50th blog post

Crazy that I've done fifty of these - I don't even really knows who read it, but hey, I like writing them so when it strikes me I'll continue.

I just got word my "It was a bright and sunny day" story is getting published in the latest edition of Emerald Tales. I like this story - it's a little bit clever, a little funny, and I like the twist I put on the end. It's a good feeling getting that acceptance.

Still waiting on the agent for my book. Marci (my sister) read it - she said she really enjoyed it, so that made me happy too :)

It's been a while

I haven't really written anything lately - more because there just hasn't been a lot to write about my writing.

I'm working on a new idea for a novel. I've got about 15 pages so far and haven't really gotten into the "meat" which is usually a good sign for me.

I'm waiting on my full still - who knows how long that will take? Still, dreaming about it now is a lot of fun :)

Wow

The big agent I sent my manuscript to has requested the FULL from me -- HUGE deal! Very excited -- now just to play the waiting game.....but WOW.

Lost: Lighthouse

I missed writing last week, though it was certainly an intense and BIG episode. This week was almost as good.

Quick thoughts:
-- Loved Jack's side story. Loved that it was SO character driven and all about who Jack is, not so much about mythology. Just one question, who is David's mother?

-- Claire is BADASS. Axe to the stomach ranks up there with knives in a dishwasher as one of the all time great Lost deaths.

-- The scene in the lighthouse was AWESOME. What the HELL was that? The numbers were DEGREES? Why and how? Is someone coming to the island, or was that metaphorical for "Jack" coming? I did notice -- Austin was on the wheel and not crossed off. Interesting....

-- So now we have Claire vs. Kate -- could be an epic showdown. Is Jacob setting Kate up somehow to get Claire out of the way?

-- I knew her "friend" was going to be Locke - but was totally hoping we'd find out HIS NAME!!! Grrrrrrrr

That's it for first thoughts....more might come to me.

Check it out!

A story of mine was published here under a pseudonym. If you know me, you can figure out which one is mine pretty easily (hint: what do I do Tuesday nights at 9pm?)

http://www.scribblersandinkspillers.com/copperwire.html

Villains Can Be Good!

I've been reading Under the Dome for quite a while now (finally within a normal novel's length of the end) and as always I have great admiration for what Stephen King accomplished. I was thinking today, though, about the main villain in the book. I don't want to give anything away to those who haven't read it, but suffice it to say that he is one bad dude. There is nothing I can think of I would consider redeeming about this guy, and it made me wonder why King wrote him that way. On thinking about it, the situation created is unique and can sustain this type of villainy whereas in almost any other case a bad guy of this magnitude would have been shut down before he began. I started thinking then about what makes for a well-rounded bad guy. Say what you want about Big Jim Rennie, but he certainly isn't a well rounded character.

I thought then about some of my favorite antagonists (note NOT villain) from literature, film, and in one case TV: Javert from Les Mis, Sweeney Todd, The Beast from Beauty and the Beast, Fagin from Oliver Twist, Darth Vader, Ben from Lost, Hannibal Lecter (specifically from Silence of the Lambs), Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds. What makes these antagonists well-rounded, interested characters vs. flat out evil such as Ursula from Little Mermaid, Jafar from Aladdin, Randall Flagg or Big Jim Rennie?

I realized it's all in the comparison to other characters. Each of those in the first list have a counter-balance to their wickedness that gives them an additional layer in the comparison. Javert is ValJean's antagonist, but Thernadier is evil. Sweeney Todd does terrible things, but Judge Turpin is far worse. The Beast kidnaps and menaces - but Gaston who shows the same negative traits that punished the beast in the first place never changes; The Beast does. Fagin is a pitiable character and shows genuine affection for those in his care -- as opposed to Bill Sikes who is violent (directly opposed to Fagin's moral compass) and far more menacing. Darth Vader redeems himself through his son as opposed to The Emperor who never veers from his course. Ben's manipulations have been shown to be overshadowed by the manipulations of the Man in Black (or maybe Jacob - that's yet to be seen). Hannibal's intelligence and cunning make him far more interesting than Buffalo Bill. Hans Landa's evil is mitigated by the fact that he's working for Hitler.

Maybe there's something to this. The counter-point of villainy - having another character who is more two dimensional than your "main" villain might actually be a good thing in helping to define your central antagonist. Of course, having purely evil characters isn't necessarily a bad thing if it serves the story well, but to develop a well-rounded character the balance against someone MORE evil (as opposed to my previous thought on being a balance against the hero) might service the story even better.

Can anyone think of a well-rounded villain that disproves this theory?

Musical Judgement

The song "Anytime" came on my ipod today while Caitie and I were coming home from dinner. It's a cabaret written song by William Finn expressing the sentiment that no matter what happens, the singer would be there for the person he's singing about. I believe the song was written for someone who is dying, though the lyrics are universal enough that they could apply to anything.

The song is one my absolute favorites - the melody and lyrics are both gorgeous.

It got me thinking - is there a way to judge music qualitatively? To Caitie and me, the song is beautiful (it's one of her favorites also, and we even heard the version she prefers - she likes the Norm Lewis, I like the Carolee Carmello, but both are great). Others might hear the song and think it's boring or pretentious or just not their type of song. By the same token, that person might turn around and put on a country song (Caitie likes that, me not so much usually, though I do like some old country a la Willie Nelson - music Caitie hates) or a rap "song" (neither of us like that) and think it's amazing and the greatest thing ever.

OK, so we all have different tastes. So I said to Caitie, "is there some music that everyone would universally agree on as being great?" After thinking about it, I said "what about Mozart?" Nearly anyone who studies or writes about music seriously would agree Mozart is great. Why? I have no idea, but he IS. There's something in the music that is, for the lack of a better word, great.

But then here's the thing -- that same person who would put on Jay-Z's latest might think Mozart is boring or pretentious. If that's so, can there be any music that is considered universally great? Is there a standard by which was can judge ANY music of any sort and say that regardless of opinion, something is "great?"

Now, I admit I'm writing about something here I have little actual knowledge of beyond knowing what I like and what I don't. What I find fascinating, though, is can this be stretched to other art forms -- painting, movies, theater, literature? Moby Dick is considered a great work, but, ironic as the following statement is, I find it dry as toast. Am I wrong? Is the book "great" regardless of my opinion, or can each person on their own define "greatness." If that's so, then how can we EVER pick a "classic" or a "great work" of art?

These are the things that keep me up at night. Any thoughts? Sound off below.