Reading the Classics

[flyingskull]

Sorry for the absence. Part of it was work, part of it was a bit of sex, but most of it was that I was thinking and trying to understand a thing that's been irritating me: why is it so hard to use decent reading comprehension when faced with the classics?

Take Romeo and Juliet for example. Everybody and their mother-in-law are dissing it right, left and centre because the protagonists are eejits and there's such a simple solution to their problem and also that's not love, that's hormones talking. Which would be alright if the actual text didn't say something completely different from 'see how tragic this immortal love story is?'.

What the actual text says is that murderous hatred and family feuds are killers; that they blind people to logic, reason and good sense. It says that the adults have lost all sense of responsibility and social values, not that the children are cretins. The children - he's sixteen and she's fourteen - have good social values, the children are open to dialogue, the children fall in and out of love and lust and, if they don't respect their parents so much, they fear them enough and love them enough to be willing victims to the adults' whims. That's what the tragedy is all about, y'know? The love - lust, hormones... doesn't make a difference - of the young protagonists is just a symbol of the hope for reconciliation, a thing that happens only after their death. The children are the scapegoats and sacrificial lambs.

They are also real human teens and so they are passionate, willful, confused, arrogant and timid. What's wrong with that? Why should we think Shakespeare (henceforth Will) endorses all their actions? He doesn't. He thinks the marriage is imprudent, he thinks Romeo's a butterfly, he thinks Mercutio's too hot-tempered for his own good, he thinks Juliet is a blancmange... He also clearly thinks that, if the families hadn't been so fucking blind, the whole thing wouldn't have been a problem at all. Romeo is a very good parti for Juliet, surname apart, after all.

Got sidetracked. I had another very good rant on Hamlet, but it can be summarised thus: Hamlet does most emphatically NOT want to kill anyone. He especially doesn't want to go "I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." for a father he didn't even like all that much and who always put him down. He does NOT want to be in Denmark and reign, he wants to be in Wittenberg and stude and frolic with Horatio. He does NOT want to marry Ophelia. Yet he's supposed to do all those things and he balks. A LOT. But external forces (as for Romeo and Juliet) force him to a bloody end. Which is all very well, but is utterly not to the point.

What I meant to say is: the protagonist is just the cardea, the hinge around which all actions turn. The author doesn't have to endorse the protagonist's character or actions, one can write about a person one despises, but if s/he is pivotal for all actions and events, then s/he is the protagonist of the novel, drama, whatever. I think it's the same problem I was trying to analyse in singing the praise of the Bastard Hero. There's a cultural trend today I rather hate. If someone is the protagonist, then s/he must be our paragon of virtues. Readers often mistake 'protagonist' for 'hero/ine'. Back to Will, look at Macbeth. Is he a hero? Nah. Is he a protagonist? Hell yes. Did Will endorse Macbeth's actions? 'Course not. BUT he was an interesting person to write about, an interesting person to analyse and condemn, not praise. Will wanted the audience to understand villains and what makes them tick. Because, y'know? he was an author, not a propagandist.

To jump a few centuries, look a Heatcliff. I mean, just look at what he does. He's the protagonist, no doubt, but a Hero? The man's a sociopath! I mean, he has reasons, but they are just reasons why he is what he is, they are not authorial endorsement of his actions. Emily was clearly fascinated by the character - mostly because it was based on her brother whom she loved far too much - but she never once endorses his actions, even if she endorses his passions and his love.

Why should the protagonist be a role model for readers? What has given birth to this monstrous attitude? I grant you it's easier to write this way than to risk readers' bad reactions if you try and tell the story of a villain protagonist; but why doesn't anyone try anymore? Well, no, I tell a lie. I know that authors who have a host of protagonists write some of them 'good', others 'bad' and others 'grey', but that's because the story doesn't have one protagonist. An epic fresco where several characters are all pivotal to a swirl or action. That's lovely and also quite satisfying to read, but that's always been true of epics. I was more focused on the single-protagonist story because I think it's there that the confusion between protagonist and hero happens most frequently for contemporary readers.

Made a hash of things as usual, haven't I? Sorry all. Shouldn't blather when at work, too many telephone calls and things.

ETA - I decided to let it stand, warts and all. Heh...

Comments

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Hey. :) I've been meaning to email you, actually - I could use your educated opinion on a few things, but I wasn't sure if you were up for debate again. I see that you are, though, so I'll get to it. =]

As for your three distractions, uhm... that's always a hassle, I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, and that's a very good question, respectively... ;)

The whole Romeo and Juliet thing is something I keep finding myself debating, actually. I'm with you on that one - my take on it is that of course they were morons, but that's not the point. =]

Their feelings were foolish and would probably not have lasted, but they were genuine feelings - and the pain they felt at being parted, that was genuine too. People seem to think that they're expected to agree with R & J's view on things, but as far as I can tell, they're really not - they're expected to understand, and they're expected to sympathise, and that's all. Shakespeare wasn't in the habit of writing Mary Sues, after all. =]

I think that part of the problem, though, was that Shakespeare's stories had to work on two different levels. He had integrity as a writer and wanted to write the best possible stories - but he also wanted to eat, and that meant he had to please the crowd, and the crowd wanted the heroes to be heroic, the villains to be villainous, and generally to have all their sentimental notions (about True Love, in this case) reinforced.

So if you watch Romeo and Juliet the way you'd watch a daytime soap, what you get is a sappy story about True Love and people dying for romantic but extremely stupid reasons. That's because for the audience at the time, this was the equivalent of a daytime soap - that's what it was sold as and that was what it had to work as. But because Shakespeare was clever, you can look a little more carefully - and what you get is story of human foolishness and how the stupidity of adults in combination with the (more excusable, one feels) stupidity of hormonal teenagers led to tragedy, just as you said.

Didn't you say sometime back that a good author can make the real message of a story be the complete opposite to the stated message? I suspect that kind of thing goes on a lot in Shakespeare's plays - though to be sure, I've still only read four of them. I really need to rectify that, these things are online and everything and I really have no excuse. ^_^;

You know, it's kind of sad that I can't exactly remember when was the last time I read a story where the protagonist was not a hero (in the liberal sense of the word whereby we're supposed the character does the right thing, or at least a right thing at every turn) and stayed not a hero through the end... They all become better people before the end, darn it.

Actually, I tell a lie - there is one book in my collection that has a protagonist that's sympathetic despite being a thouroughly nasty piece of work, and who does not reform, not one bit. I don't think it's been translated, it's called Den Stora Fredens Krig (which translates into something like "The War of the Great Peace"). The protagonist lies to and betrays his allies to death (and in one case, to eternal damnation), and his foremost goal is always his own survival and the continuation of his own power. But you still like him all the way, because he's in such a horrible situation with all the odds against him yet never gives up... and because he's such a smart bastard. =]

But aside from one fairly obscure Swedish writer, the pickings are kind of slim in the modern literature I've read...

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Didn't you say sometime back that a good author can make the real message of a story be the complete opposite to the stated message?

Yup, I sure did. I also still know that's true, but where do I find my proof that it's true? In the classics. *sigh* Not that Pterry doesn't use a variation of that more often than not, mind you, but his protagonists are people I personally can easily identify with. Well, except Brutha, but that's one of the 'why's I love Small Gods with an unholy and burning love. Actually there's no-fucking-one I can identify with in Small Gods - right except for Didactylos once or twice and NOT because they're bad persons - alright, except Vorbis - but because none of them thinks the way I do. It's a masterpiece of a novel for this to me. AND because Vorbis is a true villain. Another rare commodity nowadays. I mean, someone who will remodel the world in his image because he knows he's right, one who will remodel people in his image, thus proving he's right. Sucha villain is so fucking huge that only divine intervention can off him; which is precisely why he can only be found in Small Gods.

Hmm... krig is obviously war. Is fredens peace? What a very odd etimos. Am enchanted. I don't mind - actually I like - when a villain protagonist is brought down or offed at the end. That's tragedy, that is. I'm all for social virtues triumphing over sociopathy. But that should only happen at the end after you've inhabited the - admittedly warped - mind of the villain protagonist and been forced to see and admit to yourself, at least, that s/he's not an otherworldly creature made of EVIL, but a person, just like you, or me, or anyone. This kind of lesson seems to be MIA a lot lately.

On an utterly unrelated topic, have you heard Jordan is dead? Who the suck was he? A fantasy writer, yes, but what did he write? The name don't seem to ring any bells in me.

HUGZ

P.S. Where the fuck's your email? What did you want to discuss? DO you have any idea how dangerous it is to throw such hooks to a terminally curious person? Huh? Huh? HUH?

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

I think I identified a bit with Om. But that's because I'm a slacker with delusions of grandeur, too. =]

Vorbis is most certainly a villain like few others. And that's impressive, considering that he never does anything. He just talks, and all around him the world gets that much more horrible, people that much less human. There's something deeply horrific about someone who can do that much damage just by existing.

I've never thought about it, but I guess you're right - there's a real shortage of villains who're unbelievably bad, but in a quiet way. You read about Vorbis and it's all very calm, very matter-of-fact, you don't get upset about it - and then you put the book down for a moment and start to actually think about what you just read about Vorbis doing, and it suddenly dawns on you just how majorly fucked up it is. =] Now that's art, that is.

Pratchett is like an onion of awesomeness. Every time I think I understand his books I peel back another layer and realise that they're even better than I thought. :D And it also makes me realise just how much I've yet to learn about writing.

Hmmm... krig is obviously war. Is fredens peace? What a very odd etimos.

"Fred" means "peace," yes. I guess "fredens" would literally mean "the peace's." =]

The name refers to the fact that before the events in this book, the world had been caught in a sort of clichéd fantasy loop - there was always a King on the throne who was backed by one divine power and a rebel leader who was backed by another divine power, and the moment the King managed to destroy the rebel leader or the rebel leader managed to overthrow the King and assume the throne himself, a new rebel leader appeared, backed by whichever power had just lost its champion. After this book (which is a prequel to three others) one of the powers got exiled from the world, so there was a thousand years of peace.

Of course, it's also meant as a sort of irony - after this war, there was peace, but only because instead of two sides fighting, a single tyrant now ruled supreme. Ordered tyranny is certainly better than endless war - even a very hard-working tyrant can't personally tyrannise everyone in his kingdom, so a lot of people will be left to mind their own business, whereas war tends to become everyone's business =] - but still, it's not the happy scenario that it sounds like and that people in the story are trying to tell themselves that it is.

Funnily enough, I have now encountered another book where the character who elicits the most sympathy is definitely a nasty piece of work, and it's a prose superhero story. ^_^; Soon I'll Be Invincible by Austin Grossman. I'll post a full review once I've finished it, but I'm completely charmed by the miserable, ingenious, troubled supervillain protagonist. He's definitely bad, and I don't think he's even capable of reforming. Trying to conquer the world is just what he does, and it seems to be the only thing that makes him even slightly happy. I kind of want him to succeed, actually, though I know perfectly well why he can't. He just seems to want it so badly. =]

Other than that... well, there are a couple of villainous protagonists that show up on short stories, like Gaiman's horrible Mr Smith. =] But it's sort of scarce in longer works.

Funnily enough, I tried to write a novel like that once - it was supposed to be a retelling of Egyptian mythology, told from the perspective of Set. It didn't turn out very well, alas... but I still have fond memories of my Set and how insufferably stupid and clueless Osiris seemed to him. (Osiris was an idiot. Anyone who screws his brother's wife and then doesn't get the teensiest bit suspicious when said brother tells him to get into a coffin is officially Too Stupid To Live! =])

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Pratchett is like an onion of awesomeness. Every time I think I understand his books I peel back another layer and realise that they're even better than I thought. :D And it also makes me realise just how much I've yet to learn about writing.

I don't think it's exactly about writing, though, of course, you have to have a masterful technique to pull such things off; I think it's about how Pterry thinks. Layered writing is partly unconscious, I'm sure. I mean, look at Murakami... alright, alright, am a bit fixated, but only because I'm peeling her onion and I keep finding new layers, y'know?, after ten or twelve readings. I mean Pterry knows and Maki knows what he/she's doing, that's quite clear, you don't get to write so subtly and well on an early-morning whim, but at the same time I think it's the way they think that creates a lot of involuntary layers... or maybe cracks in the wall the readers can see things through. Not always things in perfect focus, but clear enough that one is forced to think about lots of apparently unrealted things and THEN one re-reads and all the apparently unrelated things are not unrelated at all, they're just part of the tapestry, or onion, or whatever.

To give you an example that will maybe make the above mess a bit clearer. Murakami does what appears to be a direct quote from Hamlet in her Gravitation comic the "that one can smile and smile and be a villain" thing. Her villains (few and peculiar) are inveterate smilers: obsessive smilers one could say. Now I think she hasn't necessarily heard of Hamlet - let alone read it - but I also think she thinks like Will at times. Two different minds, two different cultures (I got your email and will answer ASAP, that is, when I come back after this weekend-from-hell trip to right the wrongs done to my tourists) and two different styles and media, yet the note on human behaviour and the mind noting it are so similar you can use one to illustrate the other.

Well 'krig' is from a German root, bur 'fred' seems to come from Gaelic or Pelasgian which is why I'm so fascinated. Would you mind very much consulting a dictionary and telling me the etimology of 'fred'. It also sounds silly to me, but that's an arrogant Empire-spawned Brit for you. :P

Set... I rather love the Winter King better than the Summer King. Set and Osiris were twins who hated each other inside mummy's womb - I'm resisting a bad Egyptian mummy pun here - a story that is told in many many cultures. Osiris is child-making, wheat-thriving sex and Set is brains. So yeh, Osiris is stupid, he's just a pecker with a pretty face. Set is NOT a villain, though, he just does what's necessary to insure the land is fertile more than once. He is also an organised person who can't help being forever in love with Isis the Virgin-Mother-Crone. Nice story. *sigh*

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I guess I see what you mean about layers. It's more about how much of the world you can see than how much you conciously put into your stories, yes?

I will get to Murakami, never fear, though right now I am now reading Dark Lord of Derkholme. It's as I suspected - I was too young and stupid last time I read Jones, I couldn't appreciate it properly. =] This is very, very good. I love Derk, clueless, well-meaning ass that he is. He's a good guy, sort of, but he thinks nothing of bringing new species into being for no better reason than that he likes doing it... =]

Though actually, my favourite character so far is that fat High Priest guy. I mean, he's at least nominally on the villain's side, but there's something so sad about how he believes (with good reason, one feels) that he is unworthy in the eyes of his god.

Would you mind very much consulting a dictionary and telling me the etimology of 'fred'.

It would appear that "fred" is from a German root too - it's related to "Friede."

I rather love the Winter King better than the Summer King.

*laughs in surprise* It's odd thinking about Set as the Winter King, since he's all about scorching heat... but now that you mention it, the principle is the same, isn't it? The land is barren and the night is full of things that wants to eat you, so you have to be smart and adaptive to survive. Whereas the Summer King is, the land is fertile and everything is peaceful, so what we need is a whole bunch of obedient little worker bees to bring in the harvest. =] Works for winter and summer; also works for the desert and the Nile Valley.

But as for sex, I've always gotten the impression that Osiris was fertility without the sex (certain bits of him having been eaten by fishes and all - Horus' birth was a "virgin birth" that predated a certain twit of a carpenter with quite a few centuries ;) ), and Set was sex without the fertility. =]

He is also an organised person who can't help being forever in love with Isis the Virgin-Mother-Crone.

So I'm not the only one who thought there was something there? =] (and how weird is it that I have a OTP in Egyptian mythology? ^_^; ) I always imagined that Isis and Set frequently hated each other, but also that they got each other much more than anyone else. Osiris never does anything and Horus just kills things - Isis is the one who actually plans, who thinks, who acts the most like Set. Osiris is a prize she chases after and Horus is a weapon she uses - it's she who's Set's real arch-nemesis. =] And there's at least one mythological story where her loyalties did seem a little divided.

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

I guess I see what you mean about layers. It's more about how much of the world you can see than how much you conciously put into your stories, yes?

YES! I knew you'd understand my muddy scribbles. It's also about being able to see all points of view at the same time. A bit like the multiverse, innit?

Dark Lord is one of my eternal loves. I can honestly state that there's nothing I don't like in it. One of the things I adore about Dark Lord is the way Diana uses power and magic. It's there, there's an awful lot of it, everyone uses it, it could smash the universe... and it's ultimately useless. :-D

Ah, yes. Winter King, so called because he was killed on the Winter Solstice (not unlike the Hogfather) and his so-called reign started on the Summer Soltice, so Set MUST be scorching hot (in every sense of the word *G*) Of course both twins were in love with their mother-sister-granny; the sun is constantly in love with the moon. Your intuitive spurts are quite spot-on.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, points of view. That's something that's been on my mind lately, what with my currently editing a scene with a deeply obnoxious tertiary character in it. =] I've had to really strain myself to figure out why the things she does is, to her mind, the absolute best thing she could be doing. What I've come up with is basically "she's deeply miserable with the prospect of her life staying the way it is, but she can't seem to change it no matter how hard she tries - even throwing all her morals overboard just made her a flunky of a crime boss who's frankly not a very successful crime boss - so she's in a permanent foul mood and can't be bothered to have any regard for other people." =]

I liked the magic in Derkland too. :) It felt... well, "realistic" might not be the right word, but it did feel like Jones took the bubblegum-fantasy version of magic (whereby a wizard can do almost anything by waving his hands) and brought it to its logical conclusion. So magic is potentially very powerful and useful, but wizards frequently mess up spells because they get distracted, or because they're tired, or because they just can't get the hang of the particular brand of magic they're trying to use. I dunno about "useless," but magic certainly doesn't solve the wizard's problems for him, it just gives him an extra set of tools.

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Your character sounds like a study in mental inertia, which is quite interesting. I mean, people who are too lazy to analyse what it is that irks them so in their life are generally well content with the alibi: it's no use I can't change how things go and refuse to really try. Or... or deep down they like the way they are and their life goes, but it feels much better to them to constantly complain to themselves and make other pay for their sado-masochism. Murakami *ducks missiles* actually has quite a good study of both these types of person. *evil grin from behind upturned table to deflect missiles*

About DWJ's Dark Lord, to me it feels like magic is not a tool, magic is what those people ARE. Like sight or hearing or the ability to think. That's why it's useless as magic in the - as you rightly call it - bubblegum fantasy sense. You can only do the best you can do with yourself and most of the time nobody really even tries to do the best of themselves. Witness the confusion the griffins have about their own abilities. They don't know exactly what they can do and often limit themselves needlessly.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that's a very interesting take on it. I may use that one - it'd make Agina more interesting than what I had in mind. And to be honest, there are a couple of thing she could have done - enlisted on a ship, say. It does kind of seem like she wants her life to change but at the same time wants it to stay the same... =]

I'm somewhat surprised to realise, actually, that tertiary characters are almost the most challenging. The main characters have the whole story on them to show off their personalities - even if it doesn't become clear right away what they're all about, the reader is going to catch on eventually. Characters who just show up in a scene or two has to have a personality right there and then, because there won't be any more chances. And I'd really rather not have any empty character-shaped spaces in my story... =]

Good point about the magic. In fact, now that I think about it, talent seems to be a major theme of the book. Derk is so hostile to the wizarding university because they never showed any respect for his unique talents. Blade's and Kit's talents are going to waste for lack of schooling. Shona, at a certain point, is also prevented from achieving the life she has an aptitude from. And, yes, the griffins are all a bit uncertain of just what their assets and limitations are. Interesting. I didn't notice that before...

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

All of the above is why you need me, O Swede. :P:P:P

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

You're definitely a valuable asset. ;)

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Good point about showing the villain protagonist as human. That's kind of the whole point, isn't it? To show in detail why someone would do all those horrible things, and thereby remind the readers that they, too, could do those things under the right circumstances. Now there's something people could do with more reminders of - the fact that everyone can be pushed over the edge, it's just a matter of how hard they need to be pushed. That's why I hate heroes who suffer temptation but never gives in - the damn guys aren't people, they're some sort of soulless saints!

On an utterly unrelated topic, have you heard Jordan is dead? Who the suck was he? A fantasy writer, yes, but what did he write?

Ah yes, Robert Jordan. I did hear. Funny, I used to think he was the living definition of epic fantasy, but it's been years since I read one of his books, or cared to.

He wrote The Wheel of Time which is genuinely regarded as the most needlessly long fantasy series of all time (and definitely the one with the most descriptions of dresses and tea parties) and which was still unfinished at the time of his death. He is famous, first and foremost, for having exceptionally bitchy and unpleasant female characters, all of which seem to have the exact same personality and a strong tendency to end up naked for no apparent reason. =] I stopped being a fan some time ago, I must admit.

Still, I'm sorry he died. He started out well - I still remember the absolute delight I took in The Eye of the World - and though his story lost momentum and grew dull, it never got offensive the way Rowling's got offensive. He turned out not to be much of a writer, despite his initial promise, but he always seemed to be a pretty nice person.

DO you have any idea how dangerous it is to throw such hooks to a terminally curious person? Huh? Huh? HUH?

Haha, you werecat. ;) I sent the email last night, and pardon the delay. :)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

the fact that everyone can be pushed over the edge, it's just a matter of how hard they need to be pushed. That's why I hate heroes who suffer temptation but never gives in - the damn guys aren't people, they're some sort of soulless saints!

Sometimes the only push people need is: "I need to eat and this is a good-paying job". Because people are very apt at ignoring what they don't want to see (cfr. Pterry). It's the story of the Exquisitors and Vorbis, innit? Or the more clichéed period of human history.

Heroes who suffer temptation but don't give in are suffering temptation of thing they do NOT like at all. Imagine Harry Sodding Potter being tempted by Tolerance and Respect. He'd scoff like anything. But he's tempted with power and he's got OOODLES of it already. What's to tempt? Try and tempt heroes with something they want very much indeed and see. Like Moist - and ain't Pterry GREAT to give such a name to a protagonist and have readers not even raise a hairbrow? - was tempted with something he wanted very much indeed: not dying. That's a good temptation, that is.

Problem with temptation is that it's always in a fucking religious context in which you're supposed to say no to perfectly reasonable things. So saints overcome temptation of eating sprouts, a thing I can do standing on me head. And also it always seems to be power. Most people wouldn't touch power with a ten foot pole, who wants the aggro? What I find risible is that it's always power and own the world in the temptation scenes and the tempted is always the most powerful character in the story. Like: "I've eaten ten pounds of ice cream." "Mmmm... Do you want some ice cream in exchange for your little pony?" "ARE YOU FUCKING DEAF? I'VE EATEN TEN SODDING POUNDS OF SODDING ICE SODDING CREAM ALREADY! I'M GOING TO PUKE OVER YOU!!!"

Ahem. Sorry.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Most people wouldn't touch power with a ten foot pole, who wants the aggro?

I think everyone wants a certain amount of power, and the amount is exactly as much as they think they can handle. I mean, imagine if I was chosen as Prime Minister. Then I'd technically have lots and lots of power - but as I haven't got the faintest idea what a Prime Minister actually does, in practical terms, I wouldn't know how to use it and I'd cause a big old mess when I tried. It wouldn't be real power, in the sense of "the ability to bring about a desired outcome." It'd just be a hassle. =]

On the other hand, if some publishing company told me, "here's the manuscripts that we've received this month, and we want you to decide which ones we're going to accept, which ones we're going to demand massive rewrites of, and which ones we're going to send back covered in laugh spittle" I'd be thrilled. I'd love that power, because I'm confident in my ability to wield it wisely.

Or, an even better example - if someone offered me the ability to earn a living writing and studying whatever I felt like, that'd be some serious temptation. I think I'd compromise my morals quite a bit for a chance to spend all my time doing what felt the most meaningful to me. Though it might be argued that then what I really want is "freedom" rather than "power" - and isn't it odd that more villains don't try that one, since most heroes already have lots of power but tends to be bound by Destiny or whatever and thus not have all that much freedom? =]

Also, when the deal is "serve me and I'll give you power," one might wonder just what the point is. Is the villain going to let the hero do what he pleases with all this power? Doubtful. And considering that the hero and the villain probably have very different views on everything, the villain is bound to veto the hero all the time. "Serve me, and you'll be able to do whatever you want, as long as it coincides with what I want you to do" doesn't strike me as that good a deal, to be honest... =]

Some ideas for better temptations...

1. "Join me, and I will share with you my unrivalled knowledge." (works for a studious mage/scholar character)
2. "Join me, and you'll be able to live a life of unimaginable luxury." (works for a pragmatic antihero, or arguably for a hero who's always been dirt poor and hated it)
3. "You know that other enemy you have, because this story includes an Eviler Than Thou (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.EvilerThanThou)? Join me, and between the two of us, we could kill him pretty easily. Come on, you don't have to like me, you just have to hate me less than him!"
4. "You know your family who got killed by my minions in the prologue and who got you started on your stupid revenge quest in the first place? I had my sorcerers bring them back to life. You're welcome. Of course, if you die in battle with me, you'll never see them again, and wouldn't that be a shame?"
5. "You do realise that I only want this particular kingdom, while there's a perfectly nice kingdom next door that offers plenty of opportunities to a resourceful young woman such as yourself, especially if she were to arrive there in possession of lots of gold and with the documents to prove that you're... well, anyone you want to be, really?"

And, one that I actually plan to use in my November story...

6. "Get out of my hair already, and you won't have to turn into a twisted sadistic mutant who's going to end up serving me anyway."

and ain't Pterry GREAT to give such a name to a protagonist and have readers not even raise a hairbrow?

Hehe, I'm not sure I usually notice things like that, but then most of the books I read have character names that seems to have been created by mushing random letters together until they spelled out something pronounceble. In fact, that's pretty much exactly how I come up with character names... ^_^;

"ARE YOU FUCKING DEAF? I'VE EATEN TEN SODDING POUNDS OF SODDING ICE SODDING CREAM ALREADY! I'M GOING TO PUKE OVER YOU!!!"

(*LAUGHS*) Your description is, as always, spot on. =]

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

3. "You know that other enemy you have, because this story includes an Eviler Than Thou? Join me, and between the two of us, we could kill him pretty easily. Come on, you don't have to like me, you just have to hate me less than him!"

Which, as it happens, is the very temptation Orochimaru offers to Sasuke. If you've read or are reading and/or watching Naruto, you'll know what I'm talking about...

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

I've heard LOTS about Naruto, but generally in rant comms. It appears to be a fandom with hysterical shipping wars, hysterical seme/uke definition wars and hysterical WhatIsCanonReallyIMeanItCanonCanOnlyBeThis wars.

I'm sure actual canon is decent, but you know how it is... After one's swam on the fringes of PotterFandom, one is wary of water... :P

But I at least have a good idea of who Sasuke and Orochimaru are. :-D

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

The way I like to think of it, Orochimaru's Voldemort done right. Or at least not as badly as La Rowling; I haven't really seen much of Naruto.

On a completely unrelated note, you might enjoy this; it's a character study, pretty short but it's very good.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Sometimes the only push people need is: "I need to eat and this is a good-paying job".

Very true. I think it's very hard to write about properly, though - you'd have to show the reader the moral iffiness of the protagonist's occupation while the protagonist himself fails to notice, and you have to find some way to do it without making the protagonist look like he's deranged or very, very dim. =]

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Hard to write, yes. Impossible to write, no. Besides, if the hero/ine is so far above humans that s/he doesn't have such mundane needs, there's something profoundly wrong with the premise, IMO.

Well, most heroes (heroines too) are rather dim, aren't they? I mean, most of them never seem to realise there's usually a very simple AND efficient way to destroy evil. Think of the LOTR thing. Just grab a Noble Eagle; give it the ring; send it to throw it into the volcano and bob's your uncle. And so on and so forth. Dimness in Fantasy - as in thrillers - is a must for heroes. Derk is rather dim as well, innhe? I mean, the children are excused by way of youth, mummy is rather too caught up in the femninist conspiracy, but what's his excuse except he wants nothing to do with the whole thing - rather Hamletish of him - and nothing to do with his whole reality? Yet he has money problems... You know? That's a perfect example of the kind of push I was talking about.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Well, most heroes (heroines too) are rather dim, aren't they?

Sadly, yes, and when they're not, the villains usually are. =] And yeah, Derk is kind of dim - or at least, so stubborn that he refuses to think about anything he doesn't think is interesting. Mara is the brains in the family, and she's not on stage much. And Scales is clever as hell, he's not not very helpful. =]

And even the smart characters are a bit foolish at times. Jones and Pratchett seems to have that in common - people in their books are silly, except for the ones that are scary. =] (Mr Chesney actually scared the crap out of me without ever harming a hair on anyone's head - it was something about the way neither he nor anyone else ever seemed to doubt that he wielded supreme power ^_^; )

All in all, I am (having finished the book now) extremely impressed. Jones can really talk about complicated things well while using simple terms, can't she? So up yours, Rowling, with your damn anvils and your utter lack of vision. =]

You know? That's a perfect example of the kind of push I was talking about.

Yes, Derk is a great character that way - he's not greedy or ambitious and if you offered him all the kingdoms of the world he'd turn it down in horror, but he isn't as damn content as fantasy protagonists tend to be. He has certain interests and goals, and he needs certain things to achieve them, so he can be tempted - not into selling his soul, perhaps, but certainly into doing things he doesn't want to do and which he doesn't think are entirely right. That's something that's sorely lacking in fantasy - the awareness that there are degrees of desire between "slavering would-be world dominator" and "happily baahing sheep." =]

Another thing I loved was how Jones writes family, incidentally. I'm normally allergic to family matters because they tend to be either abusive and uber-dysfunctional or else sugary sweet, but Jones writes Derk's family as, well, as a bunch of people. =] They love each other well enough, but since they spend so much time together they also constantly get on each other's nerves - there's all sorts of irritations and adversities and little ongoing feuds in Derkholm. In fact, the part of the book that got to me the most was that female griffin who felt so guilty because she thought her brother was dead and she couldn't bring herself (at least at first) to feel properly mournful about it because he was such a pain in her ass. It was so sweet and so sad.

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Ooops, forgot. Got your email. Will answer after work. Am back from trip which was, at least, not too hellish. :-D

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Glad to hear it, both parts. :D Even if you end up telling me that I'm talking out my ass, I'd be interested in hearing why. =]

And your troublesome tourists are lucky to have you on their side. =]

[elena-takami.livejournal.com]

I don't much like Romeo and Juliet. I think it does actually have something to do with the supposedly great tragic romance aspect, because it does seem a very silly way of doing things to me. I do quite like MacBeth, though.

Anyway, to go with your point and ignore my personal distaste; I find that a moral is easier to swallow if you make some attempt to make the characters sympathetic, somehow. I'd feel a lot more distressed by the family feuds and socio-political commentary if there was one character caught up in them (other than Mercutio, because the whole point -is- that he's neither Montague or Capulet and dies for it anyway.) I actually felt any kind of pity for.

I don't want flawless heroes, mind, because I agree with you that those -are- boring. I guess I'm just lazy; I find it much easier to understand a character if I can can just find one facet of their character that I can sympathise with or see the logic behind, rather than having to work to get anywhere at all in the character's head. I don't get either Romeo or Juliet at all, and so I can't read them, because their actions don't seem logical to me at all. I couldn't write them in character, no matter how hard I tried, whereas I can make a pretty good guess at MacBeth.

*cough* I can't even tell if I'm making sense. Bed time for me, I think =P

On the topic of power as temptation, well, there's partially projection and partially writers holding far too tightly to the "power corrupts" maxim, I think.

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

You've a perfect right not to like Romeo and Juliet. Not liking a thing was not my theme and certainly not my point. I was kind of dispirited at how we seem to have lost the zest for reading in depth. Of course, after you've read in depth a thing you still can hate it - actually hate it that much more - because personal reactions and personal tastes can't be dictated by anything.

But you are not at all lazy if you can make a pretty good guess at Macbeth, who is truly a villain for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that he's a cold-blooded murderer. Still, he's a person and who can claim utter perfection in her/his life?

I agree with you on the temptation thing, as you prolly know, since you've read the discussion with baeraad. I still laugh like a sieve when I think on how the 'power corrupts' thing is applied to some heroes. If a hero has all the power there is, is he corrupted into villainy only the author'd rather be eaten alive than admit it, or is temptation TEH most futile exercise on live against them? :-D

[elena-takami.livejournal.com]

I think, personally, Macbeth is that much more villainous for having second thoughts and going ahead anyway. Most villains are either the misguided sort who think what they're doing is right and have no hesitations, insane enough to not care, or distinctly lacking in the conscience department. Macbeth is kind of a lukewarm-blooded murderer, maybe.

Of course, the descent into madness afterwards is always a fun thing. =D And I'm even fonder of Macbeth's wife, who is so very brittle and breaks so very easily, even though she seems like the harder character at the beginning.

Author's never actually seem have any intention of letting the corrupting power anywhere near their heroes. I personally would think it quite fun to have a hero actually tempted, maybe ye illiterate farm-boy hero of the non-long-lost-prince variety tempted by kingship of the kingdom he came from. Really tempted, I mean, with a touch of actually having to think about it and a return to thinking about it at points throughout whatever book it is, not just waving it away with a laugh and a one-liner. Because that probably would be tempting to a naive character, if you see the power and not the beaurocracy.

The other temptation they always seem to use is "turn around, walk away, and I will make sure you get some peace before I kill you with my big invading army", which is a really stupid temptation. Especially on the heroic type, who seem to be somewhat masochistic anyway.

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

I think, personally, Macbeth is that much more villainous for having second thoughts and going ahead anyway

Oh yes! YESYESYES! That's exactly why he's so despicable. Lady Macbeth is a true diamond: hard and fragile. I love her a lot.

Author's never actually seem have any intention of letting the corrupting power anywhere near their heroes.

Well, authors who identify themselves with the hero tend to make the hero invincible and beyond human baseness, which is not only stupid, but dead boring as well. You're so right, it IS fun to have the hero truly tempted and not only once. Pterry is an author who always manages to pull this off, but that's because his characters are persons.

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

I think you'd like Hiromu Arakawa's Fullmetal Alchemist. All of the characters in the anime - I never really got into the manga - are human with varying degrees of quirks. And Roy Mustang is a Bastard Hero of the highest caliber. ;)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Right, how many episodes of the anime are there?

Because I see I'll have to buy it. :-D

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

51 episodes on 13 discs. :) I collected them myself, as they were coming out; so you can imagine the frustration of having to wait two months to see four more episodes. ;)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

*gasp*

Heh... alright. Need a bit more cash flow to buy the beast, then, but it'll be in my basket soon.

Thanks, luv.

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

Welcome. :D