Welcome aboard as I continue the showcase with Rogue Blades Entertainment. First off, my apologies for the tardy second entry. Things got off to a slow start on the circulation to the showcase and I wanted it to have a little more ‘face’ time before I went on.
Thanks to Jeff Draper for kicking off the comments and to Jason for his replies. Jason wants the comments so feel free to speak your mind and always be civil.
I would like to explain once again that The Author Praises for Jason will appear here in the next part of this article. Currently, they are on another site. I have five sites so I keep things spread out for different hits. However, I simply repeat the same material on all sites so you aren’t missing anything. It’s just a matter of when you will be seeing it.
Before I start…
The old pun, “Editors wear many hats,” is well known. Jason it seems has taken this concept a little farther to include hat and beard. Or perhaps this is his version of good editor/bad editor?They say pictures are worth a thousand words so…
…Need I say more?
Sorry Jason I just had to do it. You can enjoy Jason’s alter ego on von Darkmoor's thoughts. He has well written and concise articles so enjoy them.
Enough of that… The next question I asked Jason was,
What do you feel it [heroic fantasy] brings to both old and new generations?
Jason replied,
“I think Heroic Fantasy brings the same thing to both generations: Hopes and thrills. For the older readers, it is the thrill of familiarity, of a return to what once was…and the hope that it is so. For the newer, it’s the thrill of freshness, of novelty…and the hope that such is truth. For both, for all readers, it is the hope that there is someone out there worthy of being named ‘hero’ – and the thrill of finding it to be true.
The more exciting authors can make it, the more believable they can make the unbelievable, the more addictive it is. Give the reader somebody he/she can be or at least believe in – no matter how remote a possibility it is, convince the reader that the possibility ‘to be’ exists – who, reluctantly or not, does what Spectra Editor David Pomerico said in his Pulse of Spectra newsletter (“Heroic Measures,” 7-2-09) – saves the “regular people.”
‘Good’ still matters. Down deep inside each of us is the recognition of what ‘good’ is, and we want someone to do good by all of us. Saving us regular people is good.
Here’s an interesting yet not new thought: Batman is actually much more of a heroic figure than Superman. Superman is the epitome of a hero. Superman possesses most every quality man deems heroic. He naturally possesses them. There is no struggle to attain or maintain them. There is no choice for him but to save the regular people. On the other hand, Batman must regularly struggle to even be considered heroic. He must overcome personal fears and biases, and thwart personal desires. It is a choice for him, and each time he must question saving the regular people. He must choose to stand for something he is not…and in that standing become it for the rest of us. Both are expected to be heroic. But every time Batman is, we’re still a little bit surprised. That’s Heroic Fantasy.” -Jason M. Waltz
Again, I think Jason made valid points. One such struggling character turned heroic is R.A. Salvatore’s Artemis Entreri, each time he chose not to do what came naturally, you were surprised. Yet, if felt good to see the change in a man who once spent his life killing without thought or condemnation. Somewhere deep in the darkness of his cold heart a hero began to form… a batman if you will. Conan a hero? I think he grew as a hero as he grew in age. For all of his savagery he had a rough code of honor and in some ways kinder than the civilized world of his time.
Frodo a hero? In the most unlikely way he was far more than a hero. Why? Because he exceeded over what was ever expected or believed he could have and all of that was by choice. A choice not to be fettered by what should have been his limitations, but to exceed those limitations for others. A a selfless sacrifice gains the status of hero.
Look at Robert E. Howard’s Kull. I think the turning point of his heroism was made in one simple decision in the short story, “Exile of Atlantis”.
*SPOILER*
Kull chose to defy the people that raised him as there own to spare a girl he did not even know. He killed her quick to save her from being burned, but his first thoughts were to free her even at the risk of killing the entire tribe. He couldn’t do that due to the thickness of her chains, but he spared her a horrible death. In my mind, that moment marked his future as true hero. He did what he thought was right despite the popular beliefs that opposed him—and nearly killed him.
In my early twenties (many moons ago) I was at a restaurant eating with some family and friends. A lady there had just changed her mind about something. I commented, “Women always change their minds.”
“We do not,” She looked at me indignantly.
“Yes you do.” I foolishly retorted. (Since then I have discovered the futileness of arguing with a woman.)
“I do not.” She smiled, “I simply reevaluate my decisions based upon newer information.”
I laughed until I cried. That statement has stuck with me for about twenty years.
I think the mark of a heroic protagonist is freedom, not freedom to do—sometimes they have little choice in that—but freedom to choose to do something heroic. To reevaluate their decisions as it were, based upon new information to do the right thing.
The final question I asked Jason was,
What direction would you like to see Heroic Fantasy take in the future?
He replied,
“I would like to see a future wherein ‘Heroic’ in fiction is recognized, is not frowned upon nor ignored. A future wherein ‘doing the right thing’ is not dictated by anything other than simply being the right thing.
Won’t happen for two reasons.
We’re flawed. Rather, the creation known as ‘mankind’ was allowed to become flawed, misaligned. Aggressive, profit- and domination-oriented decision making is our norm. Only total reprogramming of the human psyche will ever replace that. And if that were ever to occur, we wouldn’t be we any longer.
The other reason this won’t happen is that we do not want it to. If mankind were ever to attain the peace of equality and unity, the perfection, as it were, of Superman, there’d be no need of heroes. There’d certainly be no villains to thwart, no anti-establishment figures, no dissension or crime or wars requiring salvation from. By attaining our ideal, we rid ourselves of our need for heroes.
For that is part of the heroic appeal: its unattainability by all. The Few. The Proud. The Heroes. A community of superfolk – men and women composed of Kal-El’s personal fortitude – is alien to the mind of man. The best we have ever imagined was the multitude of religious pantheons nations crafted. The original ‘superior’ folk, the gods were built upon lies – for they but mimicked us on a grander scale. With infinite power came itty-bitty living space – the confines of the human mind.
We need our heroes to be more than we can be. En masse and individually. So where would I like to see Heroic Fantasy take us? To acknowledgment of our plight, our need and our chance for redemption. We need our heroes – for we’re only as good as they are.” - Jason M. Waltz
Not a whole lot I can add to those comments. That is the responsibility of the writer. More so for Hollywood has failed us and television has failed us more often than not.
The depth of the true hero is flawed. Flawed not just because the hero has faults, but flawed because the hero is believable. A flawed character is a realistic character, a character who learns from mistakes and makes those mistakes because the human persona in itself is flawed. Why is that so important? In a nutshell, because the reader can relate and with that relation they continue to move on and read.
They share the struggle with the character and if the writer can pull it off with craft and skill, the writer becomes invisible. A seamless weaver joining the hands of the hero with the reader and leaving all else behind. Simply put, a page turner. The best writers do it, and the rest [of us] struggle because they can’t.
Often I hear writers comment, “I am in control of my character, they do what I tell them to do.”
That is a mistake and unfortunately not just a mistake that only some novice writers commit. Characters do what they should do according to who and what they are. If they are real and if you expect the reader to believe they are real, you have to let them decide their own actions. Once you create a three-dimensional character they should “come to life” in your mind. If that is true, they make the decisions and you write them accordingly. If not, your character becomes just an extension of the writer and not a complete persona.
I have found myself in a pickle many times by placing my main character in a situation that I have no way of knowing how they are going to get out of it. So, I ask them, “Okay, what are you going to to do now?” Sometimes it takes a while before I get an answer. It can’t be the great omnipotent writer who gets them out, it has to be them according to there wits and perceptions or it just isn’t believable.
For instance, how believable would Frodo had been if Tolkien had him pick up a sword and slay a thousand orcs? Or Aragorn beaten by an unarmed goblin? Characters have to stay in character. That is something I learned in Drama and Theater Arts. Characters need to stay in their character not in your interpolation\interpretation of that character. That makes them believable. That is hard for a writer to do, almost like having a child and then letting that child go to make there own decisions and sometimes their own mistakes.
That is the difference between a Superman and a Batman. Superman is perfect, unflawed, everything the writer makes him per se, and Batman is what the hero truly is unbiased by what the author thinks he should be.
Agree or disagree with Jason? Put your comments below. He is not out on a witch-hunt so don’t feel bad. Jason is kind and answers questions in an established and professional manner. You have the right to agree or disagree but you do not have the right to not be civil about it… Well, at least here you don’t.
I’ll will wrap the third part up with the Author’s Praises and a little about the authors themselves and what RBE offers in terms of anthologies and novels.
I hope you enjoyed yourself and gained something from it. Until next time… well, bye.
Just some things that came to mind while reading the above post ...
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate genre fiction, here specifically refering to Sword and Sorcery (or the more modern term "Sabrepunk"), has such a bad reputation, especially compared to so-called literary fiction. Yes, action fiction is full of ... well, action ... and sometimes damsels in distress and monsters and big, burly men with weapons that glint beneath the bright sun or the dead glow of the moon. All that's true. Action-oriented fiction often isn't expected to have anything to say about the human condition or about gooshy stuff like out emotions. Yaddy, yaddy. I say that way of thinking is a bunch of bunk. Action/adventure fiction can say a heck of a lot about the human condition. It might not always be the nice things our often demasculinized culture has moved towards in the last century, but Sword and Sorcery has plenty to offer from an emotional viewpoint. Jason points out one of those things quite candidly: heroics, and what makes a hero. Other things action fiction can offer are patriotism, independence, willingness to make a difference, and something I simply call "getting things done." Heck, part of Robert E. Howard's own philosopical struggles was between the ideas behind civilizaton vs. barbarism, and it's readily available in his fiction; I'd call that pretty thought-provoking stuff.
Christopher, I don't totally concur with your idea about writers controling their characters. Let me say, I believe we are mostly on the same page, but our differnces of opinion might mostly be semantics. When I write about a character, I try to put myself into his or her head and ask myself, "What would they do in this situation?" Much as you yourself above said you do. However, I believe sometimes that can be carried too far. When the characters take over completely, the writing can suffer. The writer has to retain control of their universe. Otherwise, you can lose your story. The writer has to inject conflict in a story, because a given character might not do that naturally on their own (though some will, of course). The writer also has to keep characters in rein to some extent when it comes to motivation. If you need character X to go to point A, would he or she do it on their own? Maybe. Maybe not. If not, it's up to the writer to give such a character the right motivation. For example (an overly simplified example), maybe there's an event that causes character X to flee to point A. Maybe character X decides point A looks like a nice place to visit and decides to mosey on over there. On his own, character X might decide to just go home and get drunk and forget about point A altogether. Am I making sense? To repeat, I think we're mostly in agreement, it's a matter of using different wording.
Also, the Kull example above made me think about the ideas of a hero in Sword and Sorcery (as separate from the hero in Epic Fantasy or even the closely-related Heroic Fantasy). Often, at least in S&S, the hero is the one who has to pick between two evil options and nearly always picks the least of the two evils. A Sophie's Choice, so to speak, but with at least one option of lesser (however slightly) evilness. Kull obviously does this, as does Conan from time to time. Other S&S characters often have the same dilemma, Elric practically living by it day to day (but not always choosing the lesser of the evils).
Hi Ty and thanks for your comment,
ReplyDeleteJust to see if we are on the same page. I look at characters as AI sort of speaking, AI has standard parameters they are expected to run and have freedom to run in those said expected parameters. The job of the writer (I believe) is to make the 'cause' that forces the effect on the character. Like you said is within the standard of AI and what I agree is the standard of the character. But, the character does have to be believable.
As I said, if Frodo slaughtered a thousand orcs with how Tolkien portrayed him, that would just seem silly. A better way of solving that would be an interference of some kind that is the job of the writer. Perhaps my wording was poor [I am just a simple man], but I did mean it close to how you have described it.
The point is characters do need to be three dimensional, main characters in view, the rest are ‘support cast’ created in some ways to force the main character to do what is needed and create the situation.
In one of my upcoming novels (five or six?) the main character—a landless prince—helped fight in a battle. The battle went very bad, and he was needed in the fight. His cousin however, fell and at that point he forgets about the battle and the story switched to a smaller scale: He trying to keep his cousin alive. They lost the battle, and in fact, nearly everyone else on his side died. Was it the right choice? Perhaps and perhaps not, but it was his choice.
However, the same said main character has the blood of fiends in his bloodline that makes him in certain conditions go into a bloodrage. If that would have happened then he would have stayed in the fight and forgot about his cousin entirely. That could have turned the tide of the battle, maybe to a victory or to his death but his cousin would have died as well.
So, the final choice was me not my MC. I had to create the ‘reaction environment’ as needed to push the story ahead. My character does react as he or she is expected and my job is to do the rest.
So yes, I agree with you in part and I hope my comments weren’t that misleading. The character does need to stay in character… It is the job of the writer to create the situation that is needed for the MC to do what is needed. At least that is my understanding and if it is wrong, I am positive Kelly is going to let me know when she begins the edits on my book. *Sigh*
Jason, have any input?
Christopher, yes, I think were mostly on the same page. Sometimes, however, I read where authors talk about letting the characters run away with the plot. I can understand that happening, and it's happened to me on occassion, but I almost always backtrack and rewrite and the writing is then stronger.
ReplyDeleteAs a vague example, I scrapped the third novel of my Kobalos trilogy after I was nearly 50,000 words into it and started over from scratch. I felt one of the characters was taking over the plot and leading it along a path I deemed unwieldly. If I had followed through, the end of the tale would have been much different and, in my opinion, not as good as the one I sought. So, I started over. How did I deal with this character the second time around? I introduced more conflict, specifically conflict that would give him motivation to follow a path I deemed more appropriate to the story I was trying to tell. I think it worked. At least it did for me.
But, to be truth, writing can be awful subjective. Sometimes even seemingly hypocritical. What worked for me with that third novel might not ever work for me again. Or it might not work for you, or for another writer. And it's true it can sometimes be fun to let the characters run away with things, to see how they sort of work on their own with little influence from the writer ... it's just usually when I allow that to happen, the story peters off into nothingness. But that could just be me.