence for any particular claim.  This isn’t to say that those claims are wrong.  It’s just that they remain so ill-defined as to honestly admit they are specious at best.  The difficulty I have with “the paranormal” is that no one who believes it genuinely seems to be investigating it in an open way.  Instead, they have their pet theory that they are trying to prove.  That’s just bad research.

For example, perhaps electronic voice phenomenon is a real thing, and we are managing to record the voices of invisible beings around us.  This could mean a hundred things though.  Perhaps there are alien entities from another dimension trying to make contact with us.  Perhaps mischievous imps are playing tricks on us.  Or perhaps they are psychic imprints created by the will of the living investigators.  When it comes to the paranormal, none of these explanations seems unreasonable to me.  Or they could all be wrong.

This is why I am skeptical.  Even if you capture a genuine EVP, it could be something we haven’t even thought of yet.  There are so many possibilities, the only genuinely honest thing to do is to record the result and keep investigating.

Inevitably, someone will tell me I am being too closed minded.  But it’s actually the opposite.  I’m so open minded about what it COULD be that I have a hard time just declaring what it is as if I actually knew.  The believer is often the one who seems closed minded to me, willing to stretch any and all evidence toward their pet theory, ignoring any possibility outside of that.

As an experiment, I suggest watching different ghost hunting shows.  What’s most surprising about the shows isn’t that they find “evidence”, but the type of “evidence” they find.  Each show tends to find the kind of ghosts they’re looking for, regardless of their location.  The less dangerous spirits of Ghost Hunters never seem to cross paths with the more terrifying specters of Ghost Adventures.  And the outright malevolent forces of Paranormal State never seem to show up in any episodes of Fact or Faked.

Skeptically, it could be argued that perhaps that’s the way the supernatural works.  Perhaps different facets of the paranormal respond to different people.  Perhaps my very skepticism is what prevents me from seeing any evidence for myself.  Or perhaps it’s all just our primitive imagination responding to spooky sounds and unfamiliar locations.  Or perhaps we’re all just brains floating in a giant shared simulation and some people have their experience settings dialed to monster.

That’s skepticism.  Far too extreme to be practical, of course.  But just want to put it out there.

My general rule is that if the evidence could just as easily apply to leprechauns, then I remain unconvinced.  Lights in the skies could be alien spaceships.  Or the fey folk playing tricks on us.  Until we actually have a flying saucer or a faerie in our possession, we can’t know for sure.

Although I do still believe that Bigfoot is just Chupacapbra in a suit.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

In the meantime, here’s a smattering of thoughts running through my head.

Nobody succeeds or fails on their own.  It was the wonderful Elizabeth Warren who recently observed, “Even if you built your factory on your own, your products were shipped via roads built by public works projects and your factory was protected by a police force paid for by tax dollars.”  That’s really the problem though.  Roads and police and other things provided by the public sector are invisible when they work.  We take them for granted.  Until they’re gone.

So it is too with our own successes and failures.  Psychologically, we have a much higher opinion of our own abilities and reason than of others.  If you ask most people why OTHER people are religious, they’ll usually say it’s for primal emotional reasons like fear of death or sense of powerlessness.  But ask someone why they’re religious, and you’ll usually get a more profound, more nuanced answer.  If we see someone else throwing a temper tantrum in public, we just shake our head and assume they’re classless jackasses.  But when we do the same, we excuse ourselves by saying we’re having a bad day or that the target of our wrath deserved it.

We are immensely forgiving of ourselves, cruelly judgmental of others.  WE are amazing.  THEY are lucky.  It’s in our nature.

In this way, I don’t find the wealthy and successful any different than any other group.  Of course, the wealthiest people will consider themselves hard-working and deserving of their success.  And they’ll assume that the poor, the unsuccessful, are lazy or just need to apply themselves.  That’s not an attitude that comes from having money.  That’s just an attitude that comes from being human.

Yet as a professional writer, I realize just how dependent I am on all the people around me.  Whether it’s the mother who supported me all those years, the DFW Writer’s Workshop that encouraged me endlessly when publication seemed impossible, or the first editor who finally was able to convince someone to take a chance on me.  (Thanks, Paul.)  Beyond that, there are all the people who help in the editing process of the book, the hard-working folks who actually manufacture and transport the things, and the fans and critics who get them noticed.  And the people who buy the books.  At the end of the day, without those people, I’m out of a job.

That’s why I’m not entirely convinced of the merits of self-publishing.  Not because I believe the writing is innately worse, but because the self-published writer is often working alone.  That, more than any other factor, is why I’m reluctant to recommend self-publishing.  Novelology is a tough biz, and I can’t imagine going at it alone.   (Though I’m certain that as technology continues to advance that self-publishing will become more and more viable.  Just not entirely convinced it’s where it needs to be at the moment.)

I haven’t achieved my meager level of success because I’m awesome.  It’s because of the work and support of a hell of a lot of folks.  And the world would be a better place if we’d all take a moment to remember that, to view the other guy not as an obstacle toward our success but as a necessary partner in our endeavors.  Or we can all just sit around, resenting each other.

Yeah, we’ll probably stick with that.

Meanwhile in the world of comics…

DC Comics relaunched all their comics with a new line up of 52 new titles.  I’ve read through a few of the new titles and have yet to be impressed.  They’re not bad comics, but they don’t really seem new and interesting.  Especially because the stated reason for the reboot is to make comic books friendly to new readers.  Yet the comics seem to be plagued with all the same problems that have been dragging down superhero comics for years.

There’s continuity, which despite claims to the contrary is still just as overwhelming and incomprehensible as before.  Except now it’s even a bit unfriendly to old time readers because some of the old continuity doesn’t count and some of it does.  Even if it really doesn’t make much sense.  Like Hal Jordan, who apparently in the space of five years became a Green Lantern, turned evil, died, then came back to life and returned to the Green Lantern Corps, fought an intergalactic war with Orange, Red, and Black Lanterns.  That’s a lot of livin’ in five years.

Granted, comic book time is always kind of wonky, and it should never be taken too seriously.  Which is why it should never be set in stone.  Dates and times are something to be avoided in ongoing universes with characters that literally run for decades.  I’d much rather DC reboot the universe and just start from the beginning.  Not that I’d be too crazy about that either.  But starting from square one would certainly be easier for new readers to jump on board and diehard fans might complain, but they’d still buy the titles anyway.  They always do.

But what really gets me is that the comics are still struggling to find an acceptable level of reality for superheroes.  I don’t need to read about Batman and Catwoman having sex.  In point of fact, I tend to prefer my superhero comics very light on the sex.  There’s something unsettling to me about superheroes having sex, something absurd.  Bruce Wayne, I have no problem with.  But Batman, it just seems like weird fetish porn.  It’s just a bad idea, is all I’m suggesting.  Especially since superheroes should generally be about punching people, not getting it on.

Even the violence though tends to be on the unpleasant side.  Once again, realism is not your friend in the superhero genre.  Now every supervillain seems to be a sexual deviant, more likely to rape and murder than build a death ray or rob banks in unnecessarily elaborate ways.  And where once it was a genre of escapist fantasy, it so often seems to revel in reminding us that superheroes would be awful and frightening in real life.

I get that I’m an old man.  The comics I grew up with are not the comics being written.  They certainly aren’t the comics that influenced the current generation of writers and fans who seem intent on rewriting Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns endlessly.  I’ve never really understood why the deconstruction of the superhero genre became the default goal of mainstream superhero comics.  Deconstructions only work in limited capacity.  What makes Watchmen readable is that it is a single story.  You can do whatever the hell you want to the characters and their universe with no fear of having to keep things going.

But if you write that story where the Joker murders schoolchildren, you’re stuck with it.  Forever.  And suddenly, every time the Joker shows his face, we’re reminded that here’s a remorseless killer that no one can stop.  And if you write that story where “nothing will ever be the same”, you’ll soon realize that everything HAS to be the same because you can’t really change anything important in an ongoing, shared universe.  Not very often anyway.

I wouldn’t say DC’s new titles are bad.  They certainly aren’t any worse than most mainstream superhero comics, and just because they don’t appeal to me, that doesn’t make them objectively bad.  Taste is a subjective thing.  But at the end of the day, the reboot doesn’t seem to have changed anything.  All the same problems are still bothering the industry and while they’re sure to get a nice boost from the publicity, I don’t see it solving the long term problem of an business model built on writing stories originally intended for children and selling them to a confused market that isn’t even really sure what it wants.

That’s the real dilemma, and I can certainly relate.  I’m a guy who often complains about not being taken seriously enough just because I write stories about robots and space squids.  Maybe if I threw in more sex and ritualistic disemboweling, I could prove I’m a gritty, hardcore writer.  Though I’m not sure I’d want to write a cephalopod sex scene.  And I’m definitely sure I wouldn’t want to meet the fans who were eager to read it.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

LEGION

The premise to Legion was promising.  If you’ve read the Bible (or have even a passing knowledge of it) then you know God (in the Old Testament & quite a bit in the New Testament as well) could be a capricious and vengeful sort.  And, despite what Michael Landon or Dela Reese might want you to believe, angels could be brutally effective killing machines.  Everyone already knows this, and that’s just fine.  It means that Legion doesn’t really have to do much work to justify its premise.

But somehow, it still feels it has to do all that work anyone.  Strike One.

Secondly, despite its promise to unleash a legion of vengeful angels upon the world, this is just another zombie movie.  The movie only has two actual angels in it, and one of those loses his wings within seconds of the start of the film.  Strike Two.

Finally, the zombies . . . er, angels of this movie are that most unforgivable of zombie types.  No, I’m not talking about fast VS. slow.  I’m talking about dumb VS. smart.  Zombies HAVE to be stupid.  Otherwise, a zombie apocalypse isn’t very interesting because nobody is going to survive.  Zombies that can think, plan, and strategize destroy any sense of conflict in the story.  The zombies in Legion are smart.  Except they’re not.  They’re stupid because they have to be, and that’s just stupid.  Strike Three.

The whole time I was watching Legion I kept wondering why, if the zombies have been appointed by God to kill this one woman and her baby, why didn’t they just drive a semi-truck into that rinky dink diner?  Or, if they would prefer to be more subtle, they could just charge headlong into the diner until everyone ran out of bullets.  Even stupid zombies understand that strategy.

The problem with Legion is that it’s just so damned generic.  Even the possessed in this film (possessed by angels, I remind you) are as generically villainous as they can be.  Why would angels use Satanic imagery?  Why would angels, who are basically just doing their job, resort to grade Z Freddy Kruegar taunts?  Because . . . well, because . . . well, it beats the hell out of me.

Michael and Gabriel are the most interesting characters in the film, and if there was more of their conflict, it could’ve been interesting.  Perhaps it was giving the film too much credit, but I imagined our two angels representing different sides of God himself.  Michael represents his introspective, hopeful side.  Gabriel is his vengeful, singularly focused side.  Their battle represents a metaphysical internal struggle in the Creatror’s psyche, manifest in a kick ass fight.

That’s probably giving the film too much credit though.  Still, I did like when Michael and Gabriel fought because it was nice to see some actual angels in a movie about angels.  Aside from that though, there’s nothing exceptional about Legion, either good or bad.  Just middle of the road.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Have you seen a Tim Burton film before?  Then you’ve seen Alice in Wonderland.  If you’re up for more of the same gothic wackiness then go for it.  Otherwise, there’s nothing new being brought to the table here.

One point I do have to voice a gripe with is the idea that this is in any way a female empowerment film when it’s just not.  I’m not going to say it’s anti-feminist because it’s not either, but when it comes to empowerment in general, I put it in neutral.

The idea that Alice is a chosen warrior seems anti-empowering to me.  That’s why I’ve never liked the idea of destiny as a plot device.  It just removes anything interesting about a character.  It says, “You’ve been chosen” and that’s the end of it.  You can’t blow it.  You don’t have any choice in the matter.  And without choice, how can one have empowerment?

It’s the old free will VS. predestination debate, I know, and I’m not sure at all where I stand on the issue in real life.  In fiction though, I hate it.

The movie tells Alice right at the beginning that she has to fight the Jabberwocky and that she has no choice in the matter.  It then has her run around for most of the movie saying she’s not going to do it when we already know she is.  Even that is forgivable, except the movie reminds us a couple of times of how insignificant Alice.

The vorpal sword is the Jabberwocky’s archenemy.  Not Alice.  Her only role is to hold onto the sword.  She’s a tool for the weapon.  The weapon is not a tool for her.  That’s not empowerment.  It’s just being a cog in a cosmic machine, which is almost the opposite of empowerment.  Maybe that’s just my perspective though.

Also, I’m not usually one to invoke phallic imagery because when you get right down to it, nearly everything long, straight, and hard can be phallic, but Alice’s moment of “empowerment” arrives when she grasps a sword (traditionally phallic) that she doesn’t even control.  I’m not Freudian (in fact, I think Freud has been proven to be mostly full of crap), but even I have to pause at that one.

DELGO

Odds are good, you have not seen Delgo.  I’ll save you some time and just say, it’s not very good.

Delgo is an animated feature that manages to be off putting and uninteresting at the same time.  I could point out that the plot is too complicated while still managed to be incredibly generic, but I’d like to talk about the art of animation instead because this is where the movie fails most spectacularly.

Let’s begin with the character design.  Everybody looks alike.  If it wasn’t for their clothes, you couldn’t tell them apart.  Some have wings.  Some don’t.  Other than that, it’s a crapshoot.  I’m assuming that the character design team did this on purpose.  Rather than have extreme designs, they weren’t for something more realistic in terms of proportion and design.  And they ended up right in the middle of the uncanny valley.

Animation is, above all, about action.  It’s about movement and life and energy.  Even understated animated features will have some moments of life to them.  Delgo has more scenes where characters are sitting around and talking than any other animated feature I’ve seen in a while.  Pixar and Dreamworks can make a talking scene work, but it’s always with the understanding of how important the smallest bits of animation can become in these scenes.

Ultimately, Delgo fails because it’s a series of well-meaning mistakes.  I don’t doubt that many people worked very, very hard to make this film.  They just didn’t end up with anything worth watching aside from a how-to-not-make-an-animated feature instructional video.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

Saw Iron Man 2 today.  Blah.  Not a bad movie, but not very good either.  Like most superhero sequels, it’s way too heavy on plot, too short on creative superhero action.  It’s not that I need to have a giant robot attack every five minutes (although that would be sweeeet), but for a movie about a guy named Iron Man, there really wasn’t much Iron Man.  Add to this that the movie’s plot is almost identical to the previous film, you just end up with something . . . well . . . I don’t want to say anything too bad about the film, as it wasn’t bad.  Just left me flat.

It’s hard for me to be critical on this.  Even in comic books, it seems like superheroes are more about talking heads than outrageous schemes and superfights.  I know it’s unsophisticated to say this, but I like my superheroes to kick butt.  They don’t have to be stupid, but in the end, I usually enjoy it when our hero punches out the bad guys to solve the problem.  That’s really what superheroes are all about, isn’t it?  Spider-Man’s motto is “With great power . . . ” I’m sure you know the rest.  And what is Spider-Man’s great power?  The ability to beat people up real, real good.  Batman might be the world’s greatest detective, but all that detecting usually leads to a fist fight somewhere down the road.  And The Thing’s battle cry is “It’s clobberin’ time!”, not “Let’s have a chat!”

Here’s a personal philosophy of mine.  If you spend a whole movie building up to a showdown, it should probably last longer than three minutes.  Every great video game knows that the final boss fight needs to be epic.  Otherwise, it just ends up making your villain look weak and your hero’s triumph seem handed to him.

But I’m sure that Iron Man 2 will make a billion dollars, so what do I know?  But I’ll stick with The Incredibles.

To switch to a more positive note, have you seen Community?  It’s a pretty cool show, and while I always hesitate to use the word subtle, I’m going to go ahead and say it on this one.  Community is, on the surface, a fairly standard sitcom, but there’s a sneakiness to it that both revels in the sitcom tropes and enjoys playing with them at the same time.  It’s not an easy thing to do, but so far, they’ve managed a fine balancing act.  From a writing perspective, I love how Community has so far been able to have its cake and eat it too.  It manages to be an homage of the sitcom genre while deconstructing it.  And the most impressive part is that it doesn’t limit its ambitions to sitcom tropes either.

The most recent paintball apocalypse episode is a multi-layered homage to every great action movie cliche that still stays true to the characters AND is funny too boot.  It’s also that rare treat that just gets better with repeated viewings.  If you haven’t tried the show yet, you might be surprised.  It just might grow on you.

If I was going to compare Iron Man 2 and Community (and I’m going to assume that I am the only one on Earth who shall do so) I’d say that this is where the two differ.  Iron Man 2 only succeeds in annoying me the more I think about it.  Community continues to impress me as I realize just everything that is going on here.  And, yes, I’ll go ahead and say it.  The paintball episode of Community was more thrilling and involving than Iron Man 2.  And that’s pretty bizarre when I consider that one of those things has an army of robotic drones.

Oh, and while Samual L. Jackson is a fine actor and does a terrific (if mostly unnecessary) job as Nick Fury, in my heart of hearts, I’ll always see David Hasselhoff as Fury.  Really, the guy nailed the role.

So how about them video game console wars?  Can we just admit that all the major video game systems out there are pretty solid, and stop acting as if one is truly superior to the other?  I have a Wii, and I enjoy it.  I’m sure I’d enjoy an Xbox or a PS3.  So let’s just stop acting as if it’s an either / or proposition.  You’re allowed to like one.  Or two.  Or all of ‘em.  This is video games, we’re talking about.  Not religions.

And while I’m on the subject, can we also stop fighting over which Batman is the best Batman?  Batman’s biggest strength has always been his flexibility as a character.  There’s room in this universe for Detective Noir Batman (Batman: The Animated Series), Action Hero Batman (The Batman), and Fun, Anything Goes Batman (The Brave & The Bold).  I like each version for very different reasons, but in the end, none is so much superior to the other as catering to our preferences.  Heck, there’s even room in this world for Frank Miller’s dreadful All-Star Batman and Robin.  The more, the merrier.

So going back to Iron Man 2, I guess I can retract some of my less flattering comments.  Why can’t there be a non-super superhero?  People sure seemed to like it with the Spidey movies.  As someone once told me, “I like the Spider-Man movies because I’m not a comic book fan.”  So superhero movies for non-superhero fans?  Why not?  It’s a big, beautiful world, isn’t it?  Who cares about the label?

It’s funny to even write “non-superhero superhero fans” because what does that even mean?  A big reason I’m not into comic books now is that they’re too much talking and plotting, not enough hitting and robot fighting.  While that might not seem very superheroic to me, it’s not as if I hold the key to what does and doesn’t constitute great superhero fiction.  For some folks, superheroes are about larger-than-life adventures and kicking evil aliens in the face.  For others, it’s about people standing around, talking, and maybe occasionally throwing a punch here and there.  Whatever floats your boat.

To end on a positive note, I enjoying seeing Happy Hogan (as played by Jon Favreau) re-introduced into the Iron Man universe.  I might be the only one happy to see Happy, but that’s good enough for me.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

Saw Repo Men.  Eh, it was okay.  The “surprise” ending isn’t really a surprise.

“Hey, you know that thing that I mentioned a couple of times for no clear reason?”

“Yes?  Why?”

“Oh, no reason.  Certainly not clumsy foreshadowing or anything like that.”

“Oh, good.  For a second I was worried about . . . wait one second.  There’s a commercial for that thing that keeps coming up.  Let’s watch it then resume our more plot-oriented discussion.”

“Sounds good to me.”

So in addition to not really being surprising, it also manages to make the entire movie moot.  Good acting from all the participants, but just ends up going nowhere.  That’s kind of the point though, so take it for what it’s worth.  I know that many will disagree, and I’ll just admit that I don’t get stories like this.

The ads for How to Train Your Dragon look impressive.  I’m not just saying that because I have  deal or two with Dreamworks.  Looks like a fun film.  One question though.  Why did they start referring to it as “Dreamorks’ Dragons”?  Was the original title too difficult to remember?  Did it not test well?  If so, why did they use it in the first place?

I get that they want to use Dreamworks.  That’s the way we brand now.  It worked for Disney.  It’s working for James Patterson.  It’s more important to develop a recognizable brand than anything else.  And it’s easy to be critical of something like that, but in this age, when we are exposed to an endless media barrage, having a recognizable name or logo is key to getting noticed.  It’s just a shame that it can so often become the most important factor.

Disney purposely chose the title The Princess and the Frog over the more traditional The Frog Prince.  The intention is clear.  Let’s add a African-American princess to the Disney princess stable.  Another marketable character to make toys of.  I liked The Princess and the Frog.  Found it to be amusingly retro and fun.  It did well, but apparently it didn’t perform as well as Up.  Oh, excuse me.  That’s DISNEY PIXAR’s Up.

That’s another thing that annoys me.  The Princess and the Frog did well.  Maybe it didn’t break any box office records, but do we all have to aspire to be KING OF THE BOX OFFICE!  Can’t we sometimes just make a nice film and make some money?  I guess not.

Now Disney is changing the name of their Rapunzel movie to Tangled.  The rumor is that this will make the movie more palatable to boys.  Frustrating that, for all the progress we’ve made, we’ve actually taken a step or two backward.  I don’t remember hearing about little boys not going to see Sleeping Beauty or Snow White.  Maybe it was true.  Maybe not.  But was it assumed?

On a small side note, DIVINE MISFORTUNE has a solid rating on Amazon in the Single Women category.  While I’ll take all the exposure I can get, I have to wonder if perhaps we’re not getting a little specific in our marketing.  Is there something especially different about Misfortune that would make it more appealing to single women?  Strangely, it’s the first book of mine to feature a married couple.  But I won an Alex Award for GIL’S ALL FRIGHT DINER, and that’s a young adult oriented award.  Gil’s only has two teens in it, and both of them are the bad guys.  So maybe I’m overthinking it.

Finally, I’d like to mention the commercials for KICK-ASS.  While I’m not a big fan of the concept in general, it looks interesting at least.  But the ads keep making it seem like it’s a story about regular people becoming superheroes in an effort to help people and empower themselves.  Yet this isn’t what the original miniseries is about.

Kick-Ass, the comic book, is about dangerous, deranged individuals who hurt people in pathetic, juvenile narcissism.  It has nothing at all to do with any of the bright and shiny aspects of superheroes, and everything to do with criticizing and deconstructing  the superhero genre.  Whether or not it succeeds largely depends on your point of view, but what can definitely be said about Kick-Ass is that the protagonists of Kick-Ass are not heroes.

It reminds me a bit of the Watchmen movie (and remember, it’s Watchmen, not THE Watchmen).  Alan Moore’s deconstruction of the superhero genre was marketed too as a cutting edge heroic fantasy.  Never mind that it isn’t about that.  What matters is getting the people into the seats, and admittedly, it’s hard to advertise a tense, literary piece of fiction (that just happens to have superheroes) with a thirty second commercial.

Kick-Ass will probably have better luck because, despite its attempts at deconstruction, it is everything it pokes fun at.  It’s a big, dumb action movie without a lick of sense.  It lacks the insight or subtle characterization of more traditional superhero faire like Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk.  Mark Millar might think he’s the next Alan Moore, but if so, he’s got a long way to go.

But Kick-Ass the comic did well.  And I’m sure Kick-Ass the movie will do well too.  And I’m sure that Millar will have a long, prosperous career ahead of him.  So, as I’ve said before, what do I know?  Just some more random opinions from a world-renowned novelologist.  Make of them what you will, gang.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

Onto the subject at hand…

Recently, I found myself in a short debate on the nature of villainy.  What makes an interesting villain?  What doesn’t?  Is a colorful villain the same as a more subtle villain?  Stuff like that.  Rather than repeat it all, I recommend you check out the comments on my Opinions Vary blog entry.  Some ideas are shared, and it makes some interesting reading.

Near the end of the exchange, I noticed something.  I’m a writer.  A needless observation since, if you’re visiting this website, you probably know me first and foremost as a writer.  Safe to say, if I wasn’t a writer, you wouldn’t give a damn about what random thoughts were crawling through my head at any moment, no matter how well-expressed.  So I am indeed a professional writer, and I have the check stubs to prove it.

But more than being a pro, I’m actually a writer.  I think about stories, about characters and plots and premises and everything that makes a story up.  If it’s a book, you know I’ve thought about the sentences, considered how they all fit together, about what they say and what they don’t say.  If I’m reading the book, I’m analyzing it (even against my will).  And if I’m writing it, I’m trying to make sure it does what I want.  Oddly, even when I’m not sure what I want it to say.

If it’s a movie, I do the same thing.  Except I’m not really concerned with cinematography or subtleties of direction that I’m sure are there but usually go unnoticed except for a feeling of something great when it’s there and something off when it’s not.

I can turn this off to some degree.  I saw Legion this weekend, and while there are many questionable plot choices, I also was willing to overlook it because there’s a fight between archangels that is totally badass, and really, that’s the whole reason I’m there.

I have a pet peeve of using the term “storyteller”.  It just seems pretentious.  I also hate the phrase “craft of writing”.  It just bugs me for some reason.  But I do believe storytelling is an art and that writing is a craft.  Though maybe I’d be more comfortable with “trade of writing” because I’m a tradesperson, really.  But instead of making houses, I make stories.  It takes some of the romanticism out of it, but if you ask me, that’s a good thing.  Because novelology isn’t glamourous.  It’s mostly sitting in front of a computer and typing.

Being a professional teller of stories, I still sometimes get confused about it.  Recently, at the DFWWW’s after-IHOP gathering, a rollicking conversation about Transformers 2 and racism erupted.  The conversation is far too complicated to get into now, but it was fantastic.  It was great because we were all discussing a movie about giant robots and racial perceptions far deeper than one movie about giant robots and about the nature of stories themselves.  One of the most memorable discussions I’ve had in a long time, and one not soon forgotten.

More than an interesting diversion though, this was me discussing storytelling with fellow storytellers.  Really not any different than a bunch of carpenters sitting around discussing hammers and nails.  It’s why I keep the receipts from my IHOP gatherings because it is a business expense.  My writing benefits immensely from these discussions.

People think writing is easy.  Heck, I think it’s easy.  It’s certainly not as hard as breaking your back for minimum wage.  Or manning the counter at McDonald’s.  Or any number of thankless jobs that demand so much and give back so little.  But writing isn’t easy.  You have to think about it.  And if you do a good job, most people aren’t even going to notice.  And if you do a bad job, many people aren’t going to notice either.  People really don’t care that much about stories.  They tend to take them at face value.

I’m often amazed at how often people talk about the story without ever thinking about the writer behind the pages.  That’s how it should be.  I think only bad fiction draws attention to the author, just as bad directing tends to be all about the camera movements and stylistic shots rather than what’s happening on the screen.

But I am a writer.  And I do care.  And I do think about it.  Just do me a favor.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

So I have opinions, and, yes, I’m mildly famous.  Yes, I am a world-renowned novelologist.  And, yes, I have a solid gold robot butler and a machine that can create eclipses (solar and lunar) that I keep in a box under my bed.  But does this mean that my opinions are more valid than your Average Joe’s?

Yes.

Yes, it does.

(Okay, probably not.  But this is the internet age, and one of the cool things about that is every nitwit and numbskull with access to a computer can post his random thoughts onto the cosmic ether and pretend like it’s NOT an exercise in self-indulgence.  Anyway, I’m a writer, right?  I’m supposed to write.  And I try to make a habit of posting on this site to keep people coming back because that’s what you’re supposed to do.  Although if you want to just skip this stuff and just buy my books, I don’t mind.  Really, I don’t.)

And, so, I introduce a new semi-regular feature (meaning whenever the hell I need to post something and have nothing else on my mind).  It’s called “OVERRATED / UNDERRATED”.  And if you can’t figure out the premise from the title alone then keep reading.  You’ll figure it out.

VIDEO GAMES

HALO is OVERRATED: Admission.  I haven’t really played Halo.  Just a little bit here and there, a few minutes.  Enough to know that Halo is a fun game, but also, that it’s a first person shooter, a genre that I never really got.  Maybe I’m just old school but every FPS seems to revolve around centering your camera on something you want to shoot and then pressing a button until it dies.  Repeat until you finish the game.  But, honestly, couldn’t something similar be said for nearly any video game?

Still, Halo is not the Holy Grail of video games.  It’s not the greatest thing since sliced bread.  It’s just a solid FPS with a lot of hype behind it.  Master Chief is not a compelling character.  The guy is just a generic suit of space armor and, as someone somewhere once observed, his character in the game is little more than a hand holding a gun.  While I’ve heard that the multiplayer aspect of the game can be fun (and I’m sure it is) this is still just a generic sci-fi shooter with a generic badass hero and a generic alien menace.  None of which means the game is bad, but all of which means that it’s still not breaking any new ground.  It’s not bad.  It’s just overrated.

RATCHET AND CLANK is UNDERRATED: And when I say underrated, I don’t mean unappreciated.  Heck, this has produced a long line of sequels and obviously they’re still selling because a new one is being released sometime in the future.  And that’s because Ratchet and Clank kicks butt.  This is one of those games that doesn’t get nearly as much respect as it deserves because a certain segment of “hardcore” gamers can’t stand anything too cartoony or colorful or with a sense of humor.

And that’s what makes the Ratchet and Clank series shine.  Where Master Chief is just an interchangeable hand with a gun in it, Ratchet and Clank are genuine characters.  Where Master Chief faces placeholder aliens with vague motivations that are entirely incidental, Ratchet faces colorful villains.  Where Halo in every bit of advertising I’ve ever seen makes this game seem like I’m actually being drafted for an actual intergalactic war, Ratchet and Clank knows it’s a game.  And it doesn’t hide from that.

Ratchet and Clank is about blowing stuff up and taking names and running around levels, fighting toony robots and alien henchmen.  And weapons.  Lots and lots of weapons.  The carnage unleashed in Ratchet and Clank would be horrifying if it weren’t so gosh-darned charming.  And the characters?  By the Matrix of Leadership, I love the characters.  Every one of them is full of life.  Even the most minor supporting character seems more fully realized and three-dimensional than anything I’ve ever seen from Halo.

Look.  I like Ratchet and Clank.  I like the games.  I like the look.  I like the characters.  And if that keeps me from being hardcore, I guess I’ll have to live with it.

MOVIES

THE DARK KNIGHT is OVERRATED: Yeah, I’ve covered this before, but since a lot of data previously posted was deleted recently, I’d really like to restate, for the record, how dumb and annoying this film is.  It’s stuff like this that fuels the hate in my love/hate relationship with Batman.  Because there are so many writers, well-intentioned or not, who think that if you don’t make a Batman story that’s ultra-serious and ultra-dark that it isn’t Batman.  But that usually misses the point of the whole superhero genre in general, which, no matter how dark and grim you want to make it, is still about people in funny costumes beating each up.  I could go over the film’s many sins in detail, but why bother?  If you loved The Dark Knight, you’ll just disagree.  And if you agree, why preach to the choir?

Okay, maybe a little preaching.

The Joker is an all-powerful psychic with an ability to predict what everyone everywhere will do at all times in all situations.  Batman doesn’t seem to be much of a detective, instead resorting to a sci-fi gimmick so outlandish, it pretty much destroys every semblance of “realism” the film works so hard to establish.  The fall of Harvey Dent / Two-Face is contrived, even for comic book melodrama.  And about half the scenes end before they’re really over.  Oh, and the final sacrifice Batman must make, it’s not only stupid.  It’s downright insulting to all of us as human beings.  (Message: People don’t need to know things.  The best thing you can do to protect people is to keep information from them.  It’s not taking away people’s rights to make informed decisions, good or bad.  It’s being “heroic!”)

Now none of that probably matters to most people, but I can still prove that this movie doesn’t “get” Batman.  And nobody in their right mind can disagree with me.  It’s all about the dogs.  In an early scene in the movie, Batman is attacked by dogs, and it’s a bit  of trouble for him.  I can buy that.  He hasn’t been Batman long.  He can’t prepare for everything.  The first time someone pulled kryptonite on Superman, I bet he was taken by surprise too.

But the second time in the same movie Batman is attacked by dogs, he has just as much trouble.  And that’s just absurd.  That’s just stupid.  Because I guarantee you that if Batman was attacked by dogs, he’d go home and build a gadget or read a book on handling dogs.  He’d do something.  He’d be prepared because, y’know, that’s just kind of logical.  Otherwise, every criminal in the city is going to just figure out to have dogs with him and Batman would stop being scary pretty damn quick.

“Boss, Batman is here.”

“Again?  Release the hounds.”

Think it’s a nitpick?  Maybe.  But I do know that I’d be more forgiving of the film’s many flaws if it at least had the sense to make Batman smart enough to prepare for a second dog attack in the same damn movie.

TRANSFORMERS is UNDERRATED: Yes, I’m saying it.  Kind of weird, I know.  Considering it made millions of dollars at the box office, and that the sequel seems to have done pretty well too.  But I’m going on record as saying that the first movie, while not nearly as great as it should’ve been, is also not nearly as stupid as most people think it is.  It is about shape-changing robots from outer space, and that is ridiculous.  But that’s the central premise of the film, and every sci-fi / fantasy premise is ridiculous.  That’s the central conceit of sci-fi / fantasy.  Lord of the Rings might be “high fantasy” or “allegory” or whatever you want to call it, but it’s basically a story about an evil wizard with an army of monsters who chases little people around a make-believe world in search of an all-powerful knick knack.  The Matrix is a video game.  That’s the entire premise of the movie, for crying out loud.  Neo is really, really, really good at video games.  That’s his superpower.  So don’t tell me that space robots are too stupid to take seriously, because you’ve pretty much destroyed the sci-fi genre, and since that’s where I make my bread and butter, I’m not going to knock it.  Plus, most of my stories are at least as stupid in principle as shape-shifting space robots, and I’d like to think they have something worthwhile going on beneath the sci fi / fantasy nutiness.

Of course, it’s not the robots that hold Transformers back.  It’s Michael Bay because bashing Michael Bay is fun.  Heck, even Michael Bay does it.  And then he goes home and laughs and laughs and laughs on his giant piles of money.  It’s true that Bay is not a master storyteller.  It’s true that he does enjoy explosions more than is healthy.  Maybe.  Not quite convinced of that myself, but it’s possible.  But if there’s anyone who should be making a giant robot spectacle, Michael Bay would be among my first choices.

By the way, nothing I’m going to say in Transformers’ defense actually applies to the second movie, which is nearly everything Bay is knocked for.

But Transformers has a good story.  Not complicated.  Not difficult.  Rudimentary in its plot construction, but it gets the job done, and usually has the sense to stay out of the way.  It has good characters.  Sometimes, they step over the line into sitcom territory, but usually, they manage to stay on the right side of that line.  It has fairly good pacing.  Not perfect.  It lags in the middle, but the same could be said for The Dark Knight.  And the cinematography is too stylish, working too hard to remind us how cool this movie is supposed to be when really, it’s about giant shape-changing robots from outer space and that should be cool enough.

And they are.  While most of the Autobots don’t get much screen time (and the Decepticons even less), the film still manages to infuse them with life.  Usually it’s done in a fairly subtle way.  That’s right.  I said, subtle, and I’m sticking with it.  Because to me, subtle writing is found in creating characterization via action.  And since most of the Transformers are only defined by their actions, this is the only way to really illustrate their characters.  In particular, the action scenes really shine.  Whether it’s Ironhide charging forward like a reckless bull or Bumblebee employing robo-aikido or Bone Crusher, his cruel Decepticon nature to smash compelling him to madly (and foolishly) charge right into Optimus Prime, each character fights with his own unique characterization.  Even the military has its own style that contributes to the action.

Starscream is a favorite of mine in the film.  He employs hit and run tactics, deception, and just an all around sneakiness one would expect from the devious second-in-command of the Decepticons.  He also drops the ball on occasion too because he’s too busy watching his own back.  But that’s Starscream for you.

There are other things that keep the movie from being great, but it is not nearly as stupid or explosion-oriented as most people have decided.  Probably because it’s a Bay movie about space robots built around a line of toys.  But it is good, and that’s all I’m trying to say.

Now the second film…feel free to bash that one all you want.  I don’t think it’s terrible, but it ain’t that good, and even space robots can’t quite redeem it.  Athough Optimus does kick a lot of ass.  So that’s something at least.