Bujold

Today I'm writing about one of my favorite authors, Lois McMaster Bujold. She's written a great many books, most of which are incredible. Any year that she releases a book or novella and it doesn't win a Hugo or a Nebula, it's something of an upset. While none of her books make my top five, or even my top ten (probably), a LOT of them make my top thirty; her writing is consistently good. Even better, she's (finally) writing the novel we've wanted since Civil Campaign starring Ivan; if nothing else, it's going to be great since her last two novels had antagonists who weren't really in Vorkosigan's weight class; Ivan doesn't quite have the same skills and position.

Her writing has some interesting characteristics. She writes her male characters better than her female characters, a reversal from what you would typically expect. In her science fiction universe, she smartly avoids the FTL technology pitfalls of the Warp Drive or similar engines in favor of a stationary wormhole network, making certain that geography still has meaning in the far future :). And if you happen to care about this kind of thing, she had GLBT characters decades before Rowling retroactively decided that Dumbledore was gay.

Her science fiction isn't really about the technology, though, except for her fascination with the reproductive technologies offered by the "uterine replicator." It's a nice change, though, from a focus on the starships and guns of the future to a relatively ordinary medical advancement (compared to immortality meds or cyberware). In some of her earlier books, she was actually developing a larger plot about telepaths, but it seemed to have been dropped by now.

Instead, her fiction is about creating some very fascinating character and using the unusual setting to create great stories for them. The primary character of her science fiction novels, Miles Vorkosigan, grows throughout the series, from the somewhat awkward scifi "coming of age" story to the more mature stories as he grows through life. And, amazing, the novels don't end when he finally settles down, marries, and has kids.

Maturity is a word that's often misused, I think. Too often, we end up using it to describe the dark and the violent. The scenes of "R" rated movies might not be appropriate for children, but I wouldn't ever call what happens therein to be particularly "adult." :) (I think there was a Calvin and Hobbes about that). Actual maturity, I think involves juxtaposing the light and the dark, the good and the bad of life. 100% Grimdark is about as mature as a teenager painting his room all black.

Now, Bujold often seems to enjoy using setups and ideas from romance novels into her works, which I'm not exactly a fan of. Shards of Honor is basically a straight scifi romance novel; that and Warrior's Apprentice are her worst books, at least in the Vorkosigan series. She has a certain optimism and faith in overall humanity that some might find annoying. And some of her characters can be, at times, almost unbearably whiny.

But she's still one of the best 'genre' writers today. If you're interested in starting the Vorkosigan series, I'd probably recommend starting with The Vor Game instead of Warrior's Apprentice though, then double back to read WA if you liked TVG.

Bonus Post: Calling It

I generally think I'm pretty good at predicting the plot twists and turns of fiction, especially since I started writing my own stuff. One day I'm going to post a guideline about how to predict that stuff, in case you want to be the guy telling your friend that you knew he was dead the entire time (like I did, the first time I saw Ghost*!).

But instead, I'm writing a short post about Wheel of Time. This is essentially a longshot, and is only actually relevant to fans of the series, but I'm doing it anyways. The Dark One is, or is somehow closely related to, Balefire.

Seriously, think about it. He's the Dark One. An evil force. What is he supposed to be? A man? A horrible fanged monster? That Rand** is supposed to kill in some kind of sword-fight? As much as I love sword-fighting (not WoT swordfights though, which are far, far worse than literary shakycam), after all this build up a simple fight with the source of all evil would be kind of lame. That's what midbosses are for.

No, the Dark One wants to destroy Creation, to undo. Isn't that what Balefire essentially is? Destruction? Maybe that's the point of the chaos, the Forsaken, everything: to drive the world into a point where balefire use becomes necessary to survive. No, this theory doesn't take into account everything, but I do like it a lot more than the Dark One just being some really powerful guy.

*I'm kidding. I have never seen Ghost. I never want to see Ghost. Please don't force me to see Ghost at gunpoint.

**Why is he called the Dragon Reborn? Or, rather, why was Lews Therin called the Dragon, other than 'Fantasy Must Have Dragons'? Does anyone in WoT even know what a Dragon is?

Creating and Editing

My dad and I had an interesting discussion the other night. We weren't talking about writing in particular, but he told me that editing was easy, but creating was hard.

But I have to disagree. I think maybe he was confusing editing with criticism or negative feedback; just about everyone would agree that destruction is far easier than creation. But editing isn't criticism or negative feedback. It's about using feedback to make something greater than what it was, while still retaining its core competencies and strengths (or, if you prefer, its soul).

Creation is easy. It's fun and exciting to create new things, to build where nothing existed before. And when working creatively, quality isn't the first priority either; it's about experimentation. You can't ever be afraid of bad ideas when you're creating. In the words of Nanowrimo, it's about turning off your inner editor during that month in November.

Editing is hard. And worse, it's not fun; it requires discipline. It's especially agonizing to painstakingly drag your own work through the coals, to figure out where all the errors are and how to fix them without destroying the book altogether.

As a side note, it seems to me that a good editor can make or break a book almost as surely as a good writer; I think most fans of the series would agree that Wheel of Time really suffers from poor editing in its later books. And many times, in fact almost all times, writers thank their editors in some notes page, or even the dedication page.

But I mean, they helped build the damn book in the first place. Some special note of thanks doesn't quite seem like enough for the second most important determinant of quality. Why don't editors get their names on the front page of the novel? Maybe it's because we think that readers don't base their purchasing decisions on the editor of books, but I'm not sure there's much data to support either argument. If I was publishing a book, I'd probably push for my editor's name to appear on the front cover of the book.

Antiheroes

I hear the word 'antihero' tossed around discussing characters now and then. It seems to mean different things to different people. While I'd like to think that the term originated during the Nineties (with all the baggage that comes from that decade), according to this it originates from a few centuries back.

Some people seem to use the term to describe a bad guy who happens to fill the role of hero in the story. Other people use the term to describe a hero who isn't bright, shiny, and morally perfect; to them, the only real heroes are the perfect ones. I can't think of too many 'perfect' people in fiction, myself; basically, only Raoden from Elantris comes to mind. Maybe Superman, at least when they don't screw the character up?


The quintessential, even definitive, antihero in my mind is Elric of Melnibon, Moorcock's anti-Conan. And I like my definition for an antihero. An antihero is a protagonist that an author hasn't bothered to make likeable or engaging.

That sounds like a condemnation of the concept, and it's true. I hate the idea of antiheroes. Because I hate reading stories where I neither like nor respect the protagonist. And to me, at least, likeability isn't really a measure of ethics or morality, but just personality. The Gray Mouser and Fafhrd are arguably terrible people, just like Elric, but I find them far more likeable (what's really amazing is that I can spell Fafhrd without having to look it up).

Having such a low opinion of antiheroes, or just plain unlikeable protagonists, I tried to make one of the main characters of my fantasy novel No More Kings as engaging and charismatic as possible. Because, well, he's a murderous thug with no value on human life, at least as a general concept. So he's funny, confident, and otherwise likeable. I hope the methods I used work.

There's also talk about the idea of flawed heroes or characters, a concept I don't quite understand. The idea of character flaws only really makes sense if you believe there's some ideal mold from which all people are cast, that we're all striving towards some concept of perfection and falling far short. What would an unflawed character look like, exactly? People have characteristics, some we might like and consider 'good,' others we might dislike and consider 'bad', but I can't imagine what a 'zero defects' individual would look like.

What is this model that people are using, whenever they measure a character against it and determine them to be 'flawed?' Is it their religious figure of choice? Some other fictional character? Themselves*? Seriously, someone help me out here.

I might occasionally use the term 'character flaw' myself, just as a matter of habit after seeing it used by everyone else in the world, but I hate it whenever I catch myself using it.

*Not true. Most people don't really like themselves. Try giving someone a compliment and seeing how quickly they refute it. It's amazing.

Inspiration and My Quest To Write YA Novel

Evidently, one of the most common questions fielded by authors is where they get their ideas. Now, not being a real, published writer, I don't know if the entire process changes with the emergence of external deadlines and real pressure, but I would have to guess it doesn't. I get my ideas from my life, and the prospect of running out of ideas is about as realistic as the danger of running out of thoughts. It's not going to happen.

Inspirations for stories, characters, and whatever can come from the strangest places. Moreover, I'm not too proud to steal a good idea if I see one.  One of the comic strips I read is called xkcd, and a while back it ran this comic strip. 

The writer of this comic strip makes a pretty good point, I think: those alternate world children's fantasies would probably screw up your life pretty badly, once the initial boost to self-confidence wears off. The most logical reasoning you could come up with as an adult, assuming you were smart and never told anyone about what happened to you, is that you had some kind of hallucination.

Then I realized that there's more than just an amusing comic in that concept; there was the potential for more. I think I could write a decent book based on that comic. The typical protagonist of the children's alternate world fantasy story, years later in his life, searching for answers. Discovering that he wasn't the only one to head to "Narnia," and trying to help the other kids who've also face the dubious choice of lying through their teeth or being thrown into the juvenile loony bin. Learning the real reason why the hell anyone would want the help of children to solve their problems (I sure as hell wouldn't). And maybe realizing that his time in this fantasy world left more scars than he initially thought.

All of that sounds like a lot of introspection and whining to me, so I'd need to make it, you know, interesting. My guiding principal when writing is to try to make it something I'd enjoy reading as well (for reasons other than my narcissism and egomania, of course). (Un)Fortunately, I have a lot of book ideas in my head, so I haven't bothered to even start writing this one, even though my preliminary title idea amuses me greatly: Veteran of the Dragon Wars.

One of the problems, however, is that this book idea seems almost ideal for a YA, or Young Adult, book. The character idea in my head is almost young enough; I could probably cut off a few years if I had to. Except the problem is that I don't quite know how to write a YA novel.

But I want to. I really, really want to. Why? Marketability. I realize this makes me sound like a heartless mercenary, but it's the truth.   I'd love to actually sell a book for money, instead of doing it as an enjoyable hobby. And YA books typically involve many of the fantastical elements that I prefer, so it's not as if I'd be writing a book that I'd hate.

According to what I've read, there's much a greater demand for YA books than fantasy novels marketed towards adults. I suspect that one of the reasons is that the bookshelves in the science fiction section are filled with old books, classics of the genre; there are no such classics in the YA section, unless you count Harry Potter.

And, sadly, I think there's also lower standards of quality for books intended towards children and youths. Why else do we let so many celebrities write their own children's books? Or maybe, hopefully, it's just a lack of understanding as to what those enigmatic young people actually want, so people are willing to take more risks.

Right now I'm writing a completely noncommercial story just to bring my skills back to what they were after I stopped writing for a few months. After I finish up this story and one of the unfinished books, I might try my hand at writing a YA novel, maybe one based on teh seed of the xkcd strip.

The worst fictional human being...

I was going to make some long post about the absolute worst human being in all of fiction, the most hated, the most reviled. Maybe mention some people I thought were close. But it's not a close. There's a clear frontrunner. In about half the movies I watch, I end up rooting for the bad guys anyway. Not this guy.

Burke, Carter J

He has to be the least likeable villain of all time. Although I have to say, casting Paul Reiser as a villain in a science fiction movie is a stroke of genius. We already hate the guy, now the movie gives us a reason! Amusingly, even the actor's parents, when watching Aliens, wanted Burke to die horribly.

He betrays everyone just for a percentage of the profits, even after seeing how dangerous the Aliens are. And he's not only evil, but also incompetent, creating plans to have almost no chance of working. Even his clothes are bad; if you're going to be an evil corporate guy, at least wear the proper suit.

Fight Club: Choose Your Weapon (Part Two)

Okay, I've finally gotten around to writing the second part of the last Fight Club post. I blame the Olympics for the delay, proof that you can make me care about anything if you make the stage big enough.

6. The Dagger
Daggers and knives were fairly common as tools back in Ye Olden Days, especially the nebulous quasi-historical period where a lot of fantasy fiction takes place. They're going to be a little longer and more dangerous than the pocket knives of today, but probably about as ubiquitous. The truth remains that if you bring a knife to a sword fight, though, you're going to lose.
Example Characters: Thieves and cutthroats, Min from Wheel of Time (with many others), Locke Lamora, Vlad Taltos.
What It Says About the Character: They prefer surprise to straight up fights (who doesn't, though), they're probably not trained in fighting, and they might be kind of dumb if they treat it as a primary weapon instead of an emergency backup or a tool (or a parrying weapon).

7. The Bow
Bows come in two basic varieties: bows you use on foot, and bows you fire from a horse. Unless someone is creating some kind of clear Mongol analogue, bows in fiction are generally restricted to the infantry variety. 
Example Characters: Legolas, Birgitte from Wheel of Time, Katniss from Hunger Games
What It Says About the Character: Really, no one in fiction uses a bow if they're not some kind of expert shot. They're also more likely to be incredibly fast or agile. If a female character is going to be some kind of warrior, chances are good that they will prefer the bow.
Unfortunately, firing a bow, especially one with a good draw weight needed for range/armor penetration, requires a lot of upper body strength. And just like a gun, shooting a bow while running around will tank your accuracy. I'd imagine an archer would more likely take a good position in a fight and stand there raining feathered death upon his enemies than running around shield surfing.

8. The Flail
Most depictions of the flail suck, it's that simple. The flail is the spiked-ball and chain weapon, in case you're unfamiliar with it (insert marriage joke here). The problem is that the chain is too long, so you'd have as much chance of hitting yourself as the enemy. The trick is to have a longer haft and a shorter chain, allowing flexibility without risking smashing yourself in the head. The real strength of the flail is its ability to bypass a shield.
Example Characters: No one in fiction uses a flail. The closest I could think is the Witch King from RotK, but that's really not the greatest example of the weapon, since it's a one ton weight with a chain attached. More wrecking ball, less flail.
What It Says About the Character: No data points means no graph, sorry. Man, someone has to write a flail user, fast.

9. The Mace/Hammer
Basic variations on the same idea: a hafted weight that smashes your opponent. All the fun of a club, but more top heavy. The great part about maces and hammers was how effective they were against armored opponents; mail was relatively ineffective against the mass of these things.
Example Characters: Perrin from Wheel of Time,  other fantasy blacksmiths*, holy men**
What It Says About the Character: For starters, this is another one of those unsubtle weapons, so chances are pretty good the character is notably strong. And anyone who uses one of these weapons, as opposed to an axe, is probably both kind-hearted and civilized.

*Seriously, what is with fantasy's love affair with blacksmithing? I have no idea.
**Due to a misinterpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry, for a while there was the belief that ecclesiastical figures (priests, bishops, and the like) were forbidden from shedding blood. Therefore, they used maces, because smashing apart someone's skull is one hundred percent blood free. Nope, sorry. 

10. The Greatsword
Or the two handed sword. Cutting edge, sharpened point.  Unfortunately, when portrayed in fiction it's nearly always misused. The lower part of the sword was unsharpened, allowing the user to 'choke up' on it for additional maneuvers. That's probably not the proper historical term for it, btw. :)
 Example Characters: Guts from Berserk, Tazendra (Porthos) from the Phoenix Guards
What It Says About the Character: The greatsword is typified by a more wild, uncontrolled style, similar to an axe, even if that's not really how it would be used in real life. Think of it as an axe, just less so.

11. The Shield
While not technically a weapon, it's probably the most important piece of gear for a warrior other than their weapon. It's the best defense against any kind of projectile weapon (other than a wall or something), and it's much easier to parry with a shield than it is with any kind of weapon. Think about how much smaller the target area is going to be for a guy with a shield.
Example Characters: Boromir from Lord of the Rings, Spartans and their wannabes,
What It Says About the Character: Shields are more typically found amongst the military, so a shield user is going to be a current or former member of a military unit, in contrast to the more common 'lone wolf' style characters who run around by themselves. They're likely to be more 'professional' than most characters.