I think that if I had to pick just one quote in all of literature to be my absolute favorite, I’d probably be in trouble. There are so many literary quotes that I love, but here are some of my favorites:
“They’re funny things, Accidents. You never have them till you’re having them.” --Eeyore, The House at Pooh Corner, A. A. Milne
“'Please, Aslan,’ said Lucy. ‘What do you call soon?’
‘I call all times soon,’ said Aslan.” –The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, C. S. Lewis
“'There are fourteen lines, I believe, all in iambic pentameter…. And each line has to end with a rigid rhyme pattern. And if the poet does not do it exactly this way, it is not a sonnet…. But within this strict form the poet has complete freedom to say whatever he wants…. You’re given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself. What you say is completely up to you.’” --Mrs Whatsit, A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L’Engle
“'Rat!’ he found breath to whisper, shaking. ‘Are you afraid?’
‘Afraid?’ murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. ‘Afraid of Him? O, never, never! And yet-and yet-O, Mole, I am afraid!’” –The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame
“'The Guide says that there is an art to flying,’ said Ford, ‘or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.’” –Life, the Universe, and Everything, Douglas Adams
“'I’m sure Aslan would have, if you’d asked him,’ said Fledge.
‘Wouldn’t he know without being asked?’ said Polly.
‘I’ve no doubt he would,” said the Horse…. But I’ve a sort of idea he likes to be asked.’” –The Magician’s Nephew, C. S. Lewis
“There are some things you can’t share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them.” --Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, J.K. Rowling
“Sam looked at him and wept in his heart, but no tears came to his dry and stinging eyes. ‘I said I’d carry him, if it broke my back,’ he muttered, ‘and I will!’
‘Come, Mr. Frodo!’ he cried. ‘I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well. So up you get! Come on, Mr. Frodo, dear! Sam will give you a ride. Just tell him where to go, and he’ll go.’” –The Return of the King, J. R. R. Tolkien
"'...If there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly.'
'Then he isn't safe?' said Lucy.
'Safe?' said Mr Beaver.... 'Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'" --The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, C. S. Lewis
“'This must be a Thursday,’ said Arthur to himself, sinking low over his beer. ‘I never could get the hang of Thursdays.’” –The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
"There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds." --"In Memoriam A.H.H." Alfred Lord Tennyson
“'Oh, Aslan,’ said Lucy. ‘Will you tell us how to get into your country from our world?’
‘I shall be telling you all the time,” said Aslan. ‘But I will not tell you how long or short the way will be; only that it lies across a river. But do not fear that, for I am the great Bridge Builder.’” –The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, C. S. Lewis
"Kindred spirits are not so scarce as I used to think." --Anne of Green Gables, L.M. Montgomery
I can’t think of an all-time favorite quote. I think the quote that I can personally relate to the most, though, is one that is spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien:
“I want to see mountains again, Gandalf—mountains; and then find somewhere where I can rest. In peace and quiet…. I might find somewhere where I can finish my book. I have thought of a nice ending for it: and he lived happily ever after till the end of his days.”
Mmm.
What are some of your favorite literary quotes?
Showing posts with label Madeleine L'Engle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Madeleine L'Engle. Show all posts
Friday, March 16, 2012
Friday, July 8, 2011
Fiction Friday: The OTHER L'Engle Series
Madeleine L'Engle is one of my favorite authors. She's most well-known for penning the Newbery Award winning novel, A Wrinkle in Time, which just so happens to be my favorite work of fiction. L'Engle wrote a lot of YA novels, but she also wrote several novels for adults, some books for younger readers, as well as some non-fiction and autobiography. The Crosswick Journals contain some of the most interesting Spiritual reading I've ever encountered. I definitely don't agree with L'Engle on every theological view she ever had, but when she got it right, she got it right.
It seems that anyone who has heard of L'Engle automatically starts thinking about A Wrinkle in Time, which is only natural, since I do the same thing. I think it's sad, however, that a lot of people who have read (or at least heard of) A Wrinkle in Time haven't read anything else by her. There are three other books in the Time Quartet series (A Wind in the Door, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, and Many Waters) that are incredible.
Another YA series she wrote often crossed over into the Time Quartet, even though it was centered around another family. More precisely, it was centered around another character--Vicky Austin. The majority of the Austin Family books are told in first person from her perspective. The most widely-known book featuring Vicky Austin is A Ring of Endless Light (which was a Newbery Honor Book, just sayin').
While A Wrinkle in Time (and the other books in the series) dealt with time travel and other science fiction/fantasy themes, most of what happened in the lives of the Austins was much more realistic. Even without the fantastical elements, L'Engle managed to weave together a series of stories about a remarkable character within a remarkable family.
Vicky Austin (who, incidently, spells Vicky the right way--the way my mama does) didn't have to travel halfway across the universe to experience adventure (though she did travel across the country in The Moon By Night). She experienced all the struggles of growing up--sibling rivalry, first lust and/or love, grief, death, finding one's own faiths and beliefs. While the socially awkward sci fi nerd in me has to love Meg Murray just a little bit more than any other fictional character, I have to say that I'm impressed (and insanely jealous) at how genuine and believable of a character Vicky Austin is. L'Engle had a way of honestly expressing herself through her characters that made them live.
The other members of the Austin family were also believable and interesting. What I also appreciated was how different characters (like Canon Tallis, Adam Eddington, and the darkly intriguing Zachary Gray--read L'Engle books if you want to know more about them) would appear in stories about the Murray family and in stories about the Austin Family. It's like when you're talking to a friend and suddenly that friend mentions another one of your friends, and you didn't even realize those two people knew each other.
If you've never read anything by Madeleine L'Engle, or if you have only read the obligatory A Wrinkle in Time, I strongly recommend the Austin Family books (starting, oddly enough, with Meet the Austins). And while you're at it, make sure you've read the rest of the Time Quartet. They're pretty much amazing.
It seems that anyone who has heard of L'Engle automatically starts thinking about A Wrinkle in Time, which is only natural, since I do the same thing. I think it's sad, however, that a lot of people who have read (or at least heard of) A Wrinkle in Time haven't read anything else by her. There are three other books in the Time Quartet series (A Wind in the Door, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, and Many Waters) that are incredible.
Another YA series she wrote often crossed over into the Time Quartet, even though it was centered around another family. More precisely, it was centered around another character--Vicky Austin. The majority of the Austin Family books are told in first person from her perspective. The most widely-known book featuring Vicky Austin is A Ring of Endless Light (which was a Newbery Honor Book, just sayin').
While A Wrinkle in Time (and the other books in the series) dealt with time travel and other science fiction/fantasy themes, most of what happened in the lives of the Austins was much more realistic. Even without the fantastical elements, L'Engle managed to weave together a series of stories about a remarkable character within a remarkable family.
Vicky Austin (who, incidently, spells Vicky the right way--the way my mama does) didn't have to travel halfway across the universe to experience adventure (though she did travel across the country in The Moon By Night). She experienced all the struggles of growing up--sibling rivalry, first lust and/or love, grief, death, finding one's own faiths and beliefs. While the socially awkward sci fi nerd in me has to love Meg Murray just a little bit more than any other fictional character, I have to say that I'm impressed (and insanely jealous) at how genuine and believable of a character Vicky Austin is. L'Engle had a way of honestly expressing herself through her characters that made them live.
The other members of the Austin family were also believable and interesting. What I also appreciated was how different characters (like Canon Tallis, Adam Eddington, and the darkly intriguing Zachary Gray--read L'Engle books if you want to know more about them) would appear in stories about the Murray family and in stories about the Austin Family. It's like when you're talking to a friend and suddenly that friend mentions another one of your friends, and you didn't even realize those two people knew each other.
If you've never read anything by Madeleine L'Engle, or if you have only read the obligatory A Wrinkle in Time, I strongly recommend the Austin Family books (starting, oddly enough, with Meet the Austins). And while you're at it, make sure you've read the rest of the Time Quartet. They're pretty much amazing.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Film Adapations of Books
I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today. I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters. I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda. I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book thanthe Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much. The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel. And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tense Person
Earlier today, I was a tense person.
It's Spring Break for a lot of the schools around here, which can only mean two things. First, it means that two of my three jobs aren't happening this week, so I have to pick up extra hours at the drop-in child care center. Second, it means that kids can't go to school, so their parents bring them to the drop-in child care center.
Thirty-five children at the drop in center equals mass chaos, and I was in the midst of it all.
That actually sounds like a good opening for a horror novel. It's a true story, by the way, but I don't really want to write a blog about how tense of a person I am. If you want to read about that hot mess, then go read my Socially Awkward Adventures < / shameless self-promotion >. Instead, I want to discuss person and tense as they relate to my writing and characterization.
I used to never think outside the box in my writing. My first novel was written in third person, past tense. That's just the standard I figured I had to follow, and really, I hadn't given much thought at all to writing any other way. My second novel? Again. Third person, past tense.
I probably would have never branched out if I hadn't read a book in May of last year. House Like a Lotus by Madeleine L'Engle (I promise every blog post will not mention her, but since she's one of my favorite writers, her name will make lots of appearances--fair warning). I really enjoyed this book, though it's got some themes in it that might make some readers uncomfortable (not for the young kids). It was written in first person.
I was just finishing writing my second book when one of the characters in my story blatantly informed me that she wanted me to tell her story, too. Does that make me a crazy person? Probably. But since this character was haunting me and I had just read Madeleine L'Engle's beautifully written story in first person, it made sense for me to try writing my character's story in first person. So I did. She pretty much possessed me, and I ended up finishing a rough draft in less than two weeks. And it might be one of the best things I've ever written.
Now, I'm having a similar experience. Presently (pun intended), I've just read a couple of remarkable books written in first person, present tense (The Hunger Games and Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins--I plan to read Mockingjay after rereading Catching Fire). I've had a story lingering in the back of my mind for about a year now, and somehow it's all seeming to click. I have the idea to experiment with first person, present tense. Now isn't the best time for a new writing endeavor. I mean, I have another writing project going on. I'm trying to get things ready for query letters for my first book (again). I've got editing and such. I've got to go to work. But now I'm obsessed with this idea of present tense, and all of the sudden--POOF! Another writing project to worry about!
I say all that about my own projects because I really feel that I'm growing as a writer by stretching out into different styles, but I find that I can't just randomly choose a style to write for just any project. The characters have to fit. For my current WIP, I've chosen third person, past tense because it fits the characters and the story. There's more than one main character. It wouldn't work in first person unless I jumped around to different narrators, and let's face it--that's the most annoying thing ever. I know a lot of people who can hardly even stand to read first person, but if they have to start reading a different point of view every other chapter, then fuhgeddaboudit. ...and I don't know why I said it like that. I've never even been to New York...I've been to Chicago...do they say that there?
But with that book that I wrote in first person, the one that took me less than two weeks to write, first person was exactly right. I was telling one character's story. It made sense to tell it from her perspective. In fact, if I had tried any other way, it wouldn't have worked. She came to me, and I have to admit that I'm so insane that I had a literal conversation with her. I heard her in my mind say, "Tell my story." I said, "I don't know your story." She said, "Just sit down and start writing, and I'll give it to you." So I did, and she was true to her word. I channelled her. I channelled a fictional character.
With the brand new project that I've started (yes, I've already started it in the midst of my chaotic life...because I am a mad, mad glutton for punishment), the main character is someone who lives in the moment. I couldn't figure out how to write him until I had the idea to write from his perspective, in present tense. It makes more sense to see things at the same time he sees them, to experience these things with him. I think his character will develop a lot better if I'm seeing the action with him, not just as a view into his past.
As I said, not everyone likes first person. I'm sure there are people equally (or probably even more) annoyed with present tense. I can understand why. For one thing, it's not what most of us are used to. The reason I didn't even think about writing in anything besides third person, past tense is because the vast majority of everything I read was in third person, past tense. Readers don't always like seeing a deviation from what they're used to, nor do some of them like getting inside people's heads or seeing the plot as it happens.
And I also understand that in experimenting with present tense, I'm doing something a LOT of writers are doing these days. If Suzanne Collins can write an intriguing book in present tense, then it stands to reason that other people should try writing a book in present tense. It's becoming a trend, a fad. Fads and trends fade, and I think a lot of readers are just waiting for this one to go away.
With that being said, I'm not shying away from my experimentation in my writing. I'm glad I didn't when I let that character possess me for two weeks. I'm looking forward to see what happens with this character I'm starting to channel (WAIT! I'M TOO BUSY TO BE POSSESSED BY A FICTIONAL CHARACTER AGAIN...OH NOES!). I'm also going to keep writing old skool--third person, past tense. I might even be open to some other styles or tricks, but I don't want to get too crazy...
...I think this blog has proved I'm already crazy enough. Hmm. Maybe I am a tense person...
Oh, fuhgeddaboudit. You're just jealous because the voices aren't talking to you.
It's Spring Break for a lot of the schools around here, which can only mean two things. First, it means that two of my three jobs aren't happening this week, so I have to pick up extra hours at the drop-in child care center. Second, it means that kids can't go to school, so their parents bring them to the drop-in child care center.
Thirty-five children at the drop in center equals mass chaos, and I was in the midst of it all.
That actually sounds like a good opening for a horror novel. It's a true story, by the way, but I don't really want to write a blog about how tense of a person I am. If you want to read about that hot mess, then go read my Socially Awkward Adventures < / shameless self-promotion >. Instead, I want to discuss person and tense as they relate to my writing and characterization.
I used to never think outside the box in my writing. My first novel was written in third person, past tense. That's just the standard I figured I had to follow, and really, I hadn't given much thought at all to writing any other way. My second novel? Again. Third person, past tense.
I probably would have never branched out if I hadn't read a book in May of last year. House Like a Lotus by Madeleine L'Engle (I promise every blog post will not mention her, but since she's one of my favorite writers, her name will make lots of appearances--fair warning). I really enjoyed this book, though it's got some themes in it that might make some readers uncomfortable (not for the young kids). It was written in first person.
I was just finishing writing my second book when one of the characters in my story blatantly informed me that she wanted me to tell her story, too. Does that make me a crazy person? Probably. But since this character was haunting me and I had just read Madeleine L'Engle's beautifully written story in first person, it made sense for me to try writing my character's story in first person. So I did. She pretty much possessed me, and I ended up finishing a rough draft in less than two weeks. And it might be one of the best things I've ever written.
Now, I'm having a similar experience. Presently (pun intended), I've just read a couple of remarkable books written in first person, present tense (The Hunger Games and Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins--I plan to read Mockingjay after rereading Catching Fire). I've had a story lingering in the back of my mind for about a year now, and somehow it's all seeming to click. I have the idea to experiment with first person, present tense. Now isn't the best time for a new writing endeavor. I mean, I have another writing project going on. I'm trying to get things ready for query letters for my first book (again). I've got editing and such. I've got to go to work. But now I'm obsessed with this idea of present tense, and all of the sudden--POOF! Another writing project to worry about!
I say all that about my own projects because I really feel that I'm growing as a writer by stretching out into different styles, but I find that I can't just randomly choose a style to write for just any project. The characters have to fit. For my current WIP, I've chosen third person, past tense because it fits the characters and the story. There's more than one main character. It wouldn't work in first person unless I jumped around to different narrators, and let's face it--that's the most annoying thing ever. I know a lot of people who can hardly even stand to read first person, but if they have to start reading a different point of view every other chapter, then fuhgeddaboudit. ...and I don't know why I said it like that. I've never even been to New York...I've been to Chicago...do they say that there?
But with that book that I wrote in first person, the one that took me less than two weeks to write, first person was exactly right. I was telling one character's story. It made sense to tell it from her perspective. In fact, if I had tried any other way, it wouldn't have worked. She came to me, and I have to admit that I'm so insane that I had a literal conversation with her. I heard her in my mind say, "Tell my story." I said, "I don't know your story." She said, "Just sit down and start writing, and I'll give it to you." So I did, and she was true to her word. I channelled her. I channelled a fictional character.
With the brand new project that I've started (yes, I've already started it in the midst of my chaotic life...because I am a mad, mad glutton for punishment), the main character is someone who lives in the moment. I couldn't figure out how to write him until I had the idea to write from his perspective, in present tense. It makes more sense to see things at the same time he sees them, to experience these things with him. I think his character will develop a lot better if I'm seeing the action with him, not just as a view into his past.
As I said, not everyone likes first person. I'm sure there are people equally (or probably even more) annoyed with present tense. I can understand why. For one thing, it's not what most of us are used to. The reason I didn't even think about writing in anything besides third person, past tense is because the vast majority of everything I read was in third person, past tense. Readers don't always like seeing a deviation from what they're used to, nor do some of them like getting inside people's heads or seeing the plot as it happens.
And I also understand that in experimenting with present tense, I'm doing something a LOT of writers are doing these days. If Suzanne Collins can write an intriguing book in present tense, then it stands to reason that other people should try writing a book in present tense. It's becoming a trend, a fad. Fads and trends fade, and I think a lot of readers are just waiting for this one to go away.
With that being said, I'm not shying away from my experimentation in my writing. I'm glad I didn't when I let that character possess me for two weeks. I'm looking forward to see what happens with this character I'm starting to channel (WAIT! I'M TOO BUSY TO BE POSSESSED BY A FICTIONAL CHARACTER AGAIN...OH NOES!). I'm also going to keep writing old skool--third person, past tense. I might even be open to some other styles or tricks, but I don't want to get too crazy...
...I think this blog has proved I'm already crazy enough. Hmm. Maybe I am a tense person...
Oh, fuhgeddaboudit. You're just jealous because the voices aren't talking to you.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Fiction Friday: My Favorite Fictional Character Of All Time Ever
I had planned on blogging something about The Hunger Games today, but I've decided not to do so at this point. Apparently, I've been living under a rock for the past few years and did not realize that such literary awesomeness existed. Now that I've joined the rest of the cool readers and discovered this amazing book series, I'm anxiously (very anxiously) awaiting the next book in the series to be available at the library. With that being said, 1) all the cool readers have already read all three books and have already posted their thoughts/feelings about said three books 2) I'd like to have read the whole series before writing anything about it. So right now, I'm just going to say that the first book in the series, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, absolutely blew my mind. I can't wait to read what happens, but I'm going to have to wait, so I guess that technically, I CAN wait.
Moving on now.
I've had the same favorite fictional character since I was in elementary school. Her name is Meg Murray, and if you haven't been introduced to her, then you're missing out on something amazing. The first appearance of this extraordinary person can be found in my favorite fictional book, A Wrinkle in Time by one of my favorite authors (I can't decide if I like her or C. S. Lewis better--all right, we'll call it a draw!), Madeleine L'Engle.
A little side note here, just so everyone is aware. If you've seen the movie/miniseries of A Wrinkle in Time that Disney put out a few years ago, please don't judge a book by its movie. While I acknowledge that a lot of time and effort went into that movie, I have to say that it basically stunk. I have it on dvd because my father bought it for me one Christmas, and I'll watch it occasionally because I like the music and because I want to relive parts of the story without taking the time to reread the book (although it would only take a few hours). But please, if you have seen the movie and think it's horrible (because, well, it is), don't let that fool you. The book is simply amazing.
Okay, moving on again.
What exactly is it that makes Meg Murray so extraordinary? I think it's the fact that she isn't all that extraordinary. In fact, she would consider herself less than even ordinary. When Madeleine L'Engle first introduced Meg, she was a plain, self-conscious, unpopular, angry fourteen-year-old girl. She had above-average intelligence (especially in math and science), but didn't do well in school. Almost everyone misunderstood her, and she even misunderstood herself.
Basically, she was me (except I'm not that good in math and I actually did well in school--except for the math).
Meg also had a little brother who didn't speak very much outside the home. People picked on him and on Meg for having a strange younger brother. I have to say that I could also relate to this pretty well, having a younger brother with high-functioning autism. Today, autism is fairly well-known. The diagnosis of autism is getting scarily common, but back in the mid-to-late 80's when my brother received his diagnosis, it was still a disorder that many people had never even heard of. So people would ask me all the time what was wrong with my brother, and I had to try to explain it because no one knew what autism was. And while I don't think a lot people actually picked on me because of my brother, I think I thought they were picking on me because I was a defensive, angry, overly-protective-of-my-little-brother kid--a lot like Meg Murray.
As I said in an earlier blog, there are many different reasons why people relate to characters. Sometimes I don't understand why a character acts or thinks certain ways, and I find their behavior intriguing. With Meg, it's not like that. I do find her behavior intriguing, but that's because I understand her very well and think I would do things in the same ways.
Meg is called to do things that she thinks are beyond her capability to do. She doesn't do them without first throwing some literal tantrums, which I have been known to do even in adulthood. All of her emotions are on the surface, especially the negative ones.
But then she accepts her tasks with grace, she does what she has been given to do, and she succeeds.
The most interesting thing about Meg's accomplishments is that she didn't have to change in order to do them. She did have to change her attitude, but she herself didn't have to change. The guides on her journey told her to keep her faults, even to stay angry. This was something that I didn't fully grasp until I was probably almost an adult.
For years I didn't like who I was. While I was NEVER a conformist, I know there were so many parts of myself I didn't like and wanted to change. I wasn't as pretty or popular as I wanted to be. I wasn't a people person. I wasn't a natural leader. And I used to think that I was basically useless because I had all these things I didn't like about myself. I didn't think God could ever use someone like me.
I haven't really changed that much (I mean, I do consider myself pretty, but that's the vanity talking). I'm still shy. I'm still not a natural leader. In fact, sometimes it's still a struggle to leave the apartment in the morning--because I know I'll have to deal with people. But Meg is still with me. I still see the person who was scared and angry, hurting and flawed.
Madeleine L'Engle weaved a powerful story through Meg. Meg's flaws didn't change; God used her anyway. My current "life verse" from the Bible (that's always subject to change as stages in life are subject to change) is 1 Corinthians 1:27. "For God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong." L'Engle used this verse in the story to encourage Meg. It also encourages me.
I'm not strong. I'm not wise. I'm nothing more than a weak fool that God has chosen to use anyway. A lot of people say we're supposed to believe in ourselves. I can't believe in myself. There's not much there to believe in. My worth is in Christ; my hope is in the Lord. That's what I believe in. When I look at Meg, I see someone who shines like the stars because of who she is in Jesus, even if L'Engle doesn't come right out and say Meg is a Christian. It's implied.
In other stories in the series (and even in other stories L'Engle wrote that aren't directly connected to the "Time Quartet"), we see Meg grow and change. She gets married and has kids of her own. She still has some insecurities, but there's so much she accomplishes, so many people she helps. And she started out as an awkward, self-conscious nobody.
God is in the business of using the weak and the foolish. There's hope for all of us yet.
Moving on now.
I've had the same favorite fictional character since I was in elementary school. Her name is Meg Murray, and if you haven't been introduced to her, then you're missing out on something amazing. The first appearance of this extraordinary person can be found in my favorite fictional book, A Wrinkle in Time by one of my favorite authors (I can't decide if I like her or C. S. Lewis better--all right, we'll call it a draw!), Madeleine L'Engle.
A little side note here, just so everyone is aware. If you've seen the movie/miniseries of A Wrinkle in Time that Disney put out a few years ago, please don't judge a book by its movie. While I acknowledge that a lot of time and effort went into that movie, I have to say that it basically stunk. I have it on dvd because my father bought it for me one Christmas, and I'll watch it occasionally because I like the music and because I want to relive parts of the story without taking the time to reread the book (although it would only take a few hours). But please, if you have seen the movie and think it's horrible (because, well, it is), don't let that fool you. The book is simply amazing.
Okay, moving on again.
What exactly is it that makes Meg Murray so extraordinary? I think it's the fact that she isn't all that extraordinary. In fact, she would consider herself less than even ordinary. When Madeleine L'Engle first introduced Meg, she was a plain, self-conscious, unpopular, angry fourteen-year-old girl. She had above-average intelligence (especially in math and science), but didn't do well in school. Almost everyone misunderstood her, and she even misunderstood herself.
Basically, she was me (except I'm not that good in math and I actually did well in school--except for the math).
Meg also had a little brother who didn't speak very much outside the home. People picked on him and on Meg for having a strange younger brother. I have to say that I could also relate to this pretty well, having a younger brother with high-functioning autism. Today, autism is fairly well-known. The diagnosis of autism is getting scarily common, but back in the mid-to-late 80's when my brother received his diagnosis, it was still a disorder that many people had never even heard of. So people would ask me all the time what was wrong with my brother, and I had to try to explain it because no one knew what autism was. And while I don't think a lot people actually picked on me because of my brother, I think I thought they were picking on me because I was a defensive, angry, overly-protective-of-my-little-brother kid--a lot like Meg Murray.
As I said in an earlier blog, there are many different reasons why people relate to characters. Sometimes I don't understand why a character acts or thinks certain ways, and I find their behavior intriguing. With Meg, it's not like that. I do find her behavior intriguing, but that's because I understand her very well and think I would do things in the same ways.
Meg is called to do things that she thinks are beyond her capability to do. She doesn't do them without first throwing some literal tantrums, which I have been known to do even in adulthood. All of her emotions are on the surface, especially the negative ones.
But then she accepts her tasks with grace, she does what she has been given to do, and she succeeds.
The most interesting thing about Meg's accomplishments is that she didn't have to change in order to do them. She did have to change her attitude, but she herself didn't have to change. The guides on her journey told her to keep her faults, even to stay angry. This was something that I didn't fully grasp until I was probably almost an adult.
For years I didn't like who I was. While I was NEVER a conformist, I know there were so many parts of myself I didn't like and wanted to change. I wasn't as pretty or popular as I wanted to be. I wasn't a people person. I wasn't a natural leader. And I used to think that I was basically useless because I had all these things I didn't like about myself. I didn't think God could ever use someone like me.
I haven't really changed that much (I mean, I do consider myself pretty, but that's the vanity talking). I'm still shy. I'm still not a natural leader. In fact, sometimes it's still a struggle to leave the apartment in the morning--because I know I'll have to deal with people. But Meg is still with me. I still see the person who was scared and angry, hurting and flawed.
Madeleine L'Engle weaved a powerful story through Meg. Meg's flaws didn't change; God used her anyway. My current "life verse" from the Bible (that's always subject to change as stages in life are subject to change) is 1 Corinthians 1:27. "For God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong." L'Engle used this verse in the story to encourage Meg. It also encourages me.
I'm not strong. I'm not wise. I'm nothing more than a weak fool that God has chosen to use anyway. A lot of people say we're supposed to believe in ourselves. I can't believe in myself. There's not much there to believe in. My worth is in Christ; my hope is in the Lord. That's what I believe in. When I look at Meg, I see someone who shines like the stars because of who she is in Jesus, even if L'Engle doesn't come right out and say Meg is a Christian. It's implied.
In other stories in the series (and even in other stories L'Engle wrote that aren't directly connected to the "Time Quartet"), we see Meg grow and change. She gets married and has kids of her own. She still has some insecurities, but there's so much she accomplishes, so many people she helps. And she started out as an awkward, self-conscious nobody.
God is in the business of using the weak and the foolish. There's hope for all of us yet.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Characters Welcome
I really like those USA television promos with the little "Characters Welcome" slogan. USA gets it. Good television shows don't do well because every single script is perfect. Even the best shows have bad episodes (except maybe Psych. Never saw a bad episode of Psych--but even that is because Shawn and Gus make me snortle). While good plots are very important, what really keeps people watching is the characters.
Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.
I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.
Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.
My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.
Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.
It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.
I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.
I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.
I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.
But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.
I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.
I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.
Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.
I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.
Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.
My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.
Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.
It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.
I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.
I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.
I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.
But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.
I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.
I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.
Monday, February 21, 2011
My Favorite Writery Things
I feel like making lists. Here goes!
My Five Favorite Fiction Books:
1) A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle
2) Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis
3) The Return of the King by J. R. R. Tolkien
4) Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
5) The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
My Five Favorite Non-fiction Books:
1) Rich Mullins: An Arrow Pointing to Heaven by James Bryan Smith
2) A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis
3) A Circle of Quiet by Madeleine L'Engle
4) Jack's Life by Douglas Gresham
5) Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands by Paul David Tripp
My Five Favorite Authors:
1) C. S. Lewis
2) Madeleine L'Engle
3) Lloyd Alexander
4) J. R. R. Tolkien
5. J. K. Rowling
My TEN Favorite Book Series / Companions:
1) The Time Quartet by Madeleine L'Engle
2) The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
3) The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander
4) The Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle
5) The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
6) Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
7) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Trilogy" by Douglas Adams
8) The Anne of Green Gables books by L. M. Montgomery
9) The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne
10) Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
My TEN Favorite Things to Listen to While Writing/Editing:
1) Rich Mullins
2) Mitch McVicker
3) Jars of Clay
4) Tenth Avenue North
5) The Beatles
6) Star Trek soundtracks (don't hate on my nerd music...it's beautiful--no words to distract me)
7) John Williams
8) Switchfoot
9) Chicago (the band, not the musical)
10) K-Love Radio
What are some of your favorite authors, books, series, and things to listen to while writing or...whatever?
My Five Favorite Fiction Books:
1) A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle
2) Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis
3) The Return of the King by J. R. R. Tolkien
4) Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
5) The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
My Five Favorite Non-fiction Books:
1) Rich Mullins: An Arrow Pointing to Heaven by James Bryan Smith
2) A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis
3) A Circle of Quiet by Madeleine L'Engle
4) Jack's Life by Douglas Gresham
5) Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands by Paul David Tripp
My Five Favorite Authors:
1) C. S. Lewis
2) Madeleine L'Engle
3) Lloyd Alexander
4) J. R. R. Tolkien
5. J. K. Rowling
My TEN Favorite Book Series / Companions:
1) The Time Quartet by Madeleine L'Engle
2) The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
3) The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander
4) The Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle
5) The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
6) Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
7) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Trilogy" by Douglas Adams
8) The Anne of Green Gables books by L. M. Montgomery
9) The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne
10) Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
My TEN Favorite Things to Listen to While Writing/Editing:
1) Rich Mullins
2) Mitch McVicker
3) Jars of Clay
4) Tenth Avenue North
5) The Beatles
6) Star Trek soundtracks (don't hate on my nerd music...it's beautiful--no words to distract me)
7) John Williams
8) Switchfoot
9) Chicago (the band, not the musical)
10) K-Love Radio
What are some of your favorite authors, books, series, and things to listen to while writing or...whatever?
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Romance and Writing
I don't like Jane Austen.
Well, that's not entirely true. I've never actually met Jane Austen to know if I like her personally or not. Rather, I should have said that I don't particularly like the writing of Jane Austen.
People are usually pretty shocked when they learn this about me. I get all kinds of interesting reactions:
"But...but...but...you're one of those Englishy writer bookish types. You HAVE to love Jane Austen."
"But...but...but she's JANE AUSTEN. All women love Jane Austen. You're a woman. It's like an unwritten law that you must LOVE JANE AUSTEN."
"Um...maybe you should read some of her stuff again, because I just don't understand how someone couldn't like Jane Austen. EVERYONE loves Jane Austen."
"*Sigh* There's just something wrong with you, Ruth."
The last statement is probably entirely true. There is just something wrong with me. And that's all right. You see, I am an Englishy writer bookish type, but that doesn't mean I have to like Jane Austen. I DO have an appreciation for Jane Austen's writing. I understand the humor and the social aspects of her writing. I admire her for being a professional female in a time when it was practically scandalous for a female to be a professional. The problem I have with Austen is that I just don't like romance for the sake of romance.
Romances are so predictable. Couple meet. Couple has problem. Couple resolves problem (or the problem is somehow resolved for couple). Couple lives happily ever after. I grew up on Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and all the other happy Disney stories. It didn't take me too long to realize that life doesn't work out like a Disney movie. People don't always live happily ever after. While I still love the old Disney classics, I think I've just gotten too old to embrace romances that I didn't know as a child. I can't take them seriously. A plot that just revolves around two people and their romantic relationship is just...boring...to me.
With that being said, I don't hate romance. In fact, stories WITHOUT romantic elements are usually just not that interesting to me (there are a few exceptions, but not many). I love it when there are two characters who find each other and fall in love within the course of their dealings with some other situation or situations. I DO like happy endings. It's just the whole concept of romance driving the whole story that I can't get past. I like romances WITHIN plots, just not as the plot itself.
For instance, my favorite book A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, is NOT a romance. It's YA science fiction/fantasy. However, the story is greatly embellished by the connection between the main character, Meg Murray, and her unlikely friend Calvin O'Keefe. Without their close friendship (and eventual romantic love), I would not like the book nearly as much. The romance makes the story better, but it doesn't make the story.
In every major project I've written so far, there has always been a romantic love story woven somewhere into the plot. The love story, however, is not the driving force behind the story. There's always something bigger happening. Romance is great, but I believe it should be something that embellishes a plot, rather than being the plot itself.
Anyone is, of course, welcome to disagree. I know a lot of people do. I mean, after all, there IS just something wrong with me.
Well, that's not entirely true. I've never actually met Jane Austen to know if I like her personally or not. Rather, I should have said that I don't particularly like the writing of Jane Austen.
People are usually pretty shocked when they learn this about me. I get all kinds of interesting reactions:
"But...but...but...you're one of those Englishy writer bookish types. You HAVE to love Jane Austen."
"But...but...but she's JANE AUSTEN. All women love Jane Austen. You're a woman. It's like an unwritten law that you must LOVE JANE AUSTEN."
"Um...maybe you should read some of her stuff again, because I just don't understand how someone couldn't like Jane Austen. EVERYONE loves Jane Austen."
"*Sigh* There's just something wrong with you, Ruth."
The last statement is probably entirely true. There is just something wrong with me. And that's all right. You see, I am an Englishy writer bookish type, but that doesn't mean I have to like Jane Austen. I DO have an appreciation for Jane Austen's writing. I understand the humor and the social aspects of her writing. I admire her for being a professional female in a time when it was practically scandalous for a female to be a professional. The problem I have with Austen is that I just don't like romance for the sake of romance.
Romances are so predictable. Couple meet. Couple has problem. Couple resolves problem (or the problem is somehow resolved for couple). Couple lives happily ever after. I grew up on Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and all the other happy Disney stories. It didn't take me too long to realize that life doesn't work out like a Disney movie. People don't always live happily ever after. While I still love the old Disney classics, I think I've just gotten too old to embrace romances that I didn't know as a child. I can't take them seriously. A plot that just revolves around two people and their romantic relationship is just...boring...to me.
With that being said, I don't hate romance. In fact, stories WITHOUT romantic elements are usually just not that interesting to me (there are a few exceptions, but not many). I love it when there are two characters who find each other and fall in love within the course of their dealings with some other situation or situations. I DO like happy endings. It's just the whole concept of romance driving the whole story that I can't get past. I like romances WITHIN plots, just not as the plot itself.
For instance, my favorite book A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, is NOT a romance. It's YA science fiction/fantasy. However, the story is greatly embellished by the connection between the main character, Meg Murray, and her unlikely friend Calvin O'Keefe. Without their close friendship (and eventual romantic love), I would not like the book nearly as much. The romance makes the story better, but it doesn't make the story.
In every major project I've written so far, there has always been a romantic love story woven somewhere into the plot. The love story, however, is not the driving force behind the story. There's always something bigger happening. Romance is great, but I believe it should be something that embellishes a plot, rather than being the plot itself.
Anyone is, of course, welcome to disagree. I know a lot of people do. I mean, after all, there IS just something wrong with me.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Contagious Creativity
"I go into the museum
and look at all the pictures on the walls.
Instead of feeling my own insignificance
I want to go straight home and paint."
--Madeleine L'Engle
Anyone who has read any of my writing in the past (especially "blog-style" writing) knows that I tend to quote three people in excess. Madeleine L'Engle, C. S. Lewis, and Rich Mullins. The first two are dead writers, and other is a dead musician. I quote them quite often because something in their writing and/or their lives has touched me. Something in their writing and/or lives has in some small way changed my life and influenced both the way I live and the way that I write.
I've learned that writers (and perhaps all artists--at least the good ones) are repetitive. I think there's a good reason for this. What writers write is important to them, and sometimes writers feel the need to emphasize over and over again what is important to them. The theme of creativity is something I see repeated throughout Madeleine L'Engle's writing. It was important to her, and it's become important to me.
When I was a fairly young child, perhaps five or six, I remember sitting in a Sunday School class at church, and the teacher asked us a question. She asked us why we thought that God created people. As a child, my childlike answer was, "Maybe God was just lonely." As a grown up--a Bible College/Seminary educated grown up, I know that answer is definitely not true. God doesn't need people to fill a void in Himself, because God doesn't need anything to be God. He already is. He always was. He always will be.
But creativity is something I understand because I am a writer. I know why God created the universe and I know why God created people. God creates because God is a Creator. Creating is what a Creator does. A writer writes because a writer can't help but to write. A singer sings because a singer can't help but to sing. A painter paints because a painter can't help but to paint. One might as well say that a breather breathes because a breather can't help but to breathe.
God creates because God is creative. The truly wonderful thing about God's creation is how complete it is. The world is imperfect, but that's not how it began. According to that first chapter of Genesis, God saw that the things He had made were good. The world is corrupted now, but corruption implies the deterioration of something that was once perfect. And no doubt, it would still be perfect if God hadn't included into creation the element that would allow for that corruption.
I'm not blaming God for the fall of mankind. That was all us. Putting the ability to sin in someone is not the same thing as causing someone to sin. But God did put that ability to sin inside of us--the ability to choose to serve God or to serve ourselves. He knew which one we would ultimately choose, but knowing someone is going to do something is also not the same thing as causing someone to do it.
But God is creative. God wrote (and still writes) the story because God is an Author. And in creating mankind, God did something remarkable. He gave us the power, like Him, to be creative. He made us into His image and breathed life into us, and we are not like the animals nor any other creature in all creation. His breath of creativity is inside us in a way that enables us to create, as well.
The Madeleine L'Engle poem at the beginning of this post is one of my favorite quotes because I understand it completely. Whenever I read something truly moving or hear a song that is particularly beautiful, my first instinct is to want to write something truly moving or particularly beautiful. It's the same thing that happens when I see a sunset or a starry sky or a green field or a powerful mountain. Instead of feeling small, I want to create something big. Creativity breeds creativity.
As a writer, I feel the best compliment is when someone tells me that my writing makes them want to write something, too. Sometimes I wonder if it's better to look at that sunset or starry sky or green field or powerful mountain and just meekly breathe out a prayer of gratitude for the beauty of it all, or if it's better to write a poem or sing a song or paint a picture of it. Perhaps the answer is simply YES. Yes to both. Because if God created us to be creative beings, then perhaps the best praise is humbly imitating His creative power in the knowledge that what He created and what we create is good.
and look at all the pictures on the walls.
Instead of feeling my own insignificance
I want to go straight home and paint."
--Madeleine L'Engle
Anyone who has read any of my writing in the past (especially "blog-style" writing) knows that I tend to quote three people in excess. Madeleine L'Engle, C. S. Lewis, and Rich Mullins. The first two are dead writers, and other is a dead musician. I quote them quite often because something in their writing and/or their lives has touched me. Something in their writing and/or lives has in some small way changed my life and influenced both the way I live and the way that I write.
I've learned that writers (and perhaps all artists--at least the good ones) are repetitive. I think there's a good reason for this. What writers write is important to them, and sometimes writers feel the need to emphasize over and over again what is important to them. The theme of creativity is something I see repeated throughout Madeleine L'Engle's writing. It was important to her, and it's become important to me.
When I was a fairly young child, perhaps five or six, I remember sitting in a Sunday School class at church, and the teacher asked us a question. She asked us why we thought that God created people. As a child, my childlike answer was, "Maybe God was just lonely." As a grown up--a Bible College/Seminary educated grown up, I know that answer is definitely not true. God doesn't need people to fill a void in Himself, because God doesn't need anything to be God. He already is. He always was. He always will be.
But creativity is something I understand because I am a writer. I know why God created the universe and I know why God created people. God creates because God is a Creator. Creating is what a Creator does. A writer writes because a writer can't help but to write. A singer sings because a singer can't help but to sing. A painter paints because a painter can't help but to paint. One might as well say that a breather breathes because a breather can't help but to breathe.
God creates because God is creative. The truly wonderful thing about God's creation is how complete it is. The world is imperfect, but that's not how it began. According to that first chapter of Genesis, God saw that the things He had made were good. The world is corrupted now, but corruption implies the deterioration of something that was once perfect. And no doubt, it would still be perfect if God hadn't included into creation the element that would allow for that corruption.
I'm not blaming God for the fall of mankind. That was all us. Putting the ability to sin in someone is not the same thing as causing someone to sin. But God did put that ability to sin inside of us--the ability to choose to serve God or to serve ourselves. He knew which one we would ultimately choose, but knowing someone is going to do something is also not the same thing as causing someone to do it.
But God is creative. God wrote (and still writes) the story because God is an Author. And in creating mankind, God did something remarkable. He gave us the power, like Him, to be creative. He made us into His image and breathed life into us, and we are not like the animals nor any other creature in all creation. His breath of creativity is inside us in a way that enables us to create, as well.
The Madeleine L'Engle poem at the beginning of this post is one of my favorite quotes because I understand it completely. Whenever I read something truly moving or hear a song that is particularly beautiful, my first instinct is to want to write something truly moving or particularly beautiful. It's the same thing that happens when I see a sunset or a starry sky or a green field or a powerful mountain. Instead of feeling small, I want to create something big. Creativity breeds creativity.
As a writer, I feel the best compliment is when someone tells me that my writing makes them want to write something, too. Sometimes I wonder if it's better to look at that sunset or starry sky or green field or powerful mountain and just meekly breathe out a prayer of gratitude for the beauty of it all, or if it's better to write a poem or sing a song or paint a picture of it. Perhaps the answer is simply YES. Yes to both. Because if God created us to be creative beings, then perhaps the best praise is humbly imitating His creative power in the knowledge that what He created and what we create is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)