Push….er yeah

December 12th, 2011

PUSH… Honestly I can only say one thing that was good with it – Dakota Fanning. Despite the tripe she was given as plot, and the wooden mannequins who made up the rest of the cast, Dakota says her lines with conviction, acts as if its important how and where she moves, and is convincing. Its a pity NOBODY else is. The male lead is more wooden than Seagal or Schwarzenegger at their worst; in fact if either of those had been in it they would probably have rescued this…thing. Psychic kung fu may SOUND cool, but it looks pretty stupid after the first couple of seconds.

Somehow Empire magazine apparently rated this as “Thrilling – X Men meets Trainspotting”. X Men was a whole order of magnitude better than this. Maybe this THING would have been rescuable if it had had a better director, a better male lead, some convincing villains and a more coherent plot. Quite possibly a combination of Ridley Scott, one of Arnold Schwarzenegger/Stephen Seagal/John Cusack as the male lead, and some adversaries who could act, would have resulted in a fun romp.

Dakota would have remained excellent throughout things, but one always remembers excellence within excellence, whereas she has to write this one off on her CV as being excellence within a pile of shite.

RATING : 3 out of 10

Pause for Thought

December 6th, 2011

Who is the most Christian? The one who earns millions by being a hard-hearted banker and then gives it all away, or the one who shuns worldly things to work with the poor? The latter, without doubt, for the banker in earning his fortune destroys as many lives as he later saves by giving it all away. It is a zero sum – and worse, for those whose lives he wrecks are not the ones whose lives he saves; their lives remain ruined. The poor man giving his life to serve others only ever does good and tho his account may read many fewer in the positive balance than the banker, it is triumphant because he has no one in his debit balance – unlike the banker whose destruction equals his reparation to humanity. We cannot condemn a man who gives away his fortune but we cannot in any way hold him above the man who earns none and yet devotes his life to others.

Exercise in Characterisation

November 29th, 2011

In the Thanksgiving edition of the Writers Digest email newsletter, there are Characterization Exercises:-

Every person has many facets to his or her character. A good fictional character also is multi-faceted. In order for you to consider all the facets of your characters, write a description of a character as if you were a character witness testifying in defense of this person. Then write a description of the same character as if you were a character witness called by the prosecution. Remember, both parties are discussing the same character, so the characteristics discussed have to be consistent.

So I thought I would do this with one of my more…problematic characters, Marshal Wolf from a British-centric empire which is waging constant war, over-running Africa and sending slaves back o the homeland.

Character Witness

Marshal Wolf is dedicated to success. He is a true stalwart of the Empire and while he has sworn loyalty to the Emperor, and while he stands in the chain of command beneath the political elite, he will let nothing stand in his way – if glory for the Empire can be obtained by subverting these things, then he will do so. The Empire above everything. But never treason

He is liberal in a fascist sense – he cares not what sexual orientation the men and women of his command are, he will happily elevate women, gays and the maimed to superior command if they prove capable of it, and he does not infringe upon their rights even in the middle of a campaign. To him this is the doctrine of Empire – everything to itself, but glory in the Empire.

He cares little for diktats from the central government, not in themselves. Where he sees their worth he will enforce them, albeit in his own way, but where he disagrees with them, or finds them pointless, he will ignore them and de facto challenge them to take him on, trusting to his own success and the glory of the Empire that he bolsters by his actions to defend him successfully.

Some lives are cheaper than others – the men and women of his command he will not waste in pointless assaults, but he does not hold human life in itself to be sacrosanct. Command he sees as a contract – he will preserve their lives from unnecessary wastage if they will give their all to advance his goals. Where other populations are concerned he is a man of honour and of his word – if he spares someone’s life then anyone who takes it is doomed, if he makes a deal with a native elite, then that deal will hold as long as they keep to their side of the bargain, if he frees prisoners, or spares an enemy, then he expects at least obedience if not loyalty from them, and if he gets it, their lives are under his protection.

The economics of Empire are very important to him. Plunder, exploitation and slavery are all the powerhouses of conquest, and he sees nothing wrong in maximising them to the glory of the Empire. Where slaves are concerned he sees it in terms of value – do these men, women and children have a value if they live? If they do, then they live, and are protected – a dead slave is a waste of time, effort and money, a living slave is an investment and a future return. Slaves should have food, warmth and shelter.

The slave markets are a personal delight of his, seeing the culmination of his policies, healthy, fit slaves being sold to owners for the glory of the Empire, and the increased wealth of the traders, an economic boost that generates more wealth in its wake. To him, there is a definite delight, a solid satisfaction, in seeing slaves whom he created when a city fell, finally sell for good money, and head off into fruitful and profitable lives for the Empire, being able down the line, should they prove worthy of it, to once more buy their freedom and become members of the body politic of the Empire

In his own establishments, his palaces and mansions, he practises what he preaches. Women, the maimed, and those with unusual tastes are as likely to be found in senior positions as anyone else, and he cares not what they do in their own time. Slaves abound, but freedmen also, and he is a strong believer in using superior slaves in positions where they will best aid his enterprises, even if he has qualified freedmen or servants who are not quite as good.

PROSECUTION!!!

Marshal Wolf is guilty of unnumbered heinous war crimes, and crimes against humanity. He is a supporter of slavery and has benefitted economically by persecuting the defeated populations of cities his army destroys. He is a supporter of every sexual perversion, and frequently commits treason by acts of omission. He has no loyalty even to the emperor, suborning all things to his own warped view of what is best. He will exploit children in his own households, and commits massacres on a frequent and ghastly scale. He is evil incarnate and the best most of his men can say is that they fear him.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

NARRATED FILMS

November 29th, 2011

I don’t like narrated films – this is a general rule and, of course, not an absolute.

I DO like “The Usual Suspects” but there the narration is a part of the plot, a twisting of events and perspectives that is done perfectly, playing with the audience, shifting their understanding, breaking down the barriers.

Most narrated films use narration as a vehicle for joining together disparate time periods, or sewing together a clunky plot. As much as I was a fan of Peter Falke, I found “Goodfellas” weakened by the narration, and as much as I love Nicholas Cage as an actor, the narration severely undermined “Lord of War”. Both would have been far better films if they had ditched the narration and paid more attention to how to tell the story through the plot, the characters and the way that the screenplay unfolds.

I decided to try to watch “The Last Airbender” the other night, but despite my open mind on the idea of a live replaying of what had been an excellent cartoon, I could not get past the idea that it was being narrated. To me that implied defeat, that the producers did not believe they could get across the point in a logical fashion, that they thought the story too confusing to be able to tell it chronologicaly, and that they did not have faith in the material they had been given.

Very very few films need narration, and those which can use it properly should do so as part of the plot – an intrinsic part of the plot, like The Murder of Roger Ackroyd where the first person voice hides the fact that the narrator is actually the murderer – a similar situation as with The Usual Suspects.

The rest of the time, narration is not only unnecessary, but jars massively on the story-telling and destroys the power of the story itself

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Website Revamp!

November 21st, 2011

Since we had already begun to post Poetry and Fan Fiction, I decided to create separate sections for them. And since I was also posting film and book reviews in the Blog, I decided to add sections for those also. In doing so, it was necessary to change the appearance of the menu bar across the top of the pages, but the displayed section titles are the same size as before, so everything remains as easy to read.

Please investigate the following new index pages

Book Reviews
Film Reviews
Fan Fiction
Poetry

The first film review is now up, this being on Apollo 18 – click to read

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Poems on AHF

October 31st, 2011

Created a poetry section – open to any submissions.
So far this:-

http://www.alternate-history-fiction.com/grey-wolfs-poems.html

Some Thoughts on Writing

October 26th, 2011

Some Thoughts on Writing

Characterisation

Characterisation in any sort of fiction, it is a complex thing, and requires a balance of the author’s memory, stylised affectation and realistic responses to situations. To briefly cover these – it is not uncommon for an author to spend time embellishing a character with mannerisms, speech patterns, and thought processes at the beginning of the novel, only to forget or confuse them later on. Stylised affectation is an amusing one, Neil Tennant’s Doctor Who had a good many, and if they are used not too often, they work well – the repeated catchphrases, the hand in the hair, and so on. But the thing with balance is that you must not over-do it – I once wrote a story (King James IV set in Carcassonne) where a character nodded a lot, to show he was thoughtful, as opposed to voicing speech – it was pointed out to me that he was rapidly becoming a nodding donkey, that the nodding was over-taking the story and that it was becoming unintentionally hilarious. As for realistic responses, this is the balance factor, this is where the mannerisms and catchphrases need to be reined in, need to be subordinated to the plot.

In fact, out of character reponses are often the most realistic response to major plot events – for instance, a character who never swears is likely to explode in expletives if bombs are going off all around him, an avowed aetheist may well issue a prayer if terrorists are opening fire on his convoy, the domineering boss may fall to pieces when faced with murder on the premises. This is all fine, is indeed excellent, as long as it does not break the characterisation. What I mean by breaking the characterisation is that after the moment of high stress the character should revert in general to the mannerisms, affectations, catchphrases and essential character as was already laid down earlier in the story – unless, of course, that a nervous breakdown is intended for the character.

Brevity

Two of my favourite authors are Bill Knox and MC Beaton and their stories whilst excellently plotted with engaging characters rarely go much above 250 pages. That is because THEY DO NOT NEED TO. Some authors pad their work so much that the plot is buried beneath pages and pages of twists and turns – Robert Ludlum, or what is now known as “the estate of Robert Ludlum” or “from an idea by Robert Ludlum” was renowned for this. Sometimes it worked fine – The Osterman Weekend, The Bourne Supremacy, etc but sometimes it was simply layers of confusion built upon misdirection built upon vague ideas – The Holcroft Memorandum would be a supreme case in point. Whilst an interesting original idea, and some good characters and really quite readable, it goes on and on, with twists and continuously added complications until in the experience of this reviewer it became unreadable. If you’ve read 300 pages and don’t know what’s going on, something is obviously wrong!

I’m not at all against large books – Battlefield Earth by L Ron Hubbard was huge but was excellent, and was a quick read because the plot progressed and you didn’t have to keep second-guessing what was happening. It is of course a pity they massacred it when they made the film…

What it is really, is that a book should be the right length for the story that has to be told, and that length should not be padded out with too many twists and turns.

Humour

I began reading a crime novel recently, described as gritty Glasgow noir, or some such. After about 70 pages I gave up. The author had concentrated so much on the grit, on making everything disgusting down to the junkies puking on themselves, that there was no humour whatsoever in the book, and no reason to read it.

Humour might be something of a misnomer. What you want is something that makes you smile when reading a book – after all it should not be a dire experience. The smile might come from conscious wordplay or amusing scenes, but can come equally from characters you are happy to read about, adventures that you smile at, something sweet, someone you feel you can identify with. Gritty, dark and disgusting does not do it for me.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Speech in Historical Fiction

September 29th, 2011

At least twice, Neil Tennant’s Doctor Who has to tell Donna, his companion, not to try to speak as the natives did at the time of their visit to them – in Shakespeare’s England, and in Roman Pompeii. Whilst in Doctor Who this is a nifty plot device to explain how all conversation is already auto-translated by the TARDIS into local speech of the equivalent era, it nevertheless has a useful lesson for the writer of historical (or allo-historical) fiction.

Go to church (yeah, go on!) and read the old order of service, feel the old words, and remember that when this was written, this was the modern (even modernised) form of English, this was not only how people spoke, it was an update from the previous version which back then seemed archaic. Open the hymn book and look for those written in the 18th century, and wonder at the weird non-rhymes, words that look like they ought to rhyme when spelt but do not when spoken. But they did, back then.

But you cannot write your story trying to ape the speech patterns and vocabulary of the past. Well, you CAN if you really want to, but few people are actually going to read it! What you need to do is to avoid obvious anachronisms, and convey clearly the meaning of what is being said, even if the exact sentence structure of, say Thomas Jefferson, is not coming through.

Remember that Shakespeare wrote in modern English at the time, and that his high-fallutin speeches for historical characters were all completely and absolutely wrong where the sentence structures and vocabulary of those times were concerned. Lady Macbeth would never have said the words attributed to her, in the way they are spoken. But she WOULD have expressed those sentiments, and with that power. That was the genius of Shakespeare – he got across the power, and he used the beauty of contemporary language to colour what was even then the increasingly distant past.

That is not to say you should not add contemporaneous words for colour, and most certainly you should refer to occupations, transport, food, current affairs etc using the terms as were then current. These fill in the flavour. But you do not need to get speech forms exactly accurate, only to avoid those which are jarringly obviously not so.

As a rule it is better to use somewhat more formal speech, and neutral contractions, in historical conversations that you convey. “Sir, I have come directly from His Majesty” gets across what is happening, even if the character in actual fact may have spoken in a less direct, or more figure-hugging sense. After all, don’t forget that the conversations in stories NEVER represent real time. This was behind the genius of “24″, to show that if you DID think in terms of direct correlation between time on the written page and time in reality you could pack an incredible amount in whilst still conveying the tension in the fact that it is only real time. It was a nonsense, of course.

Time in written form is always faster and speech in written form is always abbreviated. Open any novel and find a time reference. Read a conversation that takes place and look at the next time reference – usually something like half an hour will have occurred. Get a friend and read the relevant conversation out loud – how long? Five minutes? Ten perhaps if you include the scripted pauses and movements. Speech in a novel, or a screenplay, is an abbreviated form when compared with how much fictional time it is supposed to be taking up.

It is partly why characters never say they have to go to the toilet. The time for such unmentioned ablutions exists in the murky space between the stated time that conversations take up, and the actual time that they would. Maybe between lines ten and eleven, the duke excuses himself and has a dump, then comes back and picks up where he left off? You certainly wouldn’t want to READ about his toilet habits!

But it must be stressed again that what can really kill historical, and allo-historical, fiction is careless anachronisms. Whilst expletives and crudities often have a long and inglorious history, cliches and allegories often don’t. Any reference to “Your Country Needs You” before the Kitchener poster would be the first time it occurs, would be unique and would not ring a bell with anyone. Yes, you are probably safe with “ring a bell” – without looking it up, I’d say it either has a nautical or a clerical origin, and therefore probably goes back centuries.

Read what you write and consider these simple questions – does it convey clearly what you want to get across; does it, where appropriate, use some flavour words (costermonger, lamplighter, doxie etc); does it avoid the deadly -eth and -ost attempts to get contemporary (endureth, dost etc); and does it avoid using cliches and allegories that were not extant at the time that you are writing about?

If you focus on these you won’t go far wrong, and you should certainly equal Edward Marston or Anne Perry in their achievement, and considering how many books both authors sell you won’t be going far wrong!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

My Little Pony – Friendship Is Magic

September 26th, 2011

Until I found Pony Threads in the Paradox Victoria II forum and at www.alternatehistory.com I had no idea that My Little Pony even had a new televisual representation. For a long time I thought it simply an amusing meme, a touch of irony and a genius move to turn it into a Victoria II mod.

The first Pony Thread on www.alternatehistory.com for some reason descended into fury and attacks on the Pony fans. The second thread is calmer, and allowed for a proper discussion as to what MLP FiM really is. I was intrigued enough to hunt down the first episode on Youtube and watched it with growing amazement.

The characters were fun, were individuals in their characterisation and were sympathetic despite their flaws. The animation was great, and could be funny. I liked the plot, and the voicing. And it was not some stupid little show, it was fantastic!

Its High Fantasy…with ponies. Well, some are unicorns and some are pegasuses (pegasi) and of course the ruler is both. And of course the character inter-action and the “Friendship is Magic” element is strong in the plot. But one could say no more so than in Weiss and Hickman, or Doctor Who for that matter.

Is Lauren Faust an artistic genius?

As a footnote, I am impressed with Hasbro for the following (from Wikipedia) :-

Hasbro has not taken a stance against full episodes being available on sites like YouTube, which has enabled the growth of the fandom. Though many of the fan-created elements of the show use copyrighted footage of the show and combine them with mature-themed elements such as from R-rated films like Inglourious Basterds or foul language from artists like Wu-Tang Clan and Whitechapel, Hasbro has not taken a stance against these and has allowed them to continue to be hosted at various outlets, recognizing that the parodies and remixes form a “participatory culture” that has helped to draw larger attention to the show.

Equestria Daily – Friendship is Magic fan art – http://www.equestriadaily.com/
Lauren Faust on Deviant Art – http://fyre-flye.deviantart.com/

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Torchwood – Oswald Danes

September 26th, 2011

One thing I was struck by is that Oswald Danes was a loathful but powerful character. In part of course that is down to the writers and script-editors, but in the main it is down to Bill Pullman’s acting skills, a superlative performance.

Just like how in the Tom Cruise “War of The Worlds” one may look at his daughter and think she is rather stuck up, whiny, unable to cope with chaos, one must then remember that this is Dakota Fanning, whose natural persona is of an independent and intelligent girl. You can see her natural persona in the mini-series of Taken, but in WOTW you see her ACTING, and it is a powerful and excellent performance. You believe in the character, you get annoyed with the character, you see her as the character.

So it is with Bill Pullman in Torchwood. You watch Oswald Danes and see a complex powerful and loathsome man. You also see echoes of his previous characters, the president in Independence Day, the dork in Ruthless People, but you are seeing a totally different persona, though some mannerisms may be the same.

And I was impressed with the script writer that they allowed him an out. His death may not have been meaningful in itself, and what awaits him after death would scourge the soul, but they allowed his character a certain dignity in it. That takes courage, and it takes humanity.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf