It's pretty accepted wisdom these days that if you're going to write a book with magic in, you need to put constraints on what that magic can do or the story won't be interesting. Magic wielders can make problems disappear with a wave of their hand or a well-placed word. You'll get deus ex machinas cropping up on every page. The villain of the piece will be so powerful your heroes don't stand a chance. Readers will expect rules and get frustrated when they can't find any. The story will end on page 10. And so on.
The topic came up briefly in #scifichat on Twitter a couple weeks ago. I might even have raised it myself, I don't remember. I do remember having to clarify what I meant, though, and the act of clarifying go me thinking. For me, magic rules exist on a gradient like so much else in the world of the Writing Process. I also apparently define "constraints" pretty loosely. For me, it's not just about who can do magic or how magic happens or where magic's found. It's kind of a mix of all of that, and a little more. Bear in mind this is from a reader's perspective. I have no doubt that even the looser types of constraints are pretty rigorous from the writer's end.
The loosest constraints on magic are found in books where magic is in the background or where the reader doesn't need a detailed description of how magic works to understand the story. The castle flies, but we don't need to know why or how. The elves in the forest just kind of are. The heroine steps through a doorway and finds herself on another continent. People can cast spells in multiple ways and magic rarely if ever has negative consequences for the caster. Ambient natural magic, the sort that humans don't control, also fits here. It's hard to tell if the writer's created rules or is just working from what feels right, but there's no question the story works.
The next level up from that are magic systems that are nearly identical to the ones listed above, except there are a handful of things magic can't do, or can't do well, or people can't do magic until they're trained. Maybe magic doesn't allow time travel or maybe it doesn't work well on animals. Maybe you get magical training on your parents' knees, or maybe you go to school for it. Magic's still pretty much in the background and the story can almost but not quite be told without it.
Then we start seeing systems where magic can do just about anything, but only certain people can make it work. Maybe they've got fairy blood. Maybe they're wizards. Maybe it's anyone with blue eyes or red hair. I'd rank systems where magic can do anything but involves intricate spellwork or specific conditions at this level too, along with magic that does anything but is hard to control. And systems that involve magical backlash are probably here too—where casting a spell diminishes personal energy or causes pain, and magicians can do anything as long as they can handle the kickback. Making it harder for the characters to do magic makes it harder for them to achieve their goals and I think, though I'm not sure, that this is about where most of the action-oriented fantasies come in.
After the broad application levels, the potential of magic starts narrowing. Maybe different people do different sorts of magic, so the guy's who good with fire is going to suck at or be unable to read the future, and the guy who reads the future can't make a potion to save his life. Maybe magic can only apply to living things, or inorganics, or the elements. Maybe spells end after thirteen hours.
From there, magic systems narrow further by imposing more and more limitations, to the point where blue-eyed, red-headed daughters of seventh sons can only control earth magic under the full moon at midnight if they've had twenty years of training and eaten special herbs beforehand. I think when you get that complicated and make magic almost impossible to do that the fantasy becomes less fun, but maybe that's me. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.
I think a similar series of gradients probably applies to science fiction. We've got hard science fiction, after all, and various "soft" sci-fis until we hit space operas like Star Wars which can sometimes be classed as fantasy. It's probably even possible to sync the two gradients up and create one that encompasses all of speculative fiction. I am, however, too lazy to do that, but maybe I've inspired you?
Oh, and if anyone has thoughts on this, positive, negative, or simply thoughts, let me know. I like discussions. :)
Showing posts with label urban fantasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label urban fantasy. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thursday, June 9, 2011
A Sense of Place
I wrote this post for two reasons. I went home last week*, and I've been reading. Home's kind of a fluid concept, you see. It's my apartment, my neighbourhood, my city, my home region, and my parents' house, which is what I mean in this case. My family's moved six times that I remember, though the last two houses I haven't lived in as much as visited occasionally. I'm most strongly bonded to the Cariboo, because that's where I spent the greater part of my childhood. It's cattle country, forest country, gold rush country, small-town Canada. I could wax poetic, but I won't unless I'm begged to in the comments. Point is, when I'm asked where I'm from, I don't say "Vancouver" and I don't say "Keremeos", I say "Williams Lake" because that's where I graduated from, and when I'm seized with homesickness or want to show off my roots to my friends, I pull up pictures of grasslands, snow, fir and spruce forests, and rodeos.
How does this tie into reading? "Home" is a setting. It's important to every character. And the location they're in now is also important, but in a slightly different way. "Home" shapes a person, defines their values and outlook and attitudes. The current setting may do the same, especially if it doubles as "home", but it provides a lot more too—dangers, hangouts, classes, ambience. You know, those background things that contribute to the story.
I could veer off now and talk about how where a character's from shapes who they are and how they'll approach the current setting and situation, but that's a big and messy topic. Maybe I'll tackle it later, maybe I won't. Instead, I want to talk about the three degrees of setting that I've noticed: background, descriptive, and realized.
Background setting is the sort you barely notice. Sometimes it's a sign that a writer isn't trying or is just starting out. Sometimes it's not something that's necessary to the scene/chapter/book. For instance, "I turned left into an alley" may not need a lot of description because most people have seen an alley before. Same with "We landed at JFK, found our luggage, and hailed a taxi" and "My jerk of an ex was at the laundromat when I got there." The crowds at the airport and the color of the walls would slow the transition down, and the smell of soap may not even register to someone focussed on another person.
Setting becomes a kind of shorthand in those instances, and that's cool. But when a writer says, "This book is set in New York" but doesn't give any sort of local flavor, doesn't recognize that the city has a culture (or twenty), that's also background setting. At a story level, merely giving a nod to setting isn't good. Readers can't picture everything, and if a setting just gets lip service, there's a good chance the writer didn't research—which means there'll be mistakes. Imagine a NYC where everyone drives everywhere, has the same accent, has the same fashion sense, is middle-class, and can afford a large apartment… Yeah.
Descriptive setting is one level above that, and is, at least in the sorts of books I read, the most common. There's a sentence or two about every location, and information about the larger setting (city, country, era) worked in in small chunks. I get a sense that the writer's done the research, and I have enough info to picture a scene in my head. I also get character information out of the descriptions—how someone decorates their apartment or describes a setting tells volumes.
On the scene level, we're talking about things like "The kitchen was bright and sunny. Two green enamel pots sat on the wood-burning stove, and a pie was cooling on the lace-trimmed window ledge." and "Rain poured down on the city of Ithyra, funneling off the photovoltaic roofs and forcing the cars to ground level. The climate controller was unaccountably offline and nobody knew why." These kinds of descriptions set the mood for the scene, and prime readers for what's coming. You wouldn't expect the kitchen scene to include ninjas or gun battles, and you wouldn't expect a heartwarming story in the Intrepid British Youngster vein to take place in Ithyra.**
On a book level, all those smaller descriptions add up to say, "This book is set in Place and Time and the writer knows what they're doing. They've even done research and stuff. Can't you picture this place?" but that's about as far as they go. Books where descriptive setting is the upper limit are great fun. They're interesting and educational. You can't entirely drop the plot into a different setting and have it work. But at the same time, descriptive setting books don't transport me.
Realized setting transports me. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, unfortunately, but basically, all the descriptive setting stuff blends with the story and the characters and the dialogue to give the reader a sense of actually being in Place and Time. It's inconceivable that the story could be anywhere else. It takes an incredible amount of work to pull off, but it's so very, very worth it. I'm talking about books like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, Dickens, Hardy, Thackeray, and Tolkien (to name some well-known examples), which leave me in a puddle of writerly goo gibbering about wanting to write like that when I grow up. And I do want to, really, that would be fantastic—but I'm not there yet, so I'm forgoing examples. To give some would probably mean writing an entire book anyway, due to the nature to realized settings, and … yeah, working on that. Someday.
Note that I'm not talking only about fiction, though that's where setting's most obvious. I've read memoirs and event histories where descriptive setting is all that's needed, and I've read memoirs and event histories where I'm in that place while the action is happening. It's pretty cool, getting a sense of what it was like living there and then. And I've also read non-fiction that's about facts and arguments rather than stories (a socioeconomic book comes to mind), and setting doesn't factor into those much at all. It all depends on subject matter and context—but if you're telling a story and you're not doing anything with setting, you should get on that. It's important.
* Hence the lack of posts, if anyone was wondering.
** Though more power to you if you pull that off. Intrepid Youngster sci-fi would rock.
How does this tie into reading? "Home" is a setting. It's important to every character. And the location they're in now is also important, but in a slightly different way. "Home" shapes a person, defines their values and outlook and attitudes. The current setting may do the same, especially if it doubles as "home", but it provides a lot more too—dangers, hangouts, classes, ambience. You know, those background things that contribute to the story.
I could veer off now and talk about how where a character's from shapes who they are and how they'll approach the current setting and situation, but that's a big and messy topic. Maybe I'll tackle it later, maybe I won't. Instead, I want to talk about the three degrees of setting that I've noticed: background, descriptive, and realized.
Background setting is the sort you barely notice. Sometimes it's a sign that a writer isn't trying or is just starting out. Sometimes it's not something that's necessary to the scene/chapter/book. For instance, "I turned left into an alley" may not need a lot of description because most people have seen an alley before. Same with "We landed at JFK, found our luggage, and hailed a taxi" and "My jerk of an ex was at the laundromat when I got there." The crowds at the airport and the color of the walls would slow the transition down, and the smell of soap may not even register to someone focussed on another person.
Setting becomes a kind of shorthand in those instances, and that's cool. But when a writer says, "This book is set in New York" but doesn't give any sort of local flavor, doesn't recognize that the city has a culture (or twenty), that's also background setting. At a story level, merely giving a nod to setting isn't good. Readers can't picture everything, and if a setting just gets lip service, there's a good chance the writer didn't research—which means there'll be mistakes. Imagine a NYC where everyone drives everywhere, has the same accent, has the same fashion sense, is middle-class, and can afford a large apartment… Yeah.
Descriptive setting is one level above that, and is, at least in the sorts of books I read, the most common. There's a sentence or two about every location, and information about the larger setting (city, country, era) worked in in small chunks. I get a sense that the writer's done the research, and I have enough info to picture a scene in my head. I also get character information out of the descriptions—how someone decorates their apartment or describes a setting tells volumes.
On the scene level, we're talking about things like "The kitchen was bright and sunny. Two green enamel pots sat on the wood-burning stove, and a pie was cooling on the lace-trimmed window ledge." and "Rain poured down on the city of Ithyra, funneling off the photovoltaic roofs and forcing the cars to ground level. The climate controller was unaccountably offline and nobody knew why." These kinds of descriptions set the mood for the scene, and prime readers for what's coming. You wouldn't expect the kitchen scene to include ninjas or gun battles, and you wouldn't expect a heartwarming story in the Intrepid British Youngster vein to take place in Ithyra.**
On a book level, all those smaller descriptions add up to say, "This book is set in Place and Time and the writer knows what they're doing. They've even done research and stuff. Can't you picture this place?" but that's about as far as they go. Books where descriptive setting is the upper limit are great fun. They're interesting and educational. You can't entirely drop the plot into a different setting and have it work. But at the same time, descriptive setting books don't transport me.
Realized setting transports me. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, unfortunately, but basically, all the descriptive setting stuff blends with the story and the characters and the dialogue to give the reader a sense of actually being in Place and Time. It's inconceivable that the story could be anywhere else. It takes an incredible amount of work to pull off, but it's so very, very worth it. I'm talking about books like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, Dickens, Hardy, Thackeray, and Tolkien (to name some well-known examples), which leave me in a puddle of writerly goo gibbering about wanting to write like that when I grow up. And I do want to, really, that would be fantastic—but I'm not there yet, so I'm forgoing examples. To give some would probably mean writing an entire book anyway, due to the nature to realized settings, and … yeah, working on that. Someday.
Note that I'm not talking only about fiction, though that's where setting's most obvious. I've read memoirs and event histories where descriptive setting is all that's needed, and I've read memoirs and event histories where I'm in that place while the action is happening. It's pretty cool, getting a sense of what it was like living there and then. And I've also read non-fiction that's about facts and arguments rather than stories (a socioeconomic book comes to mind), and setting doesn't factor into those much at all. It all depends on subject matter and context—but if you're telling a story and you're not doing anything with setting, you should get on that. It's important.
* Hence the lack of posts, if anyone was wondering.
** Though more power to you if you pull that off. Intrepid Youngster sci-fi would rock.
Monday, March 28, 2011
What Makes a Strong Woman?
In the internet circles I travel in, it's hard to avoid running into feminist discussions, reviews of books with strong female characters, critiques of mass media's portrayal of women primarily as sex objects, so on, so forth. And while I'm a feminist, I'm not a Feminist, and so don't tend to enter in the discussion. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of feminist politics, feminist history, and the current discussions of feminism online to do so. I'm always afraid that something I say will be a) stupid b) unhelpful c) coming back to haunt me when I'm published.
But. I really enjoy books and movies with strong women, and I enjoy writing strong women, and I've wanted to write this post for a while. Today feels like the day to do it. Nothing to do with internet circles. Just my mood.
The way I see it, there are two types of female characters. There's the woman who's written to a stereotype and/or a male fantasy, who's defined on some level by men, and there's the woman who's written without being defined and without being a stereotype, and who therefore comes across as an actual person. And Stereotype Woman comes in two types. She's either an actual stereotype, such as the nosy neighbour, the unsatisfied wife, the ditz, or the whore, or she's dressed in leather and spandex, given weapons and weapons training, and pointed at bad guys. There seems to be a subset of humanity who believes that a physically tough, highly sexualized woman in bondage gear is strong without needing motives, backstory, or a personality. Which is not to say that those kinds of women aren't occasionally fun to watch or read, but I wouldn't call them strong the way I'd call the Real Women strong.
The qualities that make a strong woman are hard to pin down. I'd say "All strong women are confident in themselves and dominant in relationships", the way a lot of urban fantasy heroines are, except I've seen female characters who are submissive, who lack confidence, who I wouldn't call weak. Most of those women are trying to get out of their situations, which I think is what makes them strong. Of course, both these types, and many more, are found in reality, so why not put them in fiction? Is a woman who takes matters into her own hands the only kind of strong?
Maybe, for one definition of the word. A woman who doesn't cave under pressure, who fights back and takes names, is the kind of "strong woman" we generally think of. I like these women. They're all kinds of awesome. But there's another definition of "strong" that also applies, and that's "well-crafted". Writers can easily create* realistic-feeling women who don't fight. A housewife who's not confined by cleaning, cooking, and children, who has hobbies, a social life, and political opinions, who's content to be background to her husband because she's an introvert and being dominant doesn't work for her. Or a cashier at the supermarket who has a horrible boss and hates her job, but still goes to work because her diabetes meds and student loans don't pay for themselves. They're strong too, just not the same kind of badass as the woman with the samurai sword who knows them.
Now, obviously writers can't develop every single woman in a story into a Real Woman. The minor characters who only get a scene or a passing mention don't need to be fleshed out to the same degree and can certainly be stereotypes or described in a phrase. Large amounts of detail for all characters is overwhelming and detracts from the protagonist's awesomeness. But, in my opinion, if a female character has more than a couple lines, or appears in several scenes, or has some affect on the plot, she should be a Real Woman.
Crap, you're thinking, I've got Stereotype Women all over this story! Breathe. That's fixable. Did you notice how I took common character types (the housewife, the bitter cashier) and added details? You simply need to give the stereotypes a background, or hobbies, or tastes, or any combination thereof, and you'll be better off than you were. I generally do this by taking a character type and adding in a couple unexpected but not-implausible details. A cat lady could be a former spy. A typical ditz-shopper type could be gay, or have a soft spot for alien invasion flicks, or be a hard-nosed reporter playing dumb for a scoop. The trophy wife may have married for money, but she's using it to save the Amazon rainforest and rehabilitate animals, not to increase her chest size or have a room full of shoes. … Suddenly they're a lot more real, no?
So watch for strong women, in books, movies, television, and reality. Celebrate them, because they're needed. And when you're writing, if you're a writer, try to put as many in as possible, and always ask, "Can I make this character female? Can I make her real, not a stereotype?" Because the answer's "Yes" more often than you think.
* Well, for a certain definition of 'easy'.
But. I really enjoy books and movies with strong women, and I enjoy writing strong women, and I've wanted to write this post for a while. Today feels like the day to do it. Nothing to do with internet circles. Just my mood.
The way I see it, there are two types of female characters. There's the woman who's written to a stereotype and/or a male fantasy, who's defined on some level by men, and there's the woman who's written without being defined and without being a stereotype, and who therefore comes across as an actual person. And Stereotype Woman comes in two types. She's either an actual stereotype, such as the nosy neighbour, the unsatisfied wife, the ditz, or the whore, or she's dressed in leather and spandex, given weapons and weapons training, and pointed at bad guys. There seems to be a subset of humanity who believes that a physically tough, highly sexualized woman in bondage gear is strong without needing motives, backstory, or a personality. Which is not to say that those kinds of women aren't occasionally fun to watch or read, but I wouldn't call them strong the way I'd call the Real Women strong.
The qualities that make a strong woman are hard to pin down. I'd say "All strong women are confident in themselves and dominant in relationships", the way a lot of urban fantasy heroines are, except I've seen female characters who are submissive, who lack confidence, who I wouldn't call weak. Most of those women are trying to get out of their situations, which I think is what makes them strong. Of course, both these types, and many more, are found in reality, so why not put them in fiction? Is a woman who takes matters into her own hands the only kind of strong?
Maybe, for one definition of the word. A woman who doesn't cave under pressure, who fights back and takes names, is the kind of "strong woman" we generally think of. I like these women. They're all kinds of awesome. But there's another definition of "strong" that also applies, and that's "well-crafted". Writers can easily create* realistic-feeling women who don't fight. A housewife who's not confined by cleaning, cooking, and children, who has hobbies, a social life, and political opinions, who's content to be background to her husband because she's an introvert and being dominant doesn't work for her. Or a cashier at the supermarket who has a horrible boss and hates her job, but still goes to work because her diabetes meds and student loans don't pay for themselves. They're strong too, just not the same kind of badass as the woman with the samurai sword who knows them.
Now, obviously writers can't develop every single woman in a story into a Real Woman. The minor characters who only get a scene or a passing mention don't need to be fleshed out to the same degree and can certainly be stereotypes or described in a phrase. Large amounts of detail for all characters is overwhelming and detracts from the protagonist's awesomeness. But, in my opinion, if a female character has more than a couple lines, or appears in several scenes, or has some affect on the plot, she should be a Real Woman.
Crap, you're thinking, I've got Stereotype Women all over this story! Breathe. That's fixable. Did you notice how I took common character types (the housewife, the bitter cashier) and added details? You simply need to give the stereotypes a background, or hobbies, or tastes, or any combination thereof, and you'll be better off than you were. I generally do this by taking a character type and adding in a couple unexpected but not-implausible details. A cat lady could be a former spy. A typical ditz-shopper type could be gay, or have a soft spot for alien invasion flicks, or be a hard-nosed reporter playing dumb for a scoop. The trophy wife may have married for money, but she's using it to save the Amazon rainforest and rehabilitate animals, not to increase her chest size or have a room full of shoes. … Suddenly they're a lot more real, no?
So watch for strong women, in books, movies, television, and reality. Celebrate them, because they're needed. And when you're writing, if you're a writer, try to put as many in as possible, and always ask, "Can I make this character female? Can I make her real, not a stereotype?" Because the answer's "Yes" more often than you think.
* Well, for a certain definition of 'easy'.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Urban Fantasy and Exaggeration
As everyone who follows this blog probably knows by now, I'm big into urban fantasy, both as a writer and reader. This means that I come across, and read, a whole lot of blog posts and internet articles about urban fantasy every week, as well as participating in #ufchat on Twitter. And I've noticed something. A lot of these sources exaggerate.
I know exaggeration generally occurs as a rhetorical device and is being used to highlight certain aspects of the genre. Thing is, this highlighting is frequently in a "my UF doesn't do that" or "we've moved past that as a genre" or "let's tone things down" vein, and I'm not sure it's entirely accurate in that regard. In fact, I think it may perpetuate myths and misunderstandings, and possibly turn people away who'd otherwise read the books in question. (I'm guilty of this highlighting too, by the way.)
I'm not exceptionally well-read in UF, admittedly. There are too many novels for me to even have read half of them. But I'd like to think I'm reasonably versed in what's going on in the genre, and I have to say, I've yet to see some of the heroines people discuss like they're everywhere. You know—the red-headed stick figure in leather, corset, and heels, wielding a longsword or high-calibre weapon without a realistic muscle or body mass. The busty bombshell who shags anyone with a six-pack and a Clint Eastwood voice. The woman who whines about how she's got it so hard when she breaks a nail in the middle of a case and wouldn't you know it but everyone's out of fake nails, not to mention her favourite color of nail polish.
Of course, there are protagonists who fit parts of these stereotypes, but in all the cases I've seen, it's just one part of their character and it comes from either a part of the world-building or in the character's backstory. Maybe they need to wear leather because that's the only thing tough enough to not fall off in a fight. Maybe they sleep around because they've got deep-seated issues about their body and the nature of sex. Maybe the girl with the broken nail is a beauty pageant contestant trying to find out who's been slipping vampire serum to the competition.
Okay, maybe that last one's stretching it.
I also don't see a lot of the broad-chested, sexist, quasi-abusive he-men who are supposed to run rampant through urban fantasies, or the highly-formulaic plots, or the excessively whiny vegan vamps. They're there, to a degree, but the exaggerations … well, exaggerate the character traits, and formulaic plots? UF is by and large a mystery genre. There's only so much you can do with "crime happens, someone goes to solve it, various bad things happen, clues appear, mystery solved". Even still, there's an awful lot of potential even in a single world. The series I follow, which, okay, most are only 4-6 books right now, haven't been played out yet, and the worlds are actually expanding.
These exaggerations of characters and tropes don't just come from haters, though there are certainly people who look down on urban fantasy and play things up to point out flaws. Writers and readers say these sorts of things all the time. "More real vamps!" they say. "More realistic characters!" they say. "More creative plots!" they say. If anyone's reading books with fake vamps and shallow characters and hackneyed plots, they're, I'm sorry to say, not looking hard enough. Not really looking that hard at all. As far as I can tell, good urban fantasy, with rounded, realistic characters, good romances, good mysteries, and complicated, layered worlds is all over the place. By exaggerating the genre, not that that's always a bad thing, we're making people think that it doesn't. Ourselves included.
I know exaggeration generally occurs as a rhetorical device and is being used to highlight certain aspects of the genre. Thing is, this highlighting is frequently in a "my UF doesn't do that" or "we've moved past that as a genre" or "let's tone things down" vein, and I'm not sure it's entirely accurate in that regard. In fact, I think it may perpetuate myths and misunderstandings, and possibly turn people away who'd otherwise read the books in question. (I'm guilty of this highlighting too, by the way.)
I'm not exceptionally well-read in UF, admittedly. There are too many novels for me to even have read half of them. But I'd like to think I'm reasonably versed in what's going on in the genre, and I have to say, I've yet to see some of the heroines people discuss like they're everywhere. You know—the red-headed stick figure in leather, corset, and heels, wielding a longsword or high-calibre weapon without a realistic muscle or body mass. The busty bombshell who shags anyone with a six-pack and a Clint Eastwood voice. The woman who whines about how she's got it so hard when she breaks a nail in the middle of a case and wouldn't you know it but everyone's out of fake nails, not to mention her favourite color of nail polish.
Of course, there are protagonists who fit parts of these stereotypes, but in all the cases I've seen, it's just one part of their character and it comes from either a part of the world-building or in the character's backstory. Maybe they need to wear leather because that's the only thing tough enough to not fall off in a fight. Maybe they sleep around because they've got deep-seated issues about their body and the nature of sex. Maybe the girl with the broken nail is a beauty pageant contestant trying to find out who's been slipping vampire serum to the competition.
Okay, maybe that last one's stretching it.
I also don't see a lot of the broad-chested, sexist, quasi-abusive he-men who are supposed to run rampant through urban fantasies, or the highly-formulaic plots, or the excessively whiny vegan vamps. They're there, to a degree, but the exaggerations … well, exaggerate the character traits, and formulaic plots? UF is by and large a mystery genre. There's only so much you can do with "crime happens, someone goes to solve it, various bad things happen, clues appear, mystery solved". Even still, there's an awful lot of potential even in a single world. The series I follow, which, okay, most are only 4-6 books right now, haven't been played out yet, and the worlds are actually expanding.
These exaggerations of characters and tropes don't just come from haters, though there are certainly people who look down on urban fantasy and play things up to point out flaws. Writers and readers say these sorts of things all the time. "More real vamps!" they say. "More realistic characters!" they say. "More creative plots!" they say. If anyone's reading books with fake vamps and shallow characters and hackneyed plots, they're, I'm sorry to say, not looking hard enough. Not really looking that hard at all. As far as I can tell, good urban fantasy, with rounded, realistic characters, good romances, good mysteries, and complicated, layered worlds is all over the place. By exaggerating the genre, not that that's always a bad thing, we're making people think that it doesn't. Ourselves included.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Quick Update
I know it's not Friday. I know I didn't post on Friday. I didn't have the time or the energy. You see, I went home to help my parents in the final couple days of packing for a move, which meant limited net access, limited sleep, and a huge amount of stress. And Friday was my Get Back To The City In Time For Work day, which meant limited net access and a slightly smaller amount of stress. I got to work with 10 minutes to spare.
Three thoughts:
1. Possibly I need to travel long distances without internet more often, because I wrote about five pages of new text for the WIP while in transit. (I don't drive.)
2. My dad has an incredibly awesome personal library. I'm jealous.
3. If you're into urban fantasy and haven't read the October Daye series, stop what you're doing, buy all four books, and read them now. They're a perfect blend of mystery, fantasy, and humor, about a half-fae PI-cum-knight in San Francisco, who keeps getting pulled into Faerie to find its criminals for them. I read the fourth and latest book on my trip, while not writing or packing, and made the mistake of reading the sample from book five. Mistake, I say, because I want that book yesterday! And I have to wait September. I swear, the books keep getting better, and they were good to start with.
Three thoughts:
1. Possibly I need to travel long distances without internet more often, because I wrote about five pages of new text for the WIP while in transit. (I don't drive.)
2. My dad has an incredibly awesome personal library. I'm jealous.
3. If you're into urban fantasy and haven't read the October Daye series, stop what you're doing, buy all four books, and read them now. They're a perfect blend of mystery, fantasy, and humor, about a half-fae PI-cum-knight in San Francisco, who keeps getting pulled into Faerie to find its criminals for them. I read the fourth and latest book on my trip, while not writing or packing, and made the mistake of reading the sample from book five. Mistake, I say, because I want that book yesterday! And I have to wait September. I swear, the books keep getting better, and they were good to start with.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
50 Rules to Follow If I End Up In an Urban Fantasy Novel
This is inspired by The 213 things Skippy is no longer allowed to do in the U.S. Army. If for some reason you have not read that list, go and do that now. Do not drink or eat while doing so. Then come back and read this homage.
- I will not ask paranormal detectives or supernatural cops if vampires or werewolves are better in bed.
- I will not ask anyone if vampires or werewolves are better in bed.
- Especially if they're vampires or werewolves.
- I will not ask vampire hunters if they have a Mr. Pointy.
- I will not conjure demons to do my food runs for me.
- I will not pay delivery people in fairy gold.
- Love potions never end well.
- I will not ask fairies if they know Legolas.
- I will not ask fairies if they know Frodo.
- I will not ask fairies if they know Tinkerbell.
- I will not ask fairies if they know Spock.
- Fairies are not aliens. Even if they come from another dimension.
- "Hot enough for ya?" is not a good conversation opener with demons.
- I will not explain Twilight to a vampire.
- I will not explain Twilight to a werewolf.
- Explaining any other paranormal book or show to the undead will just give them ideas. Don't do it.
- I will not pray to any gods. They tend to be creatively literal when answering.
- I will not take the names of gods in vain. Many gods have power over lightning and I like my body uncharred.
- I will not mention leather pants in the vicinity of a dedicated bounty hunter.
- I will not wear leather pants for any reason.
- I will not tell female bounty hunters, police officers, private detectives, or anyone else who may encounter the undead on a daily basis, that they would look better in heels.
- Axes are not for chopping vegetables.
- Neither are swords, hunting knives, throwing knives, or any other blade weapon.
- That's probably not V8 in the fridge.
- Witches and wizards are sick of Harry Potter jokes.
- Broomsticks are not romantic presents. Neither are sunblock, shaving cream, razors, embalming fluid, formaldehyde, garlic, Holy water, religious symbols, mirrors, or medical thread.
- If I see something unfamiliar and mobile, I will not poke it with a stick.
- Unless I know what I'm doing.
- And have the appropriate weapon handy.
- If I have to explain the unexplainable, it's a gas leak.
- Ghosts do not act like Casper.
- I will not assume the moaning, dirty people dressed in rags are alive just because they're moving.
- I will not assume anything is alive just because it's moving.
- Decapitation is always a solution when battling monsters.
- Unless it's a hydra.
- I will keep sharp, pointy objects on me at all times.
- I will keep peace offerings on me at all times.
- Especially when crossing bridges.
- I will not whistle after dark. Nor will I attempt to summon Bloody Mary.
- I will not use anyone's emergency battle salt or defensive garlic as seasoning.
- I will not address any supernatural law enforcement professional as "babe", "hot stuff", "Great and Powerful Master", "Wonder Woman", "Superman," "Wizzard", or "Your Highness". The correct forms of address are "sir," "ma'am," "detective," "officer", and "Mr./Ms. ___."
- Just because a car has an anti-damage spell does not mean I can take it on a wild joyride through the city.
- Even if it's my car.
- I will not rub oil lamps in the hopes that a genie will appear.
- I will not make crank calls about monsters or the undead in the hopes that the hot detective shows up to deal with it. Similarly, I will not make crank calls about dragons for the firemen.
- If someone offers me free spells, enchanted objects, granted wishes, the best sex I've ever had, prophecies of my future, or magic beans, I will say no, even if it's really tempting and even if I know how to get out of the ensuing situation.
- I will assume there is a Dark Lord even if I see no evidence supporting their existence. There is always a Dark Lord.
- If a book is giving off vibes, bound in chains, screaming, or appears to be bound in skin or written in blood, I will not open it.
- I will not panic, not even if there is an apocalypse or a million undead on my doorstep. Panic does not solve anything.
- I will try to get out of the novel as soon as possible, if not earlier. And then I will kill the author with my novel-acquired skills.
Feel free to add your own in the comments. Hope you liked!
Monday, February 21, 2011
UF as a Window into Society
Lately I've been reading a cultural history of the Great Depression*. I won't go into details, as they're likely to bore you, but the thesis of the book—the whole concept of cultural history, actually—has opened my eyes. See, cultural historians examine books, art, movies, songs, and other products of human culture, to get a sense of the era, or civilization, or subculture, or what-have-you, and it's been interesting to see how the songs I know, the movies I've heard of but haven't seen, the books, and the photos all express the same dynamics, the same attitudes, the same conflicts.
Can you guess where I'm going with this?
Okay, maybe not. I've been thinking, this last day or so: What can we learn about our culture, or what would future historians see, by examining urban fantasy?
Disclaimer: I am not a historian. I have not taken a single post-secondary history class. Nor am I an expert on urban fantasy. I am bound to miss things, and probably going to get things wrong. This is entirely my own opinion and observations. If you must yell at me over anything in this post, please do so nicely. I'm not intending to step on toes or anything. Etc. etc. etc.
Urban fantasy frequently features loners, love triangles, noir settings, monsters, law enforcement professionals, and strong women even with male main characters. The triangles, the noir, the monsters, the women (often with phallic symbols)—those're all about sex. The culture of the early 2000s likes sex. This shouldn't surprise anyone. But also:
The chicks-with-leather type of urban fantasy isn't the only kind out there, however. There's also the mythic fantasy vein, where there's a quest of some kind through our world and maybe through a form of Faerie as well, and the Hero's Journey is adhered too, and there's beauty and magic. I don't know much about what's new in mythic fantasy, or what the writers I know of are doing differently than they were before. I think there's more technology and technological fae creeping in, but that's simply realism. We're a more technological society. If the hero didn't have a cell phone and an internet connection, s/he wouldn't be believable.
I'd delve into details here, examining specific books or series, but I think it's too soon. Which books are going to stand the test of time and be known in 20 years? In 50? What are people going to remember once UF has faded as a genre? How representative of society are individual books or series, anyway? How can I be sure enough of you have read the books I have? And do I have the right to get into that level of detail and examination when, as I've noted, I don't actually have any history credentials?
I'll leave the detail work for coming generations, then, and throw this idea of cultural history out to you, readers, as food for thought. Have I missed anything? Are there other interpretations? Anything you want to add?
* It's research, okay?
Can you guess where I'm going with this?
Okay, maybe not. I've been thinking, this last day or so: What can we learn about our culture, or what would future historians see, by examining urban fantasy?
Disclaimer: I am not a historian. I have not taken a single post-secondary history class. Nor am I an expert on urban fantasy. I am bound to miss things, and probably going to get things wrong. This is entirely my own opinion and observations. If you must yell at me over anything in this post, please do so nicely. I'm not intending to step on toes or anything. Etc. etc. etc.
Urban fantasy frequently features loners, love triangles, noir settings, monsters, law enforcement professionals, and strong women even with male main characters. The triangles, the noir, the monsters, the women (often with phallic symbols)—those're all about sex. The culture of the early 2000s likes sex. This shouldn't surprise anyone. But also:
- loners and noir - The City isolates people, forms them into nations of one, cuts them off from others. We can't live without the City, but we can't really live with it, either.
- noir - We live in dark, depressing times, folks. There's a lot of fear and worry out there. One thing I've learned from Dancing in the Dark is that noir sprang up as a reaction to the Great Depression, with a dash of 1920s disenchantment. Instead of focussing on the grittiness of the rural poor, some writers focussed on the grittiness of the city, looking at the downtrodden there. (For downtrodden, substitute monsters?)
- monsters - These represent various human minorities—ethnicities, women, the poor, LGBT. We're a much more integrated, global, holistic society these days, and more aware of other cultures and subcultues. It makes sense that our fiction reflects that.
- strong women - Women may not be completely equal with men in reality, but they're much more equal than they have been in eras past. They're allowed to be strong, independent leaders, among many other things. So why not put strong women in fiction? Especially when it's noir fiction, which (I get the impression) typically features strong, alpha males? However, the fact that so many of these women appear with phallic symbols in tow means that women are still trying for equality for men, in a way. You need … certain bits of anatomy to qualify for higher wages, in many places. To pick one of many possible examples.
- love triangles - Let's set aside the romantic entanglement part of love triangles, since that's been a tried and true narrative device since mythology, and look at the other aspects of the geometry. Frequently it's women who choose the men, and there's often sexual tension, even sex, with both partners. Is this evidence of changing attitudes to romance and relationships? A celebration of femalehood and sexuality? Both? Neither?
- law enforcement - It's possible this reflects the growing police-state nature of parts of the Western world. I think it's far more likely law enforcement tends to show up in UF a lot because detectives and bounty hunters and vigilantes tend to have easier access to mysteries than the rest of us. The noir mysteries also play a part, I'd imagine.
The fact that we're couching all this social commentary in terms of fantasy likely indicates that there's a desire to get away from the world while reading the stories, though because of the social commentary in the stories, we don't want to get too far. We like being grounded, but we also like fun.
The chicks-with-leather type of urban fantasy isn't the only kind out there, however. There's also the mythic fantasy vein, where there's a quest of some kind through our world and maybe through a form of Faerie as well, and the Hero's Journey is adhered too, and there's beauty and magic. I don't know much about what's new in mythic fantasy, or what the writers I know of are doing differently than they were before. I think there's more technology and technological fae creeping in, but that's simply realism. We're a more technological society. If the hero didn't have a cell phone and an internet connection, s/he wouldn't be believable.
I'd delve into details here, examining specific books or series, but I think it's too soon. Which books are going to stand the test of time and be known in 20 years? In 50? What are people going to remember once UF has faded as a genre? How representative of society are individual books or series, anyway? How can I be sure enough of you have read the books I have? And do I have the right to get into that level of detail and examination when, as I've noted, I don't actually have any history credentials?
I'll leave the detail work for coming generations, then, and throw this idea of cultural history out to you, readers, as food for thought. Have I missed anything? Are there other interpretations? Anything you want to add?
* It's research, okay?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Urban Fantasy at the Movies
I was flipping through my urban fantasy collection the other day, trying to see how Published People Did Things, and I realized something I kind of already knew.
There are some awesome urban fantasy stories. And they have awesome protagonists. In fact, they are so awesome I want to see them on screen.
I'm not just talking about the chicks-with-weapons urban fantasy, though admittedly those were the ones I was looking through. The slow, quasi-epic quests of self that crop up in Gaiman and de Lint's work (among others) would make great movies, and I'm betting that paranormal romance (which I, er, don't read) could be a big hit as well, given that para-rom plots are frequently chicks-with-weapons stories but with more sexing.
No, really, I think urban fantasy adaptations should be the Next Big Thing. Here's why:
There are some awesome urban fantasy stories. And they have awesome protagonists. In fact, they are so awesome I want to see them on screen.
I'm not just talking about the chicks-with-weapons urban fantasy, though admittedly those were the ones I was looking through. The slow, quasi-epic quests of self that crop up in Gaiman and de Lint's work (among others) would make great movies, and I'm betting that paranormal romance (which I, er, don't read) could be a big hit as well, given that para-rom plots are frequently chicks-with-weapons stories but with more sexing.
No, really, I think urban fantasy adaptations should be the Next Big Thing. Here's why:
- Hollywood thinks men go to movies for hot women, fight scenes, monsters, blood, big weapons, and explosions.
- Vampires and werewolves are in at the moment.
- Hollywood is running out of superheroes. They'll need to replace them with something.
- As @ElenaLikesBooks pointed out, YA urban fantasies are already being adapted. She mentioned Cassandra Clare. I countered with Melissa Marr. Sarah Rees Brennan's been optioned. And then of course there's already Stephenie Meyer and L.J. Smith.*
- Urban fantasy's already popular at the box office (and on TV). Underworld, Supernatural, Being Human, True Blood, Medium, Ghost Whisperer, Harry Potter, Enchanted, Sanctuary, Hellboy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel: The Series, Highlander, Warehouse 13, Haven….
- We haven't had a good quest fantasy since Return of the King, unless I'm not remembering something.
- Slower-paced, indie-style films are becoming more popular. UF quest novels would work well in this mode, I think. They'd do well as mini-series too, I'd imagine.
- Urban fantasy is hot and a number of adult authors, not just Charlaine Harris, have massive followings. Laurell K. Hamilton, anyone?
On the downside, Tanya Huff's and Jim Butcher's urban fantasies have already made it to television, only to be cancelled. But that was a few years ago. There's hope!
Of the urban fantasies I know and love, I think Mike Carey's dark, ghost-infested London, Lilith Saintcrow's demon-rich American desert, and Seanan McGuire's quirky, fae San Francisco have potential. Neil Gaiman's American Gods would make a great mini-series. I worry a little that Hollywood would cheapen the stories, make them shallower and more formulaic, which is what I think happened with the Huff and Butcher adaptations, but shows like Supernatural, Lost, and Fringe prove that dark, complex shows with season-long (or longer) story arcs can and do work for the viewing public.
Which urban fantasies would you like to see on film?
* I should also credit Elena with the superhero analogy.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Vampires and Superheroes
Last Saturday's #UFChat was a Q&A with Dr. Rebecca Housel, writer of, among other things, True Blood and Philosophy and X-Men and Philosophy. As always in a Twitter chat, there were more questions posed that could be answered, because Twitter chats move fast. One of the questions that got more or less skipped was intriguing, but not really answerable in the 140 characters that Twitter allows. It made me sit up and go, "Hmm."
Like I said, intriguing. Also fraught and complicated. I'm not Dr. Housel, but I'm going to see if I can't unpack this a little.
First off, on the more obvious level, both vampires and superheroes have superhuman abilities. They're fast and agile, long-lived, occasionally psychic, and have strange weaknesses like glowing rocks and garlic. They also tend to be wealthy, and snappy dressers. Now, you might say that vampires actually have more in common with supervillains than they do with superheroes. I'll get to that in a sec. But there is actually a trope in urban fantasy that support the superhero comparison.
The good vamp trope features a vampire as either the protagonist, one of the protagonist's sidekicks, or the love interest. This vampire is often alienated from their fellow bloodsuckers, usually because of moral code differences (i.e., this vamp has one). Quite often these differences surface as, among other things, a refusal to drink human blood—or a refusal to kill humans, if human blood is the only option for vamps within the world. The good vamp generally works alongside humans, despite the vampire inability to play well with others, and hunts other vampires or supernatural creatures. They use their vampire powers to do this. It's pretty easy to draw parallels here with superheroes who occasionally brood about how being superhuman is a bad thing, and whose sense of ethics compels them to promote justice.
Now, vampires as supervillains … yes, this too. Vampires scheme. They have plans within plans within plans, and they also have Plan B's and C's. They live in the dark. They wear black. They consort with all kinds of evil-doers. They hold humans in thrall to do their bidding. They may come off as pillar of the community types, who exist only to serve the public good, but that's just to hide their real agenda. They're big fans of political power. They're wealthy. They're snappy dressers. They frequently have Old World accents. They have fantastic powers that let them tear someone's throat out before that someone can blink. The good guys tend to have it out for them. Sound like a supervillain to you?
Moving away from character traits and story roles, and into the realm of pop culture, how do vampires compare to superheroes? Vampires get books and TV shows and the occasional movie and comic*. Superheroes get comic books and movies and the occasional TV show and novel. They're both crowd-pleasers, to the tune of millions of dollars. Vampires draw more of the fantasy crowd, I think, while superheroes seem to attract more science fiction people. And folks like me who're into both genres have been known to go for both. Some people say vampires and superheroes are done, over, finished, but superhero movies continue to be popular and so do novels with vampires in them. Sure, fewer people seem to be rushing out to buy comics than back in the 1940s, but all in all, I'd say, in pop culture, vampires and superheroes are more or less equal.
It's when you get archetypes, metaphors, and zeitgeist that differences start popping up. Superheroes are people we look up to, people who've become more than human, protectors and enforcers and frequently fronts for social messages like Don't Steal and Terrorism Is Bad. The heyday of comics ran from the Depression through three Western wars**. The heyday of comic book movies corresponds to a Western war in the Middle East and continuing fear of terrorism.
Vampires, on the other hand, are generally anti-heroes or full-out villains. We can admire some of their qualities, but when you get down to it, they're generally violent and manipulative and ruthless. Batman's the only superhero I can think of who exhibits similar traits. Vampires have always kind of been there, but it wasn't until Interview with the Vampire back in '76 that the good vamp trope came to prominence.*** And then the '80s hit, with their truly scary vampire cinema—the '80s, of course, being the decade of expense, materialism, and really loud fashion that followed the Vietnam War. Watchmen came out, questioning and deconstructing superheroes. Pop culture got a lot sexier.*** Correlation? Likely.
Vampires are often taken to represent sex, resurrection, our darker urges, fear of the dark, etc. etc. They're a way of talking about all that stuff without actually talking about it. They're our id, our primal urges, our animalistic selves. What do superheroes stand in for? Hopes and dreams? Justice and ethics? The super-ego, which encompasses conscience and perfection, among other things? They sound pretty opposite to me, on this level.
So yes, lots of similarities, a fair number of differences, and an interesting correlation between what was happening in the world, and what was popular in the media. Of course either vampires or superheroes have ever died off completely—or even a little bit—so there will be rebuttals and you're welcome to put those in the comments. I love discussion! Are vampires today's superheroes? No, but some of them come close. Are they our anti-heroes? Quite likely. Do I want to see a superhero-vampire face-off now? Heck yes!
* Buffy and Angel, for instance
** If you count the cold one
*** I think. Pretty sure, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What is the relationship between vamps and superheros?
First off, on the more obvious level, both vampires and superheroes have superhuman abilities. They're fast and agile, long-lived, occasionally psychic, and have strange weaknesses like glowing rocks and garlic. They also tend to be wealthy, and snappy dressers. Now, you might say that vampires actually have more in common with supervillains than they do with superheroes. I'll get to that in a sec. But there is actually a trope in urban fantasy that support the superhero comparison.
The good vamp trope features a vampire as either the protagonist, one of the protagonist's sidekicks, or the love interest. This vampire is often alienated from their fellow bloodsuckers, usually because of moral code differences (i.e., this vamp has one). Quite often these differences surface as, among other things, a refusal to drink human blood—or a refusal to kill humans, if human blood is the only option for vamps within the world. The good vamp generally works alongside humans, despite the vampire inability to play well with others, and hunts other vampires or supernatural creatures. They use their vampire powers to do this. It's pretty easy to draw parallels here with superheroes who occasionally brood about how being superhuman is a bad thing, and whose sense of ethics compels them to promote justice.
Now, vampires as supervillains … yes, this too. Vampires scheme. They have plans within plans within plans, and they also have Plan B's and C's. They live in the dark. They wear black. They consort with all kinds of evil-doers. They hold humans in thrall to do their bidding. They may come off as pillar of the community types, who exist only to serve the public good, but that's just to hide their real agenda. They're big fans of political power. They're wealthy. They're snappy dressers. They frequently have Old World accents. They have fantastic powers that let them tear someone's throat out before that someone can blink. The good guys tend to have it out for them. Sound like a supervillain to you?
Moving away from character traits and story roles, and into the realm of pop culture, how do vampires compare to superheroes? Vampires get books and TV shows and the occasional movie and comic*. Superheroes get comic books and movies and the occasional TV show and novel. They're both crowd-pleasers, to the tune of millions of dollars. Vampires draw more of the fantasy crowd, I think, while superheroes seem to attract more science fiction people. And folks like me who're into both genres have been known to go for both. Some people say vampires and superheroes are done, over, finished, but superhero movies continue to be popular and so do novels with vampires in them. Sure, fewer people seem to be rushing out to buy comics than back in the 1940s, but all in all, I'd say, in pop culture, vampires and superheroes are more or less equal.
It's when you get archetypes, metaphors, and zeitgeist that differences start popping up. Superheroes are people we look up to, people who've become more than human, protectors and enforcers and frequently fronts for social messages like Don't Steal and Terrorism Is Bad. The heyday of comics ran from the Depression through three Western wars**. The heyday of comic book movies corresponds to a Western war in the Middle East and continuing fear of terrorism.
Vampires, on the other hand, are generally anti-heroes or full-out villains. We can admire some of their qualities, but when you get down to it, they're generally violent and manipulative and ruthless. Batman's the only superhero I can think of who exhibits similar traits. Vampires have always kind of been there, but it wasn't until Interview with the Vampire back in '76 that the good vamp trope came to prominence.*** And then the '80s hit, with their truly scary vampire cinema—the '80s, of course, being the decade of expense, materialism, and really loud fashion that followed the Vietnam War. Watchmen came out, questioning and deconstructing superheroes. Pop culture got a lot sexier.*** Correlation? Likely.
Vampires are often taken to represent sex, resurrection, our darker urges, fear of the dark, etc. etc. They're a way of talking about all that stuff without actually talking about it. They're our id, our primal urges, our animalistic selves. What do superheroes stand in for? Hopes and dreams? Justice and ethics? The super-ego, which encompasses conscience and perfection, among other things? They sound pretty opposite to me, on this level.
So yes, lots of similarities, a fair number of differences, and an interesting correlation between what was happening in the world, and what was popular in the media. Of course either vampires or superheroes have ever died off completely—or even a little bit—so there will be rebuttals and you're welcome to put those in the comments. I love discussion! Are vampires today's superheroes? No, but some of them come close. Are they our anti-heroes? Quite likely. Do I want to see a superhero-vampire face-off now? Heck yes!
* Buffy and Angel, for instance
** If you count the cold one
*** I think. Pretty sure, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Friday, January 7, 2011
How to Shelve Urban Fantasy
I went in Chapters last week, which is something I do infrequently. I get my books from other sources as much as possible, thank you. But I also tend to avoid Chapters because their shelving system in Science Fiction and Fantasy makes absolutely no sense. There's one author who has fantasy novels under Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Horror. Yes, horror. On account of there being werewolves and ghosts and vampires in the novels. Those urban fantasies weren't alone in the Horror section either. Not by a long shot.
I've seen this in other bookstores too, that people don't really know where to put the urban fantasy. I mean, it's got fantasy built into the name of the genre! But UF contains vampires, werewolves, demons, witches, ghosts, and zombies, and people who don't know better assume that means the novels are scary. And sure, they are in places, like the fight scenes and climax, the places where the protagonist's life is at stake. I wouldn't put any of the UF I've read on the same level as Stephen King, though. At least not for the fear factor.
As for how UF can end up in science fiction? A lot of it's set in alternate realities and near futures, and if your concept of fantasy is Tolkien, Martin, Jordan, and the like, then UF doesn't really fit in Fantasy. Also, I'd imagine that, at least in the big chain stores, that many of the employees either aren't big readers or aren't expected to be familiar with the contents of all the sections. It's different with indies, I've noticed.
I'm also sure the tried and true Confused Bookseller Shelving Method comes into play. If you don't know where to put the book automatically (based on the front cover, the author, the buzz, the demographic who's buying it), read the blurb on the back. Key words will jump out at you, like murder, death, detective, blood, crime, which usually means Mystery, or twenty-something, boyfriend, big city, identity, which often means chick lit, or, in the case of urban fantasy, paranormal, detective, magic, vampire, werewolf, demon, witch, race against time, over her head. If the blurb still confuses you, take a wild guess and it's probably literary fiction anyway.* I'm extrapolating for this next statement, but I'd guess that the action/mystery blurbs of UF novels sound closer to the action/mystery blurbs of sci-fi than they do to the drawn out quests and elves and lyrical fantasy worlds of the rest of the fantasy section.
If I had total control over the shelving of urban fantasy, I'd let my anal retentiveness reign free.** I'd create a whole new section of the bookstore (Urban Fantasy) because there are certainly enough UF novels out right now to fill a bookcase or two. I'd put the other fantasy subgenres under Fantasy, and I'd browbeat every employee until they knew what was UF and what wasn't.
I take my UF seriously, okay?
Then again, there are problems with that system. Where do you put Charles de Lint and Emma Bull and Neil Gaiman, who write fantasy novels set in modern cities, but without the action/mystery storylines? You're going to get UF readers who want Hamilton, Harrison, and Gaiman, and you're going to get non-UF fantasy readers who want Gaiman as well. Do you cop out and shelve Gaiman (etc) in both sections? Or do you draw the line and tell customers to stuff it, this is your store and you'll do what you like? And then you get into the thorny issue of the urban fantasy/paranormal romance divide…
Urban fantasy in 2011 is a teenager, and nobody quite knows how to deal with it. Writers are pushing limits, doing things differently, and readers are expecting different things than they were 10 years ago, when the current UF model came into prominence. It takes on so many masks (epic fantasy, comedy, noir, sci-fi, murder mystery, romance) and it sometimes layers those masks so you get two or three or even four in the same book, and how is anyone supposed to come up with a definition for a genre that changes on a daily basis like that? Really? But like any teenager, UF will eventually come into its full identity and … maybe we'll know where to shelve it then?
* This, friends, is the real reason covers and blurbs are so important. It helps booksellers put the books where you want them to. ;-)
** Like I do at home, where my CDs are arranged in chronological order by era. Renaissance before Baroque before Classical before Romantics before Dixieland before Swing.
I've seen this in other bookstores too, that people don't really know where to put the urban fantasy. I mean, it's got fantasy built into the name of the genre! But UF contains vampires, werewolves, demons, witches, ghosts, and zombies, and people who don't know better assume that means the novels are scary. And sure, they are in places, like the fight scenes and climax, the places where the protagonist's life is at stake. I wouldn't put any of the UF I've read on the same level as Stephen King, though. At least not for the fear factor.
As for how UF can end up in science fiction? A lot of it's set in alternate realities and near futures, and if your concept of fantasy is Tolkien, Martin, Jordan, and the like, then UF doesn't really fit in Fantasy. Also, I'd imagine that, at least in the big chain stores, that many of the employees either aren't big readers or aren't expected to be familiar with the contents of all the sections. It's different with indies, I've noticed.
I'm also sure the tried and true Confused Bookseller Shelving Method comes into play. If you don't know where to put the book automatically (based on the front cover, the author, the buzz, the demographic who's buying it), read the blurb on the back. Key words will jump out at you, like murder, death, detective, blood, crime, which usually means Mystery, or twenty-something, boyfriend, big city, identity, which often means chick lit, or, in the case of urban fantasy, paranormal, detective, magic, vampire, werewolf, demon, witch, race against time, over her head. If the blurb still confuses you, take a wild guess and it's probably literary fiction anyway.* I'm extrapolating for this next statement, but I'd guess that the action/mystery blurbs of UF novels sound closer to the action/mystery blurbs of sci-fi than they do to the drawn out quests and elves and lyrical fantasy worlds of the rest of the fantasy section.
If I had total control over the shelving of urban fantasy, I'd let my anal retentiveness reign free.** I'd create a whole new section of the bookstore (Urban Fantasy) because there are certainly enough UF novels out right now to fill a bookcase or two. I'd put the other fantasy subgenres under Fantasy, and I'd browbeat every employee until they knew what was UF and what wasn't.
I take my UF seriously, okay?
Then again, there are problems with that system. Where do you put Charles de Lint and Emma Bull and Neil Gaiman, who write fantasy novels set in modern cities, but without the action/mystery storylines? You're going to get UF readers who want Hamilton, Harrison, and Gaiman, and you're going to get non-UF fantasy readers who want Gaiman as well. Do you cop out and shelve Gaiman (etc) in both sections? Or do you draw the line and tell customers to stuff it, this is your store and you'll do what you like? And then you get into the thorny issue of the urban fantasy/paranormal romance divide…
Urban fantasy in 2011 is a teenager, and nobody quite knows how to deal with it. Writers are pushing limits, doing things differently, and readers are expecting different things than they were 10 years ago, when the current UF model came into prominence. It takes on so many masks (epic fantasy, comedy, noir, sci-fi, murder mystery, romance) and it sometimes layers those masks so you get two or three or even four in the same book, and how is anyone supposed to come up with a definition for a genre that changes on a daily basis like that? Really? But like any teenager, UF will eventually come into its full identity and … maybe we'll know where to shelve it then?
* This, friends, is the real reason covers and blurbs are so important. It helps booksellers put the books where you want them to. ;-)
** Like I do at home, where my CDs are arranged in chronological order by era. Renaissance before Baroque before Classical before Romantics before Dixieland before Swing.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
An Example of Tropes Done Well
Last night I finished Mike Carey's The Devil You Know.* It's the first in a series about a London exorcist who's a bit of a bastard and a bit of a slacker and a bit hard done by. The world's our world, except that about ten years ago, ghosts and zombies and werecreatures and demons began appearing for no apparent reason, which has made it possible for Felix Castor to make a living getting rid of them.
Except that he doesn't make a living at it, really. Like all good urban fantasy MCs (and don't listen to the folks who tell you this is horror because there are ghosts in), Castor is broke. UF protagonists are perpetually short of funds, often because the rent is high or they can't charge what they'd like or their weapons don't come cheap. Quite often when I run across one of those excuses, I twitch. It's been done. It's cliché. The writer isn't trying to be creative about it. But it was different with Castor because his reasons for being broke feel more valid.
There are other tropes in the book as well: people trying to kill Castor, people having sex with Castor, Castor getting up and continuing the case after nearly dying, Castor being chided for being thick-headed. If you read urban fantasy, you've seen these before. If done poorly, these tropes are enough to make me want to hit the MC or writer over the head with the book they're in. If done well … well, I'm not rushing out to get the second book in the series, because I don't like reading two books by the same author back to back, but Carey's books are definitely going down as "good reads", "well-written", and "TBR list". I can't wait for him to impress me again.
*If you read my summary of my 2010 reads last week, it was one of two books I started last year but hadn't finished by the end of it.
Except that he doesn't make a living at it, really. Like all good urban fantasy MCs (and don't listen to the folks who tell you this is horror because there are ghosts in), Castor is broke. UF protagonists are perpetually short of funds, often because the rent is high or they can't charge what they'd like or their weapons don't come cheap. Quite often when I run across one of those excuses, I twitch. It's been done. It's cliché. The writer isn't trying to be creative about it. But it was different with Castor because his reasons for being broke feel more valid.
- A year and a bit ago, he did a job that turned out not to be what he thought, and it's shaken his confidence and made him scared to take more clients. Therefore, he has no money because he has no income.
- His landlady, who's also a good friend, is constantly coming up with get rich quick schemes, which need startup fees that Castor helps her out with, because he's that kind of guy. And that's more or less on top of his rent money to her.
So basically, Castor has negative income not because Carey's playing to the trope as much as because it's part of his characterization and motivations. He only takes the job that's the central plot of the novel because his landlady needs money now and he doesn't have anything to give her. I'm much more willing to forgive this than I am to forgive the protagonist who, say, needs the downtown condo because it's so close to her favourite restaurant.
And there's another trope that features in Devil You Know that I only really noticed because I've seen enough blog posts to know it's a trope. How do you string out a plot when a key piece of information is a phone call away? You make it hard or impossible for your protagonist to use their phone. I've read a lot of urban fantasy in which phones get lost or smashed or dropped in water, repeatedly. I've read some, I believe, in which phones get covered in the bodily fluids of monsters. Castor's phone, on the other hand? Is faulty and he can't afford to get it replaced because … he's broke. So sometimes the phone works just well enough for a scratchy connection, and sometimes the phone will show "no signal" while he's standing under a tower. Much more plausible, in my books. It's obvious Carey put some thought into this story—which is to be expected, since he's won multiple awards for his comics.
There are other tropes in the book as well: people trying to kill Castor, people having sex with Castor, Castor getting up and continuing the case after nearly dying, Castor being chided for being thick-headed. If you read urban fantasy, you've seen these before. If done poorly, these tropes are enough to make me want to hit the MC or writer over the head with the book they're in. If done well … well, I'm not rushing out to get the second book in the series, because I don't like reading two books by the same author back to back, but Carey's books are definitely going down as "good reads", "well-written", and "TBR list". I can't wait for him to impress me again.
*If you read my summary of my 2010 reads last week, it was one of two books I started last year but hadn't finished by the end of it.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Trying Something New - #UFChat Recap
Saturdays on Twitter there's a writer/reader chat, #UFChat, that's all about urban fantasy. The latest chat was about death, dying, and resurrection. Because there was also a guest author, the chat didn't go into as much depth as it normally does, but some good discussion came out of it all the same.
It seems like there are only three kinds of death in urban fantasy: undeath, violent death, and natural death. Very few instances of natural death came up, and some of the ones that did I'd have actually called violent, just not murder. A car accident, for instance.
Undeath definitely prevails in UF, of course. There are vampires, werewolves, zombies, and ghosts in spades, as well as revenants and dhampirs and what have you. Violent death is also unsurprisingly high, given that so many UF plots revolve around murders and dead bodies, and given that so many UF protagonists have dead family members that fuel the plot on various levels. And while I know I said "three kinds of death"right now, but that's only partially true. There's a fourth kind that bridges "undeath" and "violent death", and that's the case with protagonists like Harper Blaine, Charlie Madigan, and Evangeline Stone, who die violently and are brought back to life as humans, often with supernatural powers.
An interesting point came up during the discussion. When vampires, werewolves, and the other undead monsters first appeared back in the days of folk tales, they were representations of our fear of death and were meant to be scary. Now they're almost the opposite, being generally used to extend life and give people immortality. They're a good thing, though not often a great thing. Bloodlust and decay will do that to a body.
I think in a way the classic monsters still represent our fear of death, though that fear's been transmuted from "fear of Other, fear of disease, fear of being forgotten" into "fear of Other, fear of decay, fear of life ending". We (or American culture) are terrified of getting old and getting weak, so much so that plastic surgeons and makers of skin cream make a killing. Yes, that's largely because the beauty industry has convinced us that getting old and weak is a bad thing, so there's kind of a circular argument here. I get that. But I do see parallels between "our cream takes twenty years off" and "vampires make you young forever", between "getting old means getting weak" and "undead people are strong", and between "wrinkles are ugly" and "zombies are gross". If zombies are now cool, will wrinkles be? I hope so.
I'd like to see more natural deaths (or, frankly, more stories where there weren't dead people), since they're the underdogs of the genre and I have a Thing about under-represented plot elements.* I think there isn't all the much difference, motivation-wise, between a Beloved Family Member making a request on their natural death bed, and a Beloved Family Member making a request on violent death bed. And natural deaths (disease, old age, heart attacks) open up a whole line of stories based on wills and emptying attics and family secrets. Also, there's the idea I had while responding to the chat questions, that there could be parallels between epic heros like Odysseus and Beowulf, whose cultures dictated warriors die in battle, and the various kinds of monster slayers that pop up in urban fantasy. What if those slayers also had a culture of having to die in battle? What if one of them was so good that they died of old age surrounded by family? Would their ghost manifest as a result? Would a relation take up the sword (or gun) and go fight the fight in the Beloved Family Member's memory?
All kinds of cool stuff could happen. Why doesn't it? Or does it, but the books haven't been published yet (or I haven't seen them)?
* You may have noticed.
It seems like there are only three kinds of death in urban fantasy: undeath, violent death, and natural death. Very few instances of natural death came up, and some of the ones that did I'd have actually called violent, just not murder. A car accident, for instance.
Undeath definitely prevails in UF, of course. There are vampires, werewolves, zombies, and ghosts in spades, as well as revenants and dhampirs and what have you. Violent death is also unsurprisingly high, given that so many UF plots revolve around murders and dead bodies, and given that so many UF protagonists have dead family members that fuel the plot on various levels. And while I know I said "three kinds of death"right now, but that's only partially true. There's a fourth kind that bridges "undeath" and "violent death", and that's the case with protagonists like Harper Blaine, Charlie Madigan, and Evangeline Stone, who die violently and are brought back to life as humans, often with supernatural powers.
An interesting point came up during the discussion. When vampires, werewolves, and the other undead monsters first appeared back in the days of folk tales, they were representations of our fear of death and were meant to be scary. Now they're almost the opposite, being generally used to extend life and give people immortality. They're a good thing, though not often a great thing. Bloodlust and decay will do that to a body.
I think in a way the classic monsters still represent our fear of death, though that fear's been transmuted from "fear of Other, fear of disease, fear of being forgotten" into "fear of Other, fear of decay, fear of life ending". We (or American culture) are terrified of getting old and getting weak, so much so that plastic surgeons and makers of skin cream make a killing. Yes, that's largely because the beauty industry has convinced us that getting old and weak is a bad thing, so there's kind of a circular argument here. I get that. But I do see parallels between "our cream takes twenty years off" and "vampires make you young forever", between "getting old means getting weak" and "undead people are strong", and between "wrinkles are ugly" and "zombies are gross". If zombies are now cool, will wrinkles be? I hope so.
I'd like to see more natural deaths (or, frankly, more stories where there weren't dead people), since they're the underdogs of the genre and I have a Thing about under-represented plot elements.* I think there isn't all the much difference, motivation-wise, between a Beloved Family Member making a request on their natural death bed, and a Beloved Family Member making a request on violent death bed. And natural deaths (disease, old age, heart attacks) open up a whole line of stories based on wills and emptying attics and family secrets. Also, there's the idea I had while responding to the chat questions, that there could be parallels between epic heros like Odysseus and Beowulf, whose cultures dictated warriors die in battle, and the various kinds of monster slayers that pop up in urban fantasy. What if those slayers also had a culture of having to die in battle? What if one of them was so good that they died of old age surrounded by family? Would their ghost manifest as a result? Would a relation take up the sword (or gun) and go fight the fight in the Beloved Family Member's memory?
All kinds of cool stuff could happen. Why doesn't it? Or does it, but the books haven't been published yet (or I haven't seen them)?
* You may have noticed.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Children's Fantasy (Canadian TV, 1980s)
I've been thinking about urban fantasy more frequently lately, thanks to @inkgypsy and #UFChat on Twitter, and thanks, of course, to my WIP and the progress I'm making on it. I'm not thinking deeply about it, per se, but it seems to be in my mind more. Percolating, if you will, which means at some point I'll probably come out with a nice long post full of thinky-thoughts.
But not today. Today's post is brought to you by a tweet that points out that Sesame Street is urban fantasy. No, seriously. If you don't believe me, watch the video below.
Did everyone see the monsters, giant birds, and talking dog? Good. The show also contains wooly mammoths and vampires, though they're not featured here.
Sesame Street wasn't the only urban fantasy (or fantasy) I watched. Now, I know most children's programming has fantasy elements in it, and that there's no way I could list them all here. Instead I'm going to focus on the shows available to me as a Canadian kid in the 1980s*, because I'm much more familiar with them than with the American shows of the era.
So, without further ado:
The Polkadot Door - A man, a woman, four puppets, a giant green kangaroo that talked, and a magical door that acted as a portal to anywhere in the world. I've just watched a number of videos from it on YouTube, hoping to link to one, but none of them combine the kangaroo and the door. Also, the videos are highly cheesy and twee, which I think goes with the era and target demographic. I remember it being a lot more magical.
Today's Special - A mannequin with an enchanted hat, a female store manager, a bumbling security guard puppet, and a computer AI. The first third of an episode, for your enjoyment:
The Friendly Giant - A friendly giant, who lives in a castle, reads books to a giraffe and a rooster. Needless to say, this was one of my favourite shows, because there was a new story every day!
Babar - Yes, I know this is talking animals, but come on, it's Babar! There are multiple societies of talking animals! It's even historical fantasy, in a way, because the elephants dress and act as though they were in a quasi-Victorian world, and Babar's palace is almost certainly Baroque.
If you're familiar with Canadian children's TV of the 1980s, you'll notice I left out a few. I don't feel talking animal puppets a fantasy make, unless there are other elements involved. Just about every kids show has them, too. (That said, Mr. Dressup and The Elephant Show are classics, and Under the Umbrella Tree isn't half-bad either.) I also left out Fred Penner's Place because I don't think it qualifies under any circumstances as fantasy. It was all about the music. (I may also have forgotten some shows. It's been a while.)
*Yes, this is partly a nostalgia fest.
But not today. Today's post is brought to you by a tweet that points out that Sesame Street is urban fantasy. No, seriously. If you don't believe me, watch the video below.
Did everyone see the monsters, giant birds, and talking dog? Good. The show also contains wooly mammoths and vampires, though they're not featured here.
Sesame Street wasn't the only urban fantasy (or fantasy) I watched. Now, I know most children's programming has fantasy elements in it, and that there's no way I could list them all here. Instead I'm going to focus on the shows available to me as a Canadian kid in the 1980s*, because I'm much more familiar with them than with the American shows of the era.
So, without further ado:
The Polkadot Door - A man, a woman, four puppets, a giant green kangaroo that talked, and a magical door that acted as a portal to anywhere in the world. I've just watched a number of videos from it on YouTube, hoping to link to one, but none of them combine the kangaroo and the door. Also, the videos are highly cheesy and twee, which I think goes with the era and target demographic. I remember it being a lot more magical.
Today's Special - A mannequin with an enchanted hat, a female store manager, a bumbling security guard puppet, and a computer AI. The first third of an episode, for your enjoyment:
The Friendly Giant - A friendly giant, who lives in a castle, reads books to a giraffe and a rooster. Needless to say, this was one of my favourite shows, because there was a new story every day!
Babar - Yes, I know this is talking animals, but come on, it's Babar! There are multiple societies of talking animals! It's even historical fantasy, in a way, because the elephants dress and act as though they were in a quasi-Victorian world, and Babar's palace is almost certainly Baroque.
If you're familiar with Canadian children's TV of the 1980s, you'll notice I left out a few. I don't feel talking animal puppets a fantasy make, unless there are other elements involved. Just about every kids show has them, too. (That said, Mr. Dressup and The Elephant Show are classics, and Under the Umbrella Tree isn't half-bad either.) I also left out Fred Penner's Place because I don't think it qualifies under any circumstances as fantasy. It was all about the music. (I may also have forgotten some shows. It's been a while.)
When I look back at these shows and my memories of them, I can pinpoint parts that wowed me and influenced me. I'm pretty sure the portal in the door, the giant in the castle, and the fact that a mannequin could come to life and have adventures were the first instances of other worlds, magic, and transformation that hooked me. If not, they're the first I remember so that has to count for something.
*Yes, this is partly a nostalgia fest.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Reasons for Reading Urban Fantasy
The popularity of urban fantasy and paranormal romance is due to the escapism provided by the heroine. Readers of these genres enjoy imagining themselves as the heroine, and therefore the heroine must be strong, attractive, and supernaturally powerful. She must also get the guy in the end, and the guy must be equally strong, attractive, and powerful.
Whenever I come across a statement like that, I begin to feel annoyed and uncomfortable. The statement above (the Quote) is a paraphrase of many, but the latest instance, the one that spurred this post, comes from Tor.com. I've seen the same kinds of attitudes and statements coming from a number of people, in a number of different roles.
Why do these statements bug me? It's complicated, but I'm going to try to deconstruct the reasons, because I refuse to believe I'm the only person who feels this way. Given how infrequently I run across opinions like mine, I suspect it's a marginalized attitude, one held by people who don't to speak up out of fear, insecurity, or shame. And I think we need to speak. (I'm not ordering from biggest reason to smallest, though. They'll differ from person to person.)
- Feminism. The Quote is a blanket statement. All women must read urban fantasy because they want to be like the heroine. First, to any blanket statements, there are exceptions (me). Second, this is basically saying that a major drive of women is being attractive, and that if they're not actually attractive, they read books that allow them to pretend they are. I thought we as a society had gotten past the stage of assuming that.
- I don't read for the heroine. I don't imagine myself to be her. Occasionally, I don't even like her*. I read urban fantasy for the mysteries, the magic, the world-building, and sometimes because I need a lighter read than the book I just finished. The series I continue with, and the ones I press onto people, are the ones with the best integration of magical elements into the real world, great characterization across the board, good mystery or adventure plots, and all-around good writing. I have no desire to be a sexy 6' werewolf cop, thank you very much.
- I don't imagine myself getting with the Love Interest. Heck, I've skimmed sex scenes to reach the "good stuff" faster. Of all the urban fantasy I've read**, I've never once read a physical description of a male I found attractive, and I've met a grand total of two men whose personalities I'd go for. This might be because most Love Interests are alpha males (as pointed out in the Tor.com link), and I find alphas a turn-off.
- I want to see heroines who aren't strong, sexy, and powerful. I want to see women who aren't conventionally beautiful. I want to see women who are middle-aged or older. I want to see humans without supernatural powers. I want to see women who don't own guns, whose first reaction to "vampire in alley" is to run off screaming rather than beat it up, and who still manage to take out the vampire nest. I want to see weak women who become strong over time, not women who start strong and get stronger. Or, I want to see strong women break and rebuild, with any number of hiccups as they cope with the trauma. This is all out of a desire to see writers break away from clichés, and a desire to see more inclusive writing.
- The Quote implies that, for a series to take off, it's got to play into the desire to be the heroine. I don't like being told what to do. I want to write a thrilling and funny mystery set in a magically interesting and complex world, with an interesting person as a protagonist. I don't want to make it so people will imagine themselves as my heroine. I want them to like her, of course, and if they want to be her, that's their right, but I don't want to write a character whose main purpose is letting readers be her. And I don't want my Love Interests to be alphas or heartthrobs. Why can't I have one with adult acne and powers that fritz whenever he gets scared?
I guess maybe in a way you could say I see myself as the heroine. After all, I want my protagonists to be intelligent and not charge into dangerous situations knowing they're dangerous, without as many weapons and bits of backup as they can manage. However, I think it's more likely that this reflects a general belief about humanity, because real people doing dumb things also gets me mad. And I still don't want to be a sexy 6' werewolf cop, even if she's a tactical genius.
And yes, as I admitted in Point 2, I do sometimes read for "escapism", because if I read lots of dense, info-heavy, thought-provoking books back-to-back, I go crazy. I sometimes need something fun. I get that urban fantasy fulfills a similar role to chick-lit in that sense, and that chick-lit also gets the "escape and be the heroine" vibe. I know some women do imagine themselves as the heroines, and that some read for the Love Interest and the sexy times. I simply don't want to see a genre I love be discarded as "just fluff", and I don't want all readers of it to be seen as "in it for the sexy times". We're not that shallow.
Points 4 and 5 are probably the biggest beefs for me. I hate seeing clichés in fiction unless they're subverted, and I love being the person who does the subverting. I want to see more equality, different types of characters, people who feel more real somehow. I think world, plot, and characterization should be a writer's primary concern at all times, at least in urban fantasy, and that our characters shouldn't be just sex objects. I know we all have to play to the audience a little if we want to be published, but ramping up the sexual aspects doesn't have to be the way to go.
To the people who say the Quote: Readers and writers of urban fantasy aren't identical, and we read and write for any number of reasons. Don't tell us who we are and how we should be. Stop it. Stop it right now.
*at which point I stop reading the series
** I know I've just scratched the surface with the 10-15 authors I've picked up, but my tastes are broader than just one genre and there's no time.
Edit to clarify: I wrote the quote I lead with. It seemed quicker than pulling a handful of similar comments off other sites, when they all said pretty much the same thing. Don't hate on the "quotee", because there isn't one. It's just me, paraphrasing an opinion.
Edit to clarify: I wrote the quote I lead with. It seemed quicker than pulling a handful of similar comments off other sites, when they all said pretty much the same thing. Don't hate on the "quotee", because there isn't one. It's just me, paraphrasing an opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)