More Movie Reviews

Because sometimes I’m out of ideas for things to talk about.

Okay, most times.

All the time.

Cake

This movie stars Jennifer Aniston as a miserable chronic pain sufferer who’s having trouble not being a total asshole to everyone around her. Granted, she has reasons for being so unhappy, but she’s still pretty terrible to people. It’s both amusing and awful, and always entertaining. What I like is that the character is unlikable but not to the point where you absolutely hate her, and everything she does makes sense. You know exactly why she does what she does and is who she is, and at the end, you can understand why she’s taking some steps towards being happy. There’s no miracle cure for her, but she is at a point where she can really live.

Strangerland

This Australian movie stars Nicole Kidman and Joseph Fiennes as the parents of two children (not young children; they’re like twelve and fifteen) who have disappeared into the outback one day just before a dust storm. There isn’t much plot to it; instead, it focuses on the toll the disappearance has on the parents as they struggle to figure out what happened. There are no easy answers. In some cases, no answers at all. It’s a good movie, and definitely heart wrenching, but don’t expect to come out knowing what happened.

Whitewash

And now we’re going to Canada. It’s a bit of an international theme. The most I can say about this movie is that it’s confusing (mostly due to the anachronistic way it’s told) but I still liked it. It’s about a snowplow driver in Quebec who hits a man and tries to cover it up. Things of course get out of control and flashbacks reveal exactly what led up to the accident. Honestly, I’m not sure why exactly I liked it, just that I found it interesting. I’m always a sucker for character driven stories I guess.

Bluebird

The fourth and last movie in today’s set of drama films is Bluebird, about a bus driver whose distraction at a critical moment causes a boy to be left on her bus overnight during freezing temperatures. Again, it’s not story heavy. It’s mostly about how one small mistake can have devastating consequences for everyone, even those who aren’t involved. The boy is hospitalized in a coma he might not recover from, the driver, Lesley, basically fired, and their families have to decide what happens next. And that really isn’t easy.

Overall, really good movies if you want character studies. I would recommend all of them. I think they’re all still on Netflix, so if you have that, be sure to check them out.

Later!

Perfection

Rant Level: Medium

I’m not going to name names here or get too specific, but a while back I was reading a book where the main character, a teenage boy, wondering what made him so special to fight the forces of evil, and being told by another character just how good and kind and downright awesome he was, proven by the fact that even after someone being attacked, all he felt was pity for the person who tried to kill him. Annnnnnd I stopped reading.

Okay, I get it. He’s on the side of good. But does he really need to be the living embodiment of perfection, to the point where he’s so sickeningly sweet that I need insulin?

Perfect characters have always bugged me. I’m not talking about the ones that are super beautiful or super smart (although those kinds often overlap with this one). I mean the ones that are just so good and nice all the time and are never irrational or selfish or freaking human. Ever. They never hurt people or cause bad things to happen, except by accident, and of course if they did they would immediately jump to rectify the situation. And I hate them.

I see myself as impossibly imperfect. I do selfish things, on purpose, and I know they’re selfish, and I feel horribly guilty afterward, even if it’s nothing truly bad (like skipping a party because I’m feeling asocial). So, knowing all these imperfections I have, and realizing that, come on, at least most of the world is flawed like me, it bothers me to read about characters who are so. frigging. perfect. There’s nothing to relate to! I suppose they have “ideals” to aspire to, but that doesn’t make them a character. It makes them an unachievable dream.

Too often these days I’m seeing characters that fall into this trope—and worse, they seem to be popping up in YA as morality lessons for why you must always be good so good things will happen to you. I think those are really dangerous lessons to teach kids. One does not equal the other, the same way evil doesn’t always lead to bad things happening (just look at banks for a good example of this). And you know what? Sometimes you do have to be tough and mean or otherwise people will walk all over you, not instantly become your friend because you’re the paragon of niceness.

I know the satisfaction of reading books comes from seeing a world that has some sort of order to it, where evil is punished and the star-crossed lovers are happy and together forever. But there has to be struggle, there has to be sacrifice, there has to be growth. If a character doesn’t come out of a book different—not just traumatized by events, but actually and significantly changed—then the story was just a plot, the characters just tools. With a perfect character, there’s nowhere to go but down.

All right, maybe the rant level was more “high” than “medium”. Whatever. What do you think of perfect characters? What about flawed ones?

Quick Reviews

Time to do some quick reviews again, because I haven’t done one since February (wow!) and how will you guys know what to read? There aren’t any book review sites anywhere on the internet!

Dr. Sleep

By Stephen King

Characters: 2 Writing 7 Story 1

Yeah, Stephen King came out with a new book. I was very excited for this since it’s about Danny Torrence after the events of THE SHINING (which will forever in my home be known as The Shinning), but that excitement was tempered. His recent works have been hit or miss, and mostly miss at that. On one hand you have FULL DARK, NO STARS, filled with one incredibly good novella and three very decent ones, and then there’s 11/22/63 which wasn’t very memorable. In regards to Dr. Sleep, surprisingly enough for a book that’s over eight hundred pages long, there’s not a lot going on with it. The writing is as rich and absorbing as ever, but the plot takes FOREVER for anything to happen and the characters, even Dan, are bland as white bread. Honestly, the character thing could probably be forgiven (see the next section for why) but again, the plot is just non-existent. The first half of the book is nothing but the main characters, Dan and a similarly gifted girl named Alba, doing stuff. Literally all it does is set up for the second half of the book where there’s actually stuff going on. But it’s Stephen King, so people will still buy it.

Joyland

Characters 4 Writing 7 Story 7

Another one by Stephen King. I got this one last Christmas (I think) and yes, I’m only just getting around to reviewing it. Oh well. I don’t think it hurt him any. Anyway, I think this was a much stronger effort than the above Dr. Sleep, and not only because it’s like half the length. The story is tight, surprisingly not horror, and with only a trace of supernatural in the supposed haunting of the above named Joyland, an amusement park. It’s really along the lines of a mystery with a touch of thriller, and I have to admit it surprised me in places (in a good way, too). The only downfall is the main character, who is flatter than the screen you’re reading this on. It doesn’t detract terribly from the story, which is interesting and most enjoyable, but it is rather disappointing considering that the other characters have more oomph to them. He’s our POV guy and he just seems like a lovestruck teenager there to witness what’s going on. Kind of a shame, but definitely a better read than Dr. Sleep.

Orphan Train

Characters 2 Writing 4 Story 5

By Christina Baker Kline

In a nutshell, this book is about two orphans, one from the thirties (who was on the eponymous orphan train) and the other from two years ago and stuck in foster care. It wasn’t a terrible book, but the fact that it’s very short probably helps things. Both the characters and the writing are weak, and the overall story is just average. The modern day orphan, Molly, dresses as and says she’s a goth, but the author obviously has no idea what goths are (at best, she’s emo). And because she’s caught trying to steal a book from a library, she gets threatened with juvie instead of just being kicked out, because that’s realistic. It does mean she has to do community service at a crotchety old lady’s house, whose past on the orphan train (an actual thing, scarily enough) makes up the other POV. It’s the alternating POV that probably saves this book. Neimh/Dorothy/Vivian in the past is a far more interesting and likable character. People also don’t always automatically hate her when they meet her, like they do with Molly for some reason. Seriously, everyone hates this girl except her foster father and her boyfriend, the latter of whom is kind of a jerk and I have no idea why they’re together because all they do is fight.

I Know This Much is True

Characters 10 Writing 9 Story 7

By Wally Lamb

Finally, something I can recommend. Be warned: this book is eight hundred and fifty pages long and is character driven, meaning there isn’t much plot. However, don’t take it as similar to Dr. Sleep. This book is one hundred percent about who Dominick Birdsey and his schizophrenic twin Thomas are. It also happens to be one of the more realistic uses of schizophrenia in literature, showing Thomas as an oversensitive child, paranoid teenager, and crumbling (although not incapable) adult. Dominick, an angry, depressed man who struggles to take care of his brother, also gets his hands on his grandfather’s autobiography about a “great man from humble beginnings”. Seriously, the man writes about himself like that. Anyway, if you like character driven stories or literary fiction (and don’t mind the word count), pick it up.

Strong Female Characters

What do you think of when someone says “strong female characters”?

I always thought it was a female whose characterization is strong, however I was reading this article, where author Sophia McDougall seems to take issue with females who are strong. In fact, she insists that the former interpretation is being conflated with the latter and females are now being written as fighters in place of actual characterization.

I have to admit, the examples Ms. McDougall cites are accurate. But those examples are also from movies rather than books, and face it, Hollywood isn’t exactly on the ball with progressive female characters in leading roles (certainly not without a male counterpart). Hollywood writes formen because they say women can identify with male characters obviously it’s impossible for men to try to identify with females.

But are books the same? There are some that are. THE HUNGER GAMES series features a female lead who is not physically strong, but still an exceptional fighter with her archery skills. She also has some other characteristics, but Katniss is very much a “strong female character”. But let’s look at another book, the post-zombie-apocalyptic FOREST OF HANDS AND TEETH. Main character Mary is not a fighter by any means, is involved in a love quadrangle, and spends more time than she should worried about her relationships with the male characters. She is also strong willed, stubborn, resourceful, and emotional. She is a real person. Well, you get what I mean.

What say you about strong female characters? Do you know of any strong characters who aren’t necessarily strong women?

Snark

Before I actually start talking about today’s subject, I have to say that I find the word “snark” really odd looking. It’s like sound you make when you’re blowing your nose.

I…I think weird thoughts sometimes.

Anyway, snark. In particular, snarky characters. In even more particular, snarky teenage protagonists. Although I can’t think of any off hand, I’ve heard this is a common trait for YA main characters and it’s both overdone and uninteresting. This of course ties my insides into a knot because I have a snarky MC.

I can understand why people might be turned off by yet another sarcastic MC, especially in the first person point of view. The thought is that the snarky voice is used so much because it’s an easy way to sound like a teenager when in reality you’re in your thirties and have three children under the age of eight.

But for me, it wasn’t about trying to sound like a teenager. My character’s sarcastic because, as anyone who has read any of my blog posts knows, I’msarcastic. Shades of snark show up in all my characters, especially my main characters, and not just the YA ones either. For me, part of crafting voice is using my own way of talking and thinking, which in my head is ninety percent complaining and making fun of stuff. And if I changed the snark in COLLAPSE, for example, I think it might lose something.

Is that true? I’m not sure, but it definitely merits thinking over. And yes, I’m going to finish with some questions. What do you think of the sarcastic teenage voice? Do any of you have examples of snarky main characters in fiction (YA or not)?

Even More Characters That Need To Go Away

Yeah, another one of these because there’s supposed to be a hurricane and even if the chances of the power going out are remote, I like to be prepared and as such I’m posting something I’ve had lying around for a while. I’d hate for you to be left without my opinions for more than a day.

You know you love them.

So here are more characters I can live without:

The Detective that’s not even a cop

Now, this isn’t to impugn cozy mysteries, where the character probing a crime/strange goings on isn’t a detective. This is more the characters that go investigate crimes like they’re cops all the time. They ask questions, take evidence (even if they’re not qualified to and from what I gather, that creates a big stink during trial), and are always treated like they’re cops even though they’ve never gone through any of the training and years of experience that’s standard for becoming a detective. Either this has to stop or I’m going down to the police station and demanding they let me investigate crimes. I’m sure you’ll read about how that goes in the newspaper.

The Super Soldier

Usually it’s a man who is the amazing, ass-kicking, martial arts master with the reflexes of a cat on Adderall, but occasionally it’s a woman. Either way the character has drifted into cliché territory. Not every character has to be the best fighter to be interesting. You can—gasp—give them other traits that color their personality and make them actual people.

The Jerkass with a Heart of Gold

If a character is surly, rude, and pushes everyone away, you just know they’re going to turn out to be the good guy. I’ve seen this a little too much in YA romances, where the brooding, aloof male doesn’t get along with the female at first but once she catches him in an act of kindness they overcome their differences and fall in love. It’s basically PRIDE AND PREJUDICE except, I don’t know, maybe Darcy is a vampire this time.

The Amnesiac

From what I understand, amnesia where you totally forget everything about your life, name, family, whatever, is really rare. When it does happened, it’s usually not from a simple bump to the head but from a mix of psychological and physiological traumas. As with most things, I blame Hollywood for this.

That’s all for now. If you’re NaNoing right now...what are you doing reading this? Get back to work!

Quick Reviews

There are a lot of factors that make a book “good”. Well-crafted writing, fleshed out, complex characters, good plot, and an engrossing story to name a few. Because I’m bored and being judgmental is always fun, here’s a sliding scale of good with some quick reviews.

10: Read to the end, keep to reread at least once a year

            Example: House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. The shear effort alone is inspiring, and shows what ten years of effort can create. Hint: a diamond that mesmerizes people into obsessively combing your book for hidden messages.

            Plot: 10 Characterization: 10 Writing: 10

9: Read to the end, keep to reread when I have the time

            Example: IT by Stephen King. One of my favorites. Good story, good characters, threatening villain, and masterful writing.

            Plot: 9 Characterization: 9 Writing: 10

8: Read to the end, keep to reread sometime in a couple of years

            Example: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. A great book that I enjoy and am in awe of. I might not need to reread it fifty times, but it’s still fun.

            Plot: 9 Characterization: 6 Writing: 8

7: Read to the end, keep to reread although probably not for three or four years, if that

            Example: Moonlight Mile by Dennis Lehane. Actually, any of his books would go here or above. He’s got some of the best characterization around, although this book was weaker than the others. Good, but not a rabid-reread.

            Plot: 6 Characterization: 4 Writing: 10

6: Read to the end, keep because although I didn’t like it a lot, I might conceivably want to reread it again in the far distant future

            Example: The Thirteenth Warrior by Michael Crichton. It was interesting, but not something I’d read over and over again. I might take a peek at it because the style and story are worth noting.

            Plot: 5 Characterization: 6 Writing: 6

5: Read to the end, throw somewhere and probably forget about it

            Example: The Help, by Kathryn Stockett. Honestly, it wasn’t a bad book. I wasn’t a huge fan of the “White people solve racism” thing, but it was well written and had okay characters.

            Plot: 3 Characterization: 5 Writing: 6

4: Read to the end, throw somewhere if I can’t give it away

            Example: The Hellbound Heart by Clive Barker. It was interesting enough to read once and I know I still have it around here somewhere, but I doubt I’ll ever read it again. The characters were very weak and the rest was only marginal.

            Plot: 5 Characterization: 2 Writing: 4

3: Read to the end only if I have to

            Example: A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving. It would be less painful if the author threw the book at my head. Nothing happening isn’t an issue if there’s still substance to the overall work, but there’s none of that here. Good writing, yes, but nothing but page after page of symbolism and talking about symbolism. Maybe it’s just me, but the characters don’t seem realistic, and that’s kind of an issue when it’s a character driven novel.

            Plot: 1 Characterization: 1 Writing: 6

2: Forget this. I don’t care.

            Example: Hannibal by Thomas Harris. He’s not a bad writer at all, but it’s like it took everything that was good about The Silence of the Lambs and crapped all over it. He took strong, interesting characters and made them weak. The plot was solid in the sense that an igloo in Florida during the summer is solid for a while.

            Plot: 1 Characterization: 1 Writing: 4

1: Burn every trace of the book from the Earth.

            Example: The Perfect Husband by Lisa Gardner. The story was filled with tension and conflict. It just wasn’t focused, believable or interesting. And the characters…they were just words on a page, not “real” people.

            Plot: 1 Characterization: 0 Writing: 1

0: I hope I never have to find out. I might have to nuke the site from orbit, just to be safe.

If you don’t get that reference, you need to watch more movies.

More Characters That Need to Go Away

A few months back, I did a post on what I think are the most annoying character types. It included the genius serial killer, the awkward genius, the jerk with the heart of gold and the beta guy who never gets the girl. And of course, I found more that just make me roll my eyes whenever I see them.

Genius Detective

I hate genius detectives so much. It’s like Sherlock Holmes worked as a character once and people have been trying for that same success. And failing. Miserably failing. Real police work is talking to people, analyzing their reactions, and gathering information, not walking into a crime scene and suddenly knowing how the killer’s mother wasn’t nice to him when he was little. Ninety percent of these genius detectives should have failed the psychological exam needed to enter the police force. Also annoying? When they aren’t even cops, yet get treated like them.

Out for Revenge

Another staple of crime fiction. Now, this isn’t referring to a Genius Serial Killer—that’s a whole different overused trope of its own. I mean the “My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” kind Su mentioned last time, where the character is avenging the death of a loved-one (or more than one). Your Punishers, your Batmen, your millions of other comic book characters that got into superheroing because they lost family. They really do seem to mostly be in comics, like it’s automatic backstory for every single hero. It’s kind of ridiculous.

The Protector

I don’t think Protectors are always men, but they are always protecting women/girls. They’re the type who might not want to help the damsel in distress at first but is moved by her plight into taking up her cause. He (to be general) will end up in a faceoff with the Big Bad and will probably be hurt, but saved by the lady to show that, hey, she’s not so helpless after all. Just ugh.

The Gay Best Friend

Not because of the gay part. More because the gay best friend is always the catty, effeminate, promiscuous guy the main character (usually female) confides to when some unfortunate misunderstanding comes between him/her and the love interest and he might as well be a picture on a wall for all that he’s listened to. He has about as much depth as a picture, too. I hate romantic comedies so much.

Lessons I Learned From…

THE INVISIBLE MAN

The great thing about the internet is that if something’s in the public domain, it’s at your fingertips for free. Also things that aren’t in the public domain, but you’re not supposed to do that.

Anyway, sometimes it’s fun to read old books. You know, the classics that helped shape pretty much every writer since then. A few weeks ago I figured I’d finally read THE INVISIBLE MAN the kids these days have been talking so much about. And while reading it, I had a few thoughts about how writing styles have changed since the book was written. So fair warning, spoilers ahead. I mean, this is just a one hundred and fifteen year old book we’re talking about…

One interesting thing is that the hero of the story, and by that I mean the one who stops the Invisible Man, isn’t introduced until the third act of the book. Partly this is because the protagonist is Griffin, the Invisible Man, and it’s his story we’re following. But there isn’t even a hint about Kemp until the actual scene where he’s introduced as an old acquaintance of Griffin.

I couldn’t believe Wells got away with that. Honestly, it felt forced with a smattering of deux ex machina thrown in to taste. However, each part of the book is mostly structured as coming from a POV opposingGriffin’s. The first is the Halls, his landlords at the inn who find him more than a little off. Then Thomas Marvel, who Griffin comes across after fleeing apprehension and becomes an unwitting ally. Then we get Kemp, who ends up saving the day.

So not only do we get an anti-hero protagonist, he remains mostly out of our, um, sight. We don’t get to hear his thoughts except during a several chapter long monologue (another thing no one could get away with today), we don’t get to understand his feelings, background and motivations. He is an Unknown and ultimately Unknowable.

On one hand, this is appropriate. On the other, it’s hard to connect to. Of course, this would have been far more acceptable in the nineteenth century, where such distance from characters is common (for example, in another Wells book, WAR OF THE WORLDS, the narrator isn’t even named).

Interesting how characterization has changed. Also the understanding that invisible eyeballs would be blind since they need light to reflect off them to see.

Have you read any of Wells’s books? What do you think about nineteenth century literature in general? And on another note, do you agree that characters have become much more important in order to tell a story?

The Action Girl

My current WIP is, for once, not Post-Apocalyptic. It’s just regular Apocalyptic. The main character is a seventeen year old named Cassidy and she’s only about seventy five percent sure she’ll live to see eighteen.

As I’ve been writing her story, one thing has become increasingly obvious about her: she’s not soft, not particularly nice at times and most of all, not girly. On a scale from Bella to Katniss, she’s definitely on the Katniss side of things, perhaps even more so. She doesn’t have a cute younger sister to take care of, either.

It makes me a little nervous. What if readers don’t connect with her? I totally think she’s awesome (well, for the most part; she has her problems, believe me) but I’m not buying the book. People might not like someone who stifles their emotions and can be cold and calculating. She may not be boring, but who wants to read about someone they don’t care about?

Still, I’m not going to drastically alter her personality since without it, pretty much nothing would happen. Cassidy is the driving force behind most of what happens because she is driven, fierce and she won’t sit around waiting for problems to solve themselves. I’d hate to lose any part of her.

 So what are your thoughts on the matter? Do you have any characters you’re worried people won’t empathize with?

The Top Four…

…Character Types I Don’t Want to See Anymore.

This was originally going to be five but I got lazy ran out of time before I could think up another one. Honestly, these four stink enough that it makes up its own fifth entry.

The Serial Killer Out For Revenge

This one has been done to boring, hackneyed death. Mostly it’s on television, but I’ve read more than a few books that have to beat this dead horse, too. He (because it’s always a male) is fixated on the main character, breaks out of jail and stalks him/her, is Hannibal-esque to varying degrees. It was probably done the worst in the Alex Cross novels, but then again nothing in those books resembles sense anyway. This trope is often done to give a Sherlock Holmes a Professor Moriarty as if it will somehow make the story interesting. Hint: it doesn’t work.

The Awkward Genius

This is something books rarely use but television almost always does. Because if someone is incredibly intelligent and adept at problem solving, then they obviously have no idea how to interact with people. Apparently social skills are the only thing about their brains that isn’tsupersized. They also have to be huge fans of Star Trek, Star Wars, and all manner of comic books. Intelligence does not equal isolation. I wish people would remember that.

Jerk with a Heart of Gold

Or basically, a guy (usually) who seems like a jerk but is actually misunderstood, usually by the heroine who ends up falling for him. There’s usually a flimsy excuse for his jerkass behavior, like a difficult childhood or the death of a loved one. These characters are so flat, they aren’t even two dimensional—yes, they only exist in the theoretical first dimension. True, there are examples of this being done well—Bruce Wayne in the Chris Nolan Batman movies, Sawyer from Lost—but a lot of times they just seem like excuses for a woman to “save” the heart and soul of a broken man.

The Beta Guy

You know, the Jacob, the Gale, the one who tries and fails to end up with the main female character. I dislike these characters for the same reason I dislike the Vengeful Serial Killer—they’re there to create something (in this case romantic/sexual tension). Granted, they can be fully fledged characters in their own right, but it always takes a backseat to the dreaded Love Triangle, leaving them underdeveloped and no one surprised when they fail to win the lady’s hand.

Any characterizations you’re sick of?