On Writing: Wonder and Beauty

I’ve had to dump a surprising number of Kindle samples in the past year-plus due to pure ugliness. I find this more than a bit bewildering. Yet sample after sample I’ve run across, if they’re not in first person present tense (argh), riddled with typos in the first few pages (why), or have a main character whose only acquaintance with morals would have been the dictionary, if they’d ever read a dictionary….

Weed out all that, and there’s still way too many books out there apparently focusing on ugly. Not the characters’ physical appearances, although that shows up too. But diving into and obsessing over the absolute worst parts of the society, setting, or world the character is dealing with. Monsters exist? Cue the most gore-filled kills of innocents the writer can splash on the page. Character is abandoned as a young child? The writer drags up every nauseating detail on the city dunghill/dump he’s abandoned on and the disgusting things he has to do to survive. (Most of which, BTW, would in real life leading to the kid dying of dysentery or worse within a year, not surviving over a decade.) Politics are ruthless? Every person we meet has either stabbed the main character in the back already, is about to, or was plotting to in the future but only laughs now because someone else beat them to it. Prostitution and slavery are elements of your world’s society? (As they have been in most places and times, historically.) Every female character (and some males) will be raped, threatened with rape, or working with the panderers. And even if the first few pages avoid all of that, odds are the character is bemoaning their horrible situation and using foul language to do it.

Rrrraaaaaauggggghhhh.

This is bad writing.

The point of the first few pages of a story is to hook your readers. To make them sympathetic to the main character, curious about the world, and interested in knowing What Comes Next. Ugliness shuts all of these down, hard.

First, sympathy. Sympathy is feeling with the character. It is not feeling pity for the character. Sympathy is what happens when, say, Sarah Kelling has to deal with a massive debt, the grief of being a widow, and enough legal matters to choke a paper shredder – and decides she’s going to get through this anyway. On determination, bluffing, knowing how to cook on a penny-pinching budget, and fast feet if she has to. She’s not going to sit there and whine about how horrible she has it, she’s going to make a plan and fix what can be fixed.

Reader reaction: “Yes! You go, girl! If I were in that situation, that’s just what I hope I’d be able to do!”

Second, curious about the world. If the writer hits us over and over with either how ugly things are (horrible spaceport sex and drug dives, dunghills and sewers, seriously) and/or attributes everything beautiful like silks and precious metals to arrogant, power-mad, smarmy nobility, then why should we want to learn anything more? We already know there’s nothing wonderful here. Whereas in Sarah Kelling’s Boston we hear of pleasant rooms with high bookshelves, worn red velvet curtains, and a fireplace; of a lady employed as a maid (in part for a paid room to rent) with a uniform in bright orange, topped by a cap of frilly velvet and long orange streamers; of window-boxes that would be full of carefully-tended flowers in summer, now brightened for the holidays with greenery and red ribbons. And that’s just physical beauty. We also hear of universities, mountain-climbers, fortune-tellers in tearooms, and a host of other interesting characters sketched out even in just a sentence or two of humor. That Boston is a city where people live, and sometimes live quite happily. It invites us to explore.

Last, and certainly not least, interested in what happens next. If in the first few pages I’ve seen a character abandoned by his parents in horrible circumstances, committing an act of bravery only because he’d end up framed for murder if he wasn’t, and then after a time-skip betrayed by the same group of people all over again who deliver him into the hands of slavers… yeah, no, I give up. He says he has a wife and kids to get back to? Gee, that would have been so much more effective if you’d ever shown them in the first few pages. Now? Don’t care. Bye.

As opposed to the widowed Sarah Kelling, who starts the story determined to run a boardinghouse and just keeps going, even once her landlady duties expand to trying to figure out which of her boarders might have committed a murder. Every chapter brings a new complication, and an attempt to resolve the last one; some more successful than others. You stay up way too late reading onward, because okay, how’s she going to figure out this one-?

Stories need beauty and wonder. Characters need it, or they’d have no reason to go on. And your readers need it. Get it into the story. All of the story.

Now pardon me, I have a few more samples to dump….

104 thoughts on “On Writing: Wonder and Beauty

  1. I think it’s the same reason so many TV shows, and movies, just don’t work— the people who don’t understand how it works, they’re just doing cargo cult style copying.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Larry Correia’s experience recorded in https://monsterhunternation.com/2023/12/30/larry-in-la-la-land/ bears out that theory. Not the “whole word” part as that’s not touched on at all, but the “nobody in Hollywood reads books” part.

        Back when I was first getting started, Monster Hunter International had just blown up. I got contacted by my first movie producer. Nice guy. Had a made a bunch of movies I’d heard of in the 90s and early 2000s. 

        This guy actually read books. Little did I know just how odd that was at the time. So this producer read MHI, loved it, showed it to his friend who was the #2 person at a major movie studio, who also read books. And he was literally like the only guy at the entire movie studio who actually READ BOOKS.

        I wish I was exaggerating. I’m not.

        The rest of the article goes on to detail some of the ridiculousness that went on because practically nobody making decisions about the MHI movie (which fell through and never got made) had actually read the books. Or pretty much any books. Worth a read, if you’re not in a place where howling with laughter (or derision) will distract other people around you.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. I’ve been mentioning a related phenomenon for upwards of 15 years now. I noticed it first when I read a manga, and then saw the first episode of the anime, and noticed the difference between them. The Hellsing manga has lots of blood and gore, but it’s just casually there “yeah, these are monsters”. The Hellsing _anime_, on the other hand, focuses on showing the blood and gore from individual events _multiple times from multiple angles_, and relishes in showing it in as disgusting a form as it can (the worms in the recently corpsed, for one example). In the manga, what was shown was necessary for verisimilitude and to prevent problems with suspension of disbelief, but no more. “If this wasn’t shown, you’d not actually believe the sort of monsters and fighting that’s going on.” In the anime, it felt more like they were acting like a couple young boys trying to gross eachother out; “oh, boy, this is disgusting! See how gross it is? Bet I can make you barf!”
    And that’s not the only place I’ve seen it, tho it was one of the clearer examples.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yup, you definetly see this with other manga and anime pairs from this era. Death Note in particular has this bad. The way the ending is presented thematically in the anime is almost the opposite of how it is presented thematically in the manga. On the surface, both end the same way, with the protagonist dying because the being he has been exploiting takes his soul to the literal underworld.

      In the Death Note manga, the ending is themed as a classic Tragedy where the protagonist has engineered their own downfall and now won’t escape punishment for their actions in the literal underworld. Good is very much portrayed as having ultimately won and invalidated the rational of the tragic protagonist while doing so.

      In the Death Note anime, the protagonist still dies… but it is themed much more as if he *escaped* punishment he’d have faced in the real world. The protagonist’s rational is not invalidated so much as it is vindicated (or at least not written off as being totally wrong).

      What’s funny for me is that I only read the Death Note manga, and then didn’t watch the anime until *decades* later. So I never understood why the protagonist in the anime was so popular. Finding out how the anime re-framed him explained a lot.

      Granted, you also see this all the time when Hollywood adapts book plots for the screen. It’s not just that they have to cut narrative corners to get a longer plot to fit the 1 hour, 30 minute run time. A lot of the time, they also will change how the themes come across to something that fits Hollywood’s ideals more than the authors in the process.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Yeah. That one set of Batman movies, with the scene with the Joker crossdressed as a female nurse, walking away from an exploding hospital? I complained at the time that, from the way people were talking about it as we left the theater, the audience had clearly taken the _intended_ goal of that scene (and the rest of the movie) correctly: that it was glorifying evil/monstrosity, while trying to make good both boring and antagonistic, and to do all that while being able to claim “technically we said evil was bad and good is commendable (just ignore that our fingers were crossed and we said it in the most purposely unconvincing way possible on screen)”.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Which is precisely what the MCU *did not do* until Phase 3, with a couple of glaring exceptions beforehand. Good was good, bad was bad, and the bad got their just desserts. DC films of the modern era lacked that acknowledgement and it drove me *nuts.*

        Liked by 4 people

      3. It’s not entirely new. You had tales of rogues — Moll Flanders, say — where the rogue repents or is executed in the last chapter and so it was all right.

        It’s not a good thing, even then.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. In a lot of cases it feels like they are hyper-focusing on the MC and the world is built to justify them, rather than having a character living/adapting to a world.

    The MC has never read ‘morality’ in the dictionary? Obviously there are no dictionaries with ‘morality’ in them!

    This gets even worse if the perspective or character design means the author won’t tell you anything about their feelings, so they try to crank up the surroundings to let the reader know what is going on in their head.

    Instead of saying “Bob was sad.” they say “Bob stood there like a stump while his family died in agony around him.”

    We are supposed to infer his feelings from his reactions and events, and if they need more drama, they have to make it more extreme.

    And if the character is “cool” and cool people never look at the explosion, that means you have to have explosions and the character not looking at it, and not feeling about it, so you have to make it bigger to make it more awesome!

    Then spread that same reasoning to all behavior and all plot points and you end up with a huge mess and a really boring character.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Definitely a major factor. When I come up with a neat idea for an MC, I also have to think of “okay, what kind of world would create this character?”

      But since I want my characters to have half a chance of being heroic, I’d never start them off so horribly! People raised in horrible circumstances are already fighting an uphill battle just to survive with morals intact. Heroism takes more resources.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. I’ve been seeing this too, for – goodness, decades. Some authors might be just starting out and so cargo-cult copying what seems to work or what they like without breaking it down and studying it, while a lot are just copy/pasting what appears to sell, as Foxfier said.

    But a big part of it, I think, is that a great many writers – indie or otherwise – are exposed only to the worst examples of storytelling. There’s a reason I curate what I read and watch, as best I can. The general trends the world over in fiction have what The ArchCast rightly calls a Marquis de Sade bent of corrupting what is good, in order to replace it with the “new” “good” of ugliness and evil. (Warning, listen but don’t watch, and have something nice to watch/read/listen to once you are done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRD3ypVJ-0) When you are swimming through a landfill, you are not immediately going to know what cleanliness even *means.* The filth is just natural to you and where you live. Clean? What’s that? Oh, maybe it means not showing up with a rotting apple on my head….

    Now, when I say “clean” I don’t necessarily mean no blood, no gore, no kissing, et cetera. Just something with wonder and beauty that everyone appreciates for those qualities. But – and Makoto Fujimura mentions this several times – for the last half century or so, beauty has *not* been acceptable in the art world. He actually washed off one of his paintings while he was in university because the teacher who stopped in and saw him working said, “That’s so beautiful it’s terrifying.” Fujimura mentions he had no “shelf” or place for beauty in his soul at the time. Why? Because *everyone was insisting he and other artists focus on the macabre, the disturbing, and the transgressive.* All of which translates to, “Do something ugly, call it art, and you win the prize from us. Do something beautiful, and we will hound you out of our circles and you will *never* be able to do this on this scale. We’ll make sure of it.”

    Yeah, no, thanks. You can’t hound me out if I’m not in your orbit in the first place. I want to write something beautiful, not something ugly. And so, here I am, writing the stories I want to write because I can’t find the ones I want to read. And I know I am not the only one looking for things like these to read, too. It’s just a matter of marketing right now….

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I’ve been trying to read a lot of romances– to figure out what makes them sell– and wow do a lot of the patterns jump out, and are depressing as heck.

      Mostly things like “the social norms these gals have interacted with are heckin’ bad.”

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Exactly. When you have no healthy relationships to view or experience, when you’re social norms reinforce the bad over the good…. A lot of things in certain genres, particularly romance, start to make an unfortunate amount of sense.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. “Hey, look! This guy is superior to earth guys because he *doesn’t* treat her like a blow-up doll. Those guys have to be monsters to manage to be *worse* than Earth Guys.”

        Me: Have these people ever seen a healthy relationship, ever?

        Liked by 4 people

      3. “Bella should have married Jake, Edward is so bad for her.”

        Me: Edward came in with enough red flags for me to think he stopped off in China and raided a flag factory. The fact that he’s a vampire isn’t even a red flag, it’s a cherry on top of a Bad Idea cake. *Why* on Earth would any girl think he was hot and not someone to run from screaming? :looks at modern dating scene: Okay, not helping one way or the other here….

        Liked by 3 people

      4. My reaction to reading the first few pages was to carefully put the book down and back away slowly. Without turning my back on it.

        I swear, Dracula was a better idea than Edward. At least you know he’s trying to eat you!

        Liked by 3 people

      5. I haven’t even read the books, and my first thought on having Edward described to me was, “And she somehow thinks he’s dating material? Uh. What? I’d be looking for the exit – and the stake.”

        (Movie clips did not help. I only watch the AMVs I do for the giant wolves. Which is, I have been told, why some people liked the movies – giant wolves, yay! Okay, now we’re back to stupid romance – oh, look more giant wolves! Stupid romance – WOLVES!!!”)

        Liked by 1 person

      6. If you caught that thing about “Wait, I’m not sure I’ve EVER seen a pregnant Asian lady before-” hullaballoo, there’s an actual stratification and active selection going on.

        There’s places you basically can’t live if you want to have kids outside of a rather strict format, and those kids aren’t likely to be VISIBLE if they’re around.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. I had not. Huh.

        I was mostly thinking I’ve never interacted with anyone who seemed to have a healthy relationship with another human being. I mean, odds are I have – I’ve just never seen anything that seemed healthy while I was present.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I think GK Chesterton had something about how health was hard to define, because it is a thing to have that is also a lack….

        Given that you don’t have a healthy background, a lot of the signs of a healthy relationship are going to flash bright red danger to you, because THEY ARE dangerous if it’s not a safe place. (insert rant about reversing cause and effect in popular culture, and how nice that is for predators)

        Liked by 2 people

    2. This makes a lot of sense. I know I go out of my way to try and find stories that have goodness in them; and if things start looking morally gray, I’m out of there.

      It may help that when I started reading most of the fiction near to hand was Sherlock Holmes, Robert E. Howard, J.R.R. Tolkien, and some Pern books.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “It may help that when I started reading most of the fiction near to hand was Sherlock Holmes, Robert E. Howard, J.R.R. Tolkien, and some Pern books.”

        That probably *did* help – it was formative and gave you a moral baseline beyond, “This makes me feel good/bad.” The big problem these days, in addition to artists being taught to prioritize ugliness, is that morality is no longer taught. At all. It’s just something you pay lip service to (at best) or openly scoff at and mock. Hence, as Makoto Fujimura said, the art world putting a premium on the “shocking, transgressive,” and essentially ugly. It’s de Sade’s inversion of the good, the revolution of the bad over the good to take it’s place and call itself good when it isn’t.

        It doesn’t *work*, mind you, in the long run but it makes one heck of a mess. Every. Single. Time. It is ever tried. Thanks to modern tech we get to spread the mess around and see others dealing with it, too, which at once makes it seem more pervasive than it is at the same time it makes it easier for people to fall into it or indulge in it. :sigh:

        Liked by 4 people

      2. To echo what Caroline said, reading good literature *very much* does help. It gives you a yardstick to measure other literature against. If you find something that tells a story similar to JRR Tolkien, Shakespeare, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Patricia A McKillip, whoever wrote Journey to the West, etc… then that’s *very likely* going to be a story worth your time reading.

        Stories are one of the most universal and predictable things humans have come up with. Once you know what makes a good story and have that down… you’ll be able to tell if any literature is good/bad fairly quickly.

        But you *need* good literature to learn that. If you never read good literature and study *why* it’s good, you won’t know what to look for. It’s like how one good example of something that you can *reference* is worth ten bad examples you have to avoid.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. In the vein of something I saw recently, these days, gardening, farming, having a normal family, and being a Christian are some of the most revolutionary/subversive things you can do.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. The best book I have ever read on literary analysis is <a href=”https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Basic-Plots-Stories-Anniversary/dp/1399415921“>”The Seven Basic Plots”</a> by Christopher Booker. The book is 700 pages long. 250 pages are dedicated to tracing how ever since the end of the Enlightenment, the psychological Ego has taken over many facets of Western Storytelling. It is what is responsible for so much of this type of thing.

    The trouble for storytelling is that the Ego is inherently selfish and is the source of wanting to bend everything around it in a way that inflates the Ego. A major point of storytelling when done well is that it is… incredibly focused on displaying how to keep the Ego in check so it doesn’t get in the way of genuinely connecting with other people. Writers in the West (those that are writing “high art” at least) have been very focused on the exact opposite for… a good century and a half. They are focused on writing stories about egocentric people for readers who are themselves egocentric… by authors who are egocentric. Everyone in mainstream Western Storytelling wants the story to revolve around them rather than… anyone else… including the world and the characters!

    This is a major problem for creative storytelling. The Ego is a creative dead end. Either it becomes extremely passive and just lets events happen to it while complaining the whole time… or it becomes extremely active and wants to be the one doing everything to everyone else all time. All stories written for the sake of stroking someone’s Ego wind up having the same types of things going on in them. (This is why one action movie is like every other action movie to a very broad extent… they are *primarily* an Ego Trip). Hollywood has been fueled by it’s Ego in some form for over a century and is now in the death throws of creative sterility as a result. As the philosophical East becomes more Western in it’s thinking, its stories are following the same trend, but at a faster pace.

    The good thing about Egocentric storytelling is that once you know what to look for, you know you’re reading a story written from that creative source (or rather, lack thereof) almost immediately. The problem is that this type of storytelling has so saturated the West, that it’s the *default* attitude people write stories with in mind. So finding *new* stories that aren’t primarily driven by someone’s Ego is rather difficult when trying to find them through the mainstream.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Some entries from the glossary of The Seven Basic Plots that are useful for describing this concept. The “Self” mentioned here is the psychological Self that all humanity shares in common and the driving force behind people wanting to connect to other people. It is the opposite of the Ego.

      Fantasy (as a technical term): make-believe or wishful thinking originating from the ego, essentially different in character from imagination.

      Fantasy cycle: the five-stage pattern which shapes the attempt to live out an ego-based fantasy when pressed to its conclusion (Anticipation – Dream Stage – Frustration – Nightmare Stage – Destruction). The basis of Tragedy.

      Nyktomorth: literally a ‘night shape’. Term used to describe the way in which fantasy feeds on incomplete images, which exercise their suggestive power over the mind from the fact that it lacks enough information to fully resolve them. This is helpful to understanding the psychological mechanism behind the appeal of fantasy-based storytelling, e.g. horror stories, pornography.

      Ego/Self Confusion: describes the unconscious process whereby the urge to totality represented by the Self can be hijacked by the ego (individually or collectively). This leads to ‘ego inflation’, as the ego then claims the moral superiority of acting in some higher, selfless cause. Invaluable to understanding a wide range of social and political phenomena, from puritanical self-righteousness in religion to Marxism, from the more extreme forms of environmentalism to political correctness.

      Sentimentality: another expression of ‘ego/Self confusion’, where the ego enjoys a make-believe version for non-egocentric qualities associated with the Self. It takes on their outward form, but separated from their inner reality. As Hollywood long since discovered, any loving emotion can be sentimentally appropriated in this way, such as love between man and woman, between parents and children, love of country, nature or God. Helpful in understanding the appeal of all types of fantasy-based storytelling and art.

      ————————

      Sentimentality as defined here greatly expands the types of stories that can be considered egocentric. And Hollywood has been writing sentimental stories that bend to the ego of the audience and the main characters ever since it started making movies… Hollywood has essentially been the capital of egotistical storytelling for the last century *at least*.

      The philosophical East has been much slower to adopt Egotistical storytelling for various reasons, but their more mainstream and modern storytelling apparatuses that are designed to appeal to a Western audience very often wind up going in an Egotistical direction. The Western audience has had several generations of learning that the point of stories is to appeal to the Ego above all else, and stories that don’t do that enough tend to not appeal to the West’s mass market as a result. The creative market then shifts to appeal to the Ego and the cycle continues.

      Although given what is currently happening in Hollywood… everyone is getting a very clear example of the creative dead end egocentric storytelling leads to. And most people don’t like it at the extreme end. But to be clear… this isn’t just a Hollywood issue. This is a very long-term tread in Western Storytelling that goes back two centuries. Fixing it is going to involve a lot more than just dialing back Hollywood’ craziness. In many ways, Hollywood is a symptom, rather than a cause of the problem.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. “Sympathy”, “curious about the world”, “interested in what happens next”…. You know, I think that’s the core of my own most elaborate work, but I’d never thought of it in those terms. Especially, perhaps, the “curious about the world” part. Oath of Rebellion begins with Asuna’s circumstances–a painfully restrictive upbringing–and gradually drops hints about Kirito’s, and of course deliberately brings up enough mysteries to (hopefully) engage the reader in wondering what’s really going on.

    But the first thing I really tried to establish was the sheer wonder of the setting. Of both the capabilities of the VR gear, and the world those capabilities were used to create. It was of great importance to me to get across the grandeur of the world, to convey the feeling of “why” the players–and Asuna in particular–would be so excited to be there. I felt that was critical to establishing the story as a whole, and I’ve tried to re-emphasize it where and when I can. To bring out how, even in the middle of all the dangers and even horrors going on around them, the world is still one that’s worth experiencing.

    I believe stories exist to enrich life. Relentless grimdark is the exact opposite. So even as I have terrible things happen to and around the characters, I try to show that that isn’t all there is to their world, that there’s a beauty and wonder to it that makes everything worth. That provides respite from those terrible things.

    …And now I think I’m starting to ramble aimlessly, so I’ll stop here and hope I’ve made my point.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. One tries. Hoping to get that back on track soon–I’ve got another author taking a look at the bloated first draft of Chapter 13 to hopefully give me a little advice on trimming it. For all that I love writing Duet, Rebellion is the one that lets me stretch my creative muscles and is definitely better suited to invoking The World Is Just Awesome. Got a big airship battle planned for the Yofel Castle arc, incidentally, and before that, there’s going to be an Interesting Situation Airship Duel involving a storm. …Now I just have to get through the Third Island arc, which is a pain because I used almost all the equivalent canon plot points at the very start of the story.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. I read a lot, but there are only two books I wish I’d never known existed, they were that terrible. Unfortunately, I happen to own one of them. Ugh.

    The first was portrayed as ‘Buffy managed to escape the call to be the Slayer (didn’t explain how) and grew up to have kids only for the monsters and the Slayer powers to come back.’ Sounds fascinating, right? I thought so! There was a demon attack in her kitchen out of nowhere, she wins, deals with that, realizes her powers are back… and then the book spends a ton of time and energy explaining just how difficult it is for a suburban SAHM to find a decent daycare for her baby on short notice. Dumped it then and there.

    The other book was a library book. I don’t remember what it was supposed to be about or why I grabbed it, but it starts off with the fact that this woman has left her house, left her husband, and hadn’t even bothered to close the door on her way out. Interesting start, okay. Then it started going into detail about their marriage and just how freakin’ incompatible they were. The main thing I remember was about the gifts.

    For their Paper Anniversary (first, I had to check) she gets him this beautiful, personalized stationary. He gets her some notepads. She does a scavenger hunt thing based on their relationship, like ‘place we had our first date’ type of thing. He has no clue where to even start. By the time I gave up, I was literally wishing that the cast would just walk in front of a bus, not even joking.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Fuzzy feelings of infatuation mistaken for love, or a desperate desire not to be alone, or perhaps a “fear of missing out/being the only one in your circle not married.” Sometimes it might even be an “I can fix him/her” situation (truth be told, the story described above literally sounds like the Fourth Option – “I can fix him”).

        Sadly all of the above occur in real life and help contribute to the run away divorce rate. :sigh: People, Romeo and Juliet was a *warning,* Lancelot and Guinevere were a warning, and see statement below of “Edward came sailing in laden with red flags”…..

        Liked by 3 people

      2. “I can fix him” does seem pretty likely in this case. The thing that really bugged me was that the POV character, the one you’re supposed to sympathize with? Was the husband. And he didn’t seem to see a problem with any of his behavior. ‘She was making a big deal out of nothing’ kind of attitude. I literally had to put the book down and walk away, because I didn’t want to pay the library for a book I hated that much.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Um. Yeah.

        Or as someone once pointed out after his wife left him because he didn’t put the dishes away, “It’s never about the dishes.” It’s the culmination of a long series of “you aren’t communicating with/listening to me”.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Shakespeare in general, I hate. That man had to be horrifically depressed.

      Hamlet? Seeing the stunts he pulled, and the sheer amount of collateral damage… main thought that came to mind: Such a shame the murderous uncle missed one.

      Which is really unfortunate, when the villain, while morally wrong, still did less damage overall than the ‘hero’ did. Watching someone spiral into madness is not my thing, either.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Shakespeare? Depressing?? What is this??? I’d never think to categorize his overall body of work that way.

        Shakespeare’s Tragedies are the not the end all, be all of his works. Go read his Comedies (A Midsummer’s Night Dream, As You Like It, The Tempest) and some of his Histories (Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 and Henry V). He can be hysterically funny when he wants to be and very much believes in happy endings so long as the characters are willing to mature. His Tragedies are reserved for characters who are not willing to mature. The problem is that the modern era is stuck on True Art is Angsty, so it’s Shakespeare’s Tragedies that get all the focus nowadays.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. The tragedies are all I really had been shown in school, it seems. Othello, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet… hated every one of them. I know midsummer’s night dream was gone over, too, but I can’t actually remember it.

        School apparently wanted ‘thought provoking’, I guess, because I can’t remember them assigning anything even remotely positive after elementary school.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. Try *The Merchant of Venice*, too. That is enormously funny. The tragedies, particularly *Romeo and Juliet* and *Hamlet*, get a lot of play but aren’t his entire work. I’ve never understood why everyone is gaga over *Hamlet* – it’s *good* storytelling but not my favorite by far nor what I would rate as Shakespeare’s best tragedy. *Macbeth* is more likely to be a better tragedy, imo (it’s also, for me, far scarier than *Hamlet*). But the comedies and histories are good – *Merchant* and *Midsummer Night* are my favorites so far.

        Going back to de Sade (and Freud), lots of people go for Shakespeare’s tragedies so that they can put weird sex in them that isn’t actually there. *Hamlet*? No, it’s not about sex, shut up. *Othello*? If you’re reducing it to sex, you’re missing the point, and *Romeo and Juliet* is a warning done up in ten story billboard writing. It’s not praising young love, you idiots, but pointing out where infatuation mixed with revenge-fixated families can go. Sheesh….

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Example of how Shakespeare writes humor from A Midsummer’s Night Dream (Act 3, Scene 2). Some fairies (with relatively good intentions) are messing around with humans so everyone can get good endings… It does not go as planned… Which for Shakespeare usually means lots of fun word-play and confusion happens rather than anything actually bad.

        Yes, the number of height-based puns and references Helena and Hermia can throw around is impressive

        The thing about Shakespeare is that all his works end with evil loosing and good winning. The Tragedies are told with the evil characters as the PoV character (or the foolish characters in the case of Romeo and Juliet). All his other plays are told from the PoVs of the good characters. But guess which PoV modern literature *really* isn’t interested in portraying because it finds it boring? Only thing is… Shakespeare’s good characters are never boring to watch. They’re instead *a lot* of fun to watch while they get up to hijinks in an effort for good to prevail.

        There are *several* Shakespeare plays that would right at home in anime/Eastern Media because they have the same energy of a lot of anime. Everything is over-the-top on purpose because that makes it *fun* for the audience to watch… and it never takes itself too seriously either.

        It’s important to remember that Shakespeare was… essentially (well-written) pop culture in his era. People liked it back then for the same reason we like well-written pop culture to day rather than elites art films.

        Liked by 4 people

  8. I am not a fan of horror. I do my best to stay as far away from the genre as I can. And yet, horror seems to be creeping into everything!

    I don’t get why people are so fascinated with ugly.

    I want to read about castles reaching for the sky, of princes and knights on white horses and gardens with flowers of every color.

    And yes, I want to read about the adorable bookworm with incredible magic powers falling in love with the captain of the guard.

    Show me the unicorns and pegasi, Show me Santa and the giving of presents! Show me a young woman giving home made chocolate for Valentine’s and getting white chocolate home made cookies in return!

    There is already so much despair going around. I want to escape to a place where the light of Hope is very real.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. In my defense, when I have horror in my stuff, it’s only so the light shines brighter. But yes, there is way too much of it going around, with an extra dose of grimdark for good measure. Ugh, *no.* You have your own genre for a reason, leave mine alone!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Very much so!

        I had someone tell me that I’d captured the Horror vibe and my mind had a record scratch moment because of how far I try to stay from the Genre.

        The closest I get to Horror is probably suspense. I know I can do that.

        Though, I would not be surprised if the first story I wrote in my Fur Trader verse sank its toes just on the other side of the line… So far I have two shorts stories and three more in the works, though I may make a longer story using characters that I haven’t created yet…

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Some uplifting music…

      Street Hawk Theme

      The Untamed MV | Loyal (Wen Ning)

      [ENG SUB] 救命 The Rescue | Dracula animatic

      -This last one of course has horror elements, it’s Dracula! But the story is about love and science conquering evil.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. To some extent, the story world is a claim about what is true.

    Some of the story worlds I wish to have nothing to do with are simply untrue.

    I’m not always at my happiest and best.

    I look for the storytellers that I can trust not to use a moment of weakness on my part to knock me down.

    Good and evil are a choice, and that choice matters.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. One of the absolute best Youtube songs is Fly away with me by TheFatRat. It just feels like what a Pern opening would be like. I think the problem we have is balancing. On one hand, darker acts seem to be popular, maybe as a guilty pleasure.
    On the other hand, good feelings seem to have mostly gone the way of the dodo since 9/11.

    I personally think it’s the disdain for the fanatic Jihadist that has spilled out into religion in general. Which imo is tarring completely different philosophies with the same brush. One of the best politicians I have met was tarred with Jihadism shortly after 9/11. The other runner: corrupt and sleazy as hell. Wouldn’t buy a used car from him. Yet he won.

    The problem I find is that there is no morally pure heroes in fiction/video games anymore. No people who choose to fight a tyrant to save a culture or group. It’s all tainted, near-criminals who have sketchy motivations. Even those who start with good intentions turn grey, if not dark quickly.

    Just look at Captain America. From selfless War Hero to fixated parody. Tony didn’t get off clean either, but he had a more reasonable justification. There was a literal invasion force on the way, and everything he tried turned to crap. There’s a reason why there are so many fix-fics for Tony and Civil War.

    I think part of why is also Game of Thrones and other dystopian stories. They’ve reawakened the medieval mindset that kept us in stasis, but without the moderating Catholic Church. Which has been hypocritical and corrupt since my mom was a girl. Just glad Gram passed before the major scandals in 2020.

    Rant over.
    TDLR:Balance gone, 9/11 broke us, No Pure heroes alá King Arthur, Game of Thrones mindset without moderating influences.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This suddenly explains why stories like Naruto and Bleach and even One Piece are so popular even/especially outside of Japan.

      For all that someone might have some issues with some of the actions taken with regards to the writing direction or the Karma Houdini tendencies of some villains the main characters are…well they’re unabashadely and unashamedly heroic.

      In the case of Ichigo and Naruto both they have dark sides but they are, in a very real sense, separate from them and when confronted with a choice they both choose to do the right thing. To choose the harder path.

      Luffy seems the type to just not realize there are worse things he could choose to do or be but I never followed that series for very long.

      Though I think there’s a deeper problem than just a dearth of genuinely heroic characters. There’s a societal wide obsession with being “nice,” and association with “mean” being bad/evil and “nice” being good.

      It’s not. Good people will generally go out of their way to avoid being cruel unless it’s a situation where being a little cruel is the right thing to do (disabusing a child of a dangerous notion they are stubbornly refusing to let go springs to mind) to prevent evil or tragedy. But that doesn’t mean they’re nice or that being mean isn’t sometimes a good thing.

      Especially when the definition of mean is “not doing/agreeing with me always.”

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Naruto also has one of the more clever ways I’ve seen of writing around Freudian Excuses anywhere… Which is that over 2/3s of the cast have what would make for an excellent Freudian Excuse to be an antagonist in the story. Including the title character himself! Only thing is… less than half of the characters with Freudian Excuses are actually antagonists. The rest of them manage to move past whatever it was that could have easily caused them to be an antagonist and are at least not obstacles to the actual heroic characters. And some antagonists have no Freudian Excuse other than “I liked doing it at the time”!

        Which means that when antagonists try using Freudian Excuses to make other characters (and the audience) feel sorry for them… it doesn’t work that well because the characters and the audience have seen people in just as bad circumstances not go evil. It massively helps get the idea across that the characters are responsible for where they end up regardless of what their circumstances were because so many people managed not to (ultimately) be defined by all the crappy stuff they went through in the past.

        “There’s a societal wide obsession with being “nice,” and association with “mean” being bad/evil and “nice” being good.”

        There is the *appearance* of being good/evil and the reality of being good/evil. And our society very much judges things by their appearance. Which doesn’t work… Truly good people know they don’t have to *look* good to actually be good. While evil people know they have to *look* good to not be discovered as being evil. Which causes problems when some of the nicest-sounding people around are very often Narcissists or Psychopaths…

        Liked by 2 people

      2. You and Canis are bringing me back to my favorite anime, darn it. *Zoids: Chaotic Century* has a hero whose dad died protecting their village, but he loves zoids (giant living animal mecha) as much as his dad did. The hero’s direct antagonist grew up with loving parents who were researchers on zoids and who were killed by an organoid (small type of zoid that boosts the bigger ones’ power), and he already resented zoids because his parents paid them more attention than they did him (or so it seemed).

        Similar circumstances, but where the hero never seeks revenge, his opponent does – until he loses the only friend he has. That’s when the change occurs. And there is *never* a Freudian excuse given in either case. It is *always* “they made their choices, and this is what it got them.”

        There’s a lot of reasons why I like that series. No Freudian excuse in sight is a big one on the list.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. “In the case of Ichigo and Naruto both they have dark sides but they are, in a very real sense, separate from them and when confronted with a choice they both choose to do the right thing. To choose the harder path.

        Luffy seems the type to just not realize there are worse things he could choose to do or be but I never followed that series for very long.”

        Add Van Flyheight from *Zoids: Chaotic Century* to that list as well. He could do a lot of bad, but he never really seems to think of it. If you do something bad in front of him, he’s going to fight you because *that’s wrong* and you shouldn’t do that!

        Liked by 2 people

    2. The problem with “Morally Pure” Heroes is that there is no such thing as a morally pure person (who isn’t like… part of the God-Head at least). So trying to make stories about Morally Pure Heroes automatically comes off as being “fake” and being *unable* of being emulated by people. People *know* they’ll fail to live up to such a standard.

      What is more effective is to show the Hero being tempted by something and having to mentally wrestle with what the right choice is. Show that the choice isn’t automatically *easy* to make for them and then they feel more real and able to be emulated.

      This extends to having to fix mistakes… which means showing the Hero making mistakes. Granted, *why* they make mistakes is really important. But people *need* to know that even if they make a mistake, they can still reconcile and fix it. Heroes who never make mistakes can’t ever been shown as being able to fix them.

      There is a massive gap between that though and “heroes never are heroic”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. First of all, my definition of a morally pure person is someone who is only cruel when absolutely needed rather than just because it’s easier than doing the right thing. Ichigo and Naruto are two good examples already discussed.

        Light Yagami from Death Note on the contrary I pegged as a psychopath and nutcase within the first 10 minutes of the anime, which has been noted to have lionized him compared to the manga. He is my example of a villain. Creepy one too.

        A morally grey person I view as someone who has done bad things, but doesn’t self-justify them. Yes, they did them, but only because they had very few choices otherwise.

        In my opinion 9/11’s aftermath was in theory justified with the information we had at the time. Maybe if we had waited, we wouldn’t have disgraced ourselves, but I remember the attitude at the time. People were shocked, horrified, panicking about everything. My mom worked in a small townhall, and there were so many people worried we would be hit by an attack because we had some rich people living there. As in Mom got home two hours late because they finally managed to calm things down enough that a riot was unlikely.

        I had never heard of any serious racism in New York, but there were multiple incidents for the next week. I think the President’s response to that was pretty bad, but he did try.

        Everyone was howling for retribution. It’s one of the few times both political parties were completely united. Sady, politics has degenerated drastically since then, but for a short time no-one undermined a rival. Some of the suggestions I heard were brutal, and I won’t repeat them. The only good thing about the aftermath was that bio-warfare was ruled out immediately. Yes, people were that angry/scared/shocked. Never seen anything like it, and hope to never again.

        America at that time thought that we were liked, if not loved. That we were taking on problems that hadn’t been solved. Like a neutral party offering a different perspective that could potentially solve the dischord once and for all. 9/11 proved to us that America was hated by some. Hated to the point of fanaticism akin to the Dark Ages. America thought that that mindset was gone, was obsolete. Hard lesson.

        Like

      2. You want to know the utter hell of it?

        We can’t trust that the reports of “racism” that were heard of were actually racism. As opposed to “stopped allowing transgressions.”

        Several of the cases where folks went and investigated, to be able to justly punish those harassing the innocent…found out it wasn’t actually innocent. Some of the “innocent victims” turned out to have been guilty enough to go to jail. They’d just been able to pass when folks were nice enough to help cover over “minor failures.”

        You know, exactly like how the 9/11 guys got into position to attack.

        But that tends to get ignored.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. :waves: Superheroes, space knights, Air Force officers fighting false gods and alien vampires, Hobbits on adventures, Witch World, and…basically, I doubled down on what I already liked. If they’re *good guys* and good girls, GIMME! I don’t want morally gray characters or anti-heroes who do bad things and cynically call it reality. Beat it, you jokers. You’re not right in the head, and you’re not *right*, either. Give me the good guys. I don’t want anything else.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It wasn’t just 9/11 that lead to this though. It was America’s *response* to 9/11 that did. The way America resounded to 9/11 was that it was *automatically* the good guy and that meant getting involved in two wards in the Middle East was justified. Only, that didn’t turn out well and America never accomplished it’s goals. This fed into the narrative various people had been telling since the Vietnam War which ended similarly.

        In other words, by this point, “9/11” has also come to be associated with what lead up to it and what happened after it in terms of US Foreign Policy. Which was the US trying to be a hero in really dubious ways in parts of the world it had no business getting involved in… unless it *really* was just as morally grey as every other country was when it comes to foreign policy.

        You see this type of thinking even effecting things like how people think of America’s involvement in WWI/WWII. They are some of the most *obvious* thematically Black vs White conflicts in history… And yet America had to ally with some really shady people to win those (aka the Soviet Union) and do some things that got a lot of people killed because… well… it’s war.

        Essentially… people think in order to be actually heroic, people (and countries) have to not get up to shady business/behavior on the side. America has always been doing that because that’s how foreign policy works *in general*. So America can’t be heroic by default. No country really can.

        9/11 was just when people started being much louder about that concept after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s.

        Like

      3. I don’t think Crossover really wants us to get into deep politics on this blog, but… anyone going in for those stories really, really, really needs to look a bit deeper on why we got involved in those two places in the middle east.

        A good test of a source is if they don’t note how many times the US had absolute legal justification for going in and leaving glass, they’re not giving you the basic relevant information.

        If they attempt to equivocate WMD with functional nukes, they are selling you a bill of goods.

        Heck, even just look at Vietnam and find the veteran groups explaining how the war was already won, and then the media tossed it.

        For real fun, they can even look into the USSR’s released documents on what their psyops looked like.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. This. All of this. I *watched them* take the WMDs – chemical weapons – out of Iraq *on live TV.* Why people think WMD equals nuke and not dirty bomb, chem bombs, or equally nasty things, I do not know. But I *watched* that convoy of Russians yanking as many of those things as they could out of Iraq on trucks on national television.

        Why did the Russians take them? That is the question, isn’t it? I can think of a few reasons….

        Liked by 1 person

      5. “It’s just chemicals….”

        “Right. France is still cleaning up those chemicals *from World War I*, when they *missed* their targets and annihilated whole villages *by accident.* The land is still considered poisoned and not fit for human use until thoroughly cleaned.”

        Liked by 2 people

      6. I spent a couple of years, off and on, looking up as much as I could on why we’d been attacked and what we could legitimately do back.

        Let’s just say I am very, very disappointed that most nations of the world seem to ignore the fact that the Geneva conventions would not just allow, but encourage the glassification of people who so violated the laws of war.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. This is one reason I liked Dungeon Keeper Ami. It’s a crossover, where Mizuno Ami (Sailor Mercury) gets isekai’d and stranded in the world of the Dungeon Keeper games and gets tricked into becoming a Dungeon Keeper… and then proceeds to be a paragon of Good as much as she can, despite being a literal “dark lord” due to the very nature of what a Dungeon Keeper is. And while she’s playing on hard mode because she’s still uncompromisingly Good, many of her closest won and most significant victories turn out to rely on tiny little things she did earlier that were Good-despite-personal-cost. And all this despite the fact she’s working against expectations in-universe, and no one would be surprised if she just slipped a little.
        Too bad it’s on long-term hiatus, and despite occasional noises of continuation, there’s no true sign it’ll ever finish. Still worth a re-read occasionally.

        Liked by 3 people

      8. If you’re on a computer, you can open the comment you want to “chain” with, and copy the number and put it into the address from a different comment– your comment is 86615 while Mary’s at the end is 86600— and you can edit a reply to hers to say on-writing-wonder-and-beauty/?replytocom=86615#respond and reload that link, and it will thread.

        Doesn’t fix the comment wall, though, so I mostly only use it when I *really* want to be sure someone gets a ping. ^.^

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Harry Potter is an example of a shiny awesome world, which is why it’s so popular. Even though you could fly a star destroyer through the plot holes. My most irritating example: Karkaroff got away with a simple banishment for being a Death Eater because he turned states evidence. Sirius Black was thrown into prison without a trial or even a questioning/interrogation even though they obviously desperately wanted knowledge of other Death Eaters. If they wanted info so bad, why not use veritaserum one of the other documented ways to get him to talk?

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Except that it’s not a good explanation. Dumbledore is consistently portrayed as a good, but flawed man. I think the fact that they never truly addressed the Sirius issue in the books is a fault of the author, not Dumbledore.

        It’s also worth noting that Dumbledore goes out of his way to set-up a Hail Mary play to try and save Harry’s life in the last book. He comes to the conclusion that Harry has to die in order to defeat Voldemort for good and rather than taking care of it then and there he goes to great lengths, absurd lengths even, to set up a Hail Mary just to try and give Harry a chance to survive.

        He made mistakes. Lots of them. But it doesn’t change the fact that he was a good man and a force for good throughout the story. Not an evil manipulator. Not somebody who’s playing 4D chess against his enemy. Just a man trying to do the best he can for everyone he can.

        Looking at one particular plothole – out of many in the books lets be honest – and concluding that “this man, consistently and constantly portrayed as good but flawed, is actually an evil manipulator!” is a terrible explanation for the plothole.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Oh…kay? That was not the read I got on him from the four books I read. What I got was, “I will do all these things because you are the one prophesied to end Voldemort. And I will tell you nothing about the very real dangers trying to end you.”

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I never finished the last book, but that’s one of the reasons why I don’t like Dumbledore all that much. Or Molly for that matter. Especially in OotP where she was saying Harry didn’t need to know what was going on in the Order meetings.

        Uh, Ma’am… This guy, this very bad dude has been going after Harry to the point of having tunnel vision. I don’t care if you think he and his friends should not be in the meetings.

        Harry at the very least needed the cliff notes of what was going on to keep himself safe. I will agree that a fifteen-year-old doesn’t need the gory details, but Sirius Black has a point.

        You are not his mother, Molly. You are not Harry’s Guardian.

        Sirius Black’s words should have had a lot more weight than they did. They were using his house as their base of operations and Sirius Black was supposed to be the one in charge of Harry.

        …No, I do not like how Molly treated either Sirius or Harry in that book.

        OotP is why I do not like Molly W. at all.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Okay, for what it’s worth, I give Molly W. a bit of grace here. Not because of the genre but because she is British.

        Allow me to elaborate without getting too deep in the weeds (I hope): Britain is batso *nuts.* You may not have heard about the riots they had in London about ten or twelve years ago. Among the other lovely things that happened (cars burning, rapes, robberies, etc.), a party of I think four people, including women, was robbed at I believe gunpoint. They were then ordered to strip and had to walk home naked.

        That? Not happening stateside. Not outside Certain Places. In England, the whole *country* is like that. Permits to carry are non-existent – you need money and/or connections to pay for the hoops to pay for the hoops to be able to legally defend yourself there. The entire country has a “there is no crime in England” mantra going to rival that famous line about Ba Sing Se, and it has only gotten worse. As of around four years ago I saw a snap shot of a toddler’s cutlery set in Britain that was marked with a tag that would warn you (and prevent you) from buying the set without first getting the tag off…because the set included a *dull knife.* I’m not kidding – with the laws against firearms, people have turned to using knives to commit violence in England. Britain’s brilliant solution to this problem was to regulate and by now practically ban knives, including those in toddlers’ cutlery sets.

        If you remember a story a few years back about an attacker in Britain being stopped with a Narwhal tusk (you can look up the story – it’s crazy but interesting), the whole reason the store owner grabbed the tusk is because *he literally had no other weapon available.* All other means of defense are regulated to the point they’re de facto banned. In HP the Ministry of Magic is…very much like the British ministry. There’s plenty of overlap here.

        So, this is the culture that Molly W. lives in. A culture that says “there is no war in Londontown,” and then leaves you defenseless when the war shows up. Molly lived through terror and naturally wants to spare the next generation that. Is she right in how she tries to do that? Not hardly, which she eventually learns. But based on the culture she lives in, *her attitude makes sense.* I can give her grace because of that without agreeing with her. (There’s a reason I want a Harry Potter, American, series. SO MUCH would be different….) I just wish real Britain didn’t make Molly look halfway sane. Brrr.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. One of the mistakes so many people make about the books is thinking that Dumbledore believes in prophecy. He doesn’t. Not really.

        He explicitly tells Harry (in book five where it’s confirmed that there is a prophecy) that the only weight the prophecy has is what Harry and Voldemort give it. That the only reason the prophecy became a true prophecy was because Voldemort chose to act on it and that Harry didn’t have to pay it any mind if he didn’t want to.

        Narratively we know that’s not going to happen even before Harry decides he’s going to face Voldemort, prophecy or no prophecy, but it’s there and it’s implied that Dumbledore has been working to prevent Voldemort coming back and end his threat where Harry (our primary narrator let us not forget) has not been able to see.

        It’s also explicitly pointed out in that book that one of Dumbledore’s mistakes was how he handled Harry and his involvement (or lack thereof) in things up to that point. Dumbledore is an old man. He explicitly wanted to give Harry a chance to grow up and have a childhood. That his efforts to do so failed is as much on Voldemort and Harry himself as it is on Dumbledore.

        The First book is actually rather good at showing that Harry’s interference at the end of the book is the only reason Voldemort even had a chance at the stone in the first place. Had Harry not shown up Quirrel/Voldemort would have been stuck there until Dumbledore got back.

        The Second book suffers a fair bit from it being a children’s book story and the plot demanding that the adults be incompetent enough to have the children save the day. But other than that Dumbledore’s doing his best and being beset by political enemies where him being a good man prevents of him from taking his opponents out behind the shed and dealing with them as he probably ought to. Because as a good man he has to work within the rules until it becomes clear that evil has full control of the rules.

        The third book is, once more, a case of adults trying to shield children. Yes perhaps to too great an extent, but again the intent isn’t to manipulate or get the child killed. It’s because you generally don’t tell children about all the horrors and evils of the world and adults, particularly the ones you want around children, aren’t going to just go “Oh he’s seen something horrible, time to treat him like a tiny adult!” No they try to help with whatever damage that’s done while not compounding it by exposing them to a great deal more that they aren’t emotionally developed to know about yet.

        The fourth book is, if we take the whole bit about the magical contract from the Goblet at face value (which I believe we are meant to), simply a case of the enemies of Harry doing an end-run around everyone and catching them by surprise. There are some bits that could be hinky, but seeing how that all played out, actually paint Dumbledore in a better light than I think most give him credit for. When he learns of the way in which Voldemort returns he’s happy that he now has a lever for trying to keep Harry alive.

        There’s a lot of stuff in the Harry Potter books that people take way out of context to cast a much more terrible light on people in them than is truly warranted. Compound that with an inability to accept people being human and expecting a degree of perfection that is frankly unreasonable and, well, you get the HP fandom.

        Like

      6. We’re going to have to disagree on this. Among many, many other things, Dumbledore is the reason Harry was in the Dursleys’ care.

        You do not put a child into someone’s care without checking up on them. You do not leave a child in someone’s care when they are constantly underfed and injured. And Dumbledore had someone watching and giving reports.

        No. “Wanting to give him a childhood” does not get a pass, here.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. When it comes to Harry Potter, there is a reason I lost interest in the books but still read the fanfiction. And while I agree that the Karkaroff vs. Sirius Black circumstances are really bad, the thing that bugged me the most was the Occlumency lessons. Sure, Dumbledore couldn’t teach him, but you can’t tell me Snape was the only other option. Even just throwing a book at him and having someone answer questions would have to be better than that trash fire.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Oh, yes. One plot hole annoyed me so much I wrote Spells in Secret.

      I have to admit that flawed fiction is my muse’s favorite source.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Harry Potter runs what I call “emotional worldbuilding” rather than “rational worldbuilding”. Rather than logically makes sense, the point of the worldbuilding is to *feel* right in the given moment. And *Rowling’s* Harry Potter (whether it’s her books or games) hits this emotional spot in terms of worldbuilding where it is never boring or apathetic. Some of it is incredibly wonderful (Room of Requirement, flying, buildings being bigger on the inside than on the outside), others of it are incredibly horrifying (the Dark Mark, Horcruxs, the Unforgivables), but it never *doesn’t* illicit an emotional response from the reader.

      The thing Harry Potter is in my mind is that it is more of a modern mythology or myth cycle. *Everyone* and every event is archetypal and larger than life and happens because that’s how these type of stories always go in an archetypal sense. The Chosen Hero gets raise by his Abusive Relatives until he finds his Inheritance. The Wise Old Man lives in his Magic Castle where he mentors the Hero. The Hero meets his Closest Companions who help him defeat the Villain. etc.

      Expecting Harry Potter to conform to real-world rules is like expecting Grim Fairy Tales to. Or Greek Mythology… or Japanese Folklore… or a thousand other types of stories that are more about what things *mean* than what things physically *are*. I’ve probably thrown more Harry Potter fan-fic at the proverbial wall than nearly any other type of fan-fic because the author was more concerned about making their worldbuilding *rationally* fit together rather than getting it to emotionally fit together. And for Harry Potter in particular, it’s the emotions that fuel the narrative and world rather than rationality.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Philosophically contemplating Dragonfire and Time, where I found myself wrestling overtly with wonder. Mae is a wizard. It’s a job. She remembers her childhood when magic was so much more wonderful, even though she is doing a lot more good now that she does it as her job.

    All the wonders of magic in that work were things she did not herself do.

    One has to juggle these things.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. A further note — wonder is in general aided by the suggestion of something greater happening. Something mysterious that is larger than the book. This is why it is generally wiser to keep the metaphysics outside the fiction

    Liked by 1 person

  14. And a reflection on how old the problem is:

    The Three-Decker

    “The three-volume novel is extinct.”

    Full thirty foot she towered from waterline to rail.
    It cost a watch to steer her, and a week to shorten sail;
    But, spite all modern notions, I found her first and best—
    The only certain packet for the Islands of the Blest.

    Fair held the breeze behind us—’twas warm with lovers’ prayers.
    We’d stolen wills for ballast and a crew of missing heirs.
    They shipped as Able Bastards till the Wicked Nurse confessed,
    And they worked the old three-decker to the Islands of the Blest.

    By ways no gaze could follow, a course unspoiled of Cook,
    Per Fancy, fleetest in man, our titled berths we took
    With maids of matchless beauty and parentage unguessed,
    And a Church of England parson for the Islands of the Blest.

    We asked no social questions—we pumped no hidden shame—
    We never talked obstetrics when the Little Stranger came:
    We left the Lord in Heaven, we left the fiends in Hell.
    We weren’t exactly Yussufs, but—Zuleika didn’t tell.

    No moral doubt assailed us, so when the port we neared,
    The villain had his flogging at the gangway, and we cheered.
    ’Twas fiddle in the forc’s’le—’twas garlands on the mast,
    For every one got married, and I went ashore at last.

    I left ’em all in couples a-kissing on the decks.
    I left the lovers loving and the parents signing cheques.
    In endless English comfort by county-folk caressed,
    I left the old three-decker at the Islands of the Blest!

    That route is barred to steamers: you’ll never lift again
    Our purple-painted headlands or the lordly keeps of Spain.
    They’re just beyond your skyline, howe’er so far you cruise
    In a ram-you-damn-you liner with a brace of bucking screws.

    Swing round your aching search-light—’twill show no haven’s peace.
    Ay, blow your shrieking sirens to the deaf, gray-bearded seas!
    Boom out the dripping oil-bags to skin the deep’s unrest—
    And you aren’t one knot the nearer to the Islands of the Blest!

    But when you’re threshing, crippled, with broken bridge and rail,
    At a drogue of dead convictions to hold you head to gale,
    Calm as the Flying Dutchman, from truck to taffrail dressed,
    You’ll see the old three-decker for the Islands of the Blest.

    You’ll see her tiering canvas in sheeted silver spread;
    You’ll hear the long-drawn thunder ’neath her leaping figure-head;
    While far, so far above you, her tall poop-lanterns shine
    Unvexed by wind or weather like the candles round a shrine!

    Hull down—hull down and under—she dwindles to a speck,
    With noise of pleasant music and dancing on her deck.
    All’s well—all’s well aboard her—she’s left you far behind,
    With a scent of old-world roses through the fog that ties you blind.

    Her crew are babes or madmen? Her port is all to make?
    You’re manned by Truth and Science, and you steam for steaming’s sake?
    Well, tinker up your engines—you know your business best—
    She’s taking tired people to the Islands of the Blest!

    Rudyard Kipling

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment