Fiction Friday: You are NOT J. R .R. Tolkien

I've only read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy once.  It was actually years ago, and I've very much wanted to read them again, but, dude!  Those books are long.  I would probably have to devote an entire summer to reading them, so maybe next year?

Even if I haven't read them in a while, they remain some of my favorite books.  Samwise Gamgee is my second favorite fictional character.  I can't watch the end of the last movie (Return of the King) without weeping.  The book The Return of the King made me weep, too.  After journeying along with Samwise and Frodo (and believe me, with as long and as well-written as those books are, you literally feel like you're journeying with them), it broke my heart to have to see them part at the end.  Hopefully I didn't ruin that ending for you.

Tolkien was a genius, and eventually I'd like to delve into some of his other work.  I have a copy of The Silmarillion that I have yet to read.  Why?  Because I'd probably have to devote a good month to that thing in order to give it proper attention, and I don't have that kind of time at the moment.  Tolkien's works need time to properly digest.  They deserve every bit of that time. 

Other books, however, don't deserve that kind of time and devotion.
There was a time when readers wanted to read books full of descriptive landscapes, wordy settings, lengthy passages about various unimportant objects that happen to be sitting around in a room.  A lot of these books are wonderful.  I have nothing against them.  It's just that most of them were written in the 1800s, and it seems to me that a lot of today's authors are suffering under some kind of delusion.  Either they believe they're still living in the 1800s, or they believe they are, in fact, J. R. R. Tolkien.

Tolkien did not write LOTR in the 1800s.  He wrote LOTR in the earlier half of the 1900s.  In the case of this work, however, it doesn't really matter, because it was ground-breaking.  LOTR was pretty much the first of its kind, which means it would have done well in whatever particular time it was written.  Just about every fantasy author since Tolkien has ripped off been inspired by LOTR.  If Tolkien had not written this work, I seriously doubt modern literature would be the same.

I'd also like to point out that Tolkien's use of the written language was amazing.  I haven't read the books in many years, but I have skimmed through them, just to relive the beauty of the language.  Tolkien knew how to weave words together.  The following is a brief excerpt from Return of the King:

The great shadow descended like a falling cloud.  And behold! it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank.  A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, lingering in forgotten mountains cold beneath the Moon, outstayed their day, and in hideous eyrie bred this last untimely brood, apt to evil.  And the Dark Lord took it, and nursed it with fell meats, until it grew beyond the measure of all other things that fly; and he gave it to his servant to be his steed.  Down, down it came, and then, folding its fingered webs, it gave a croaking cry, and settled...digging in its claws, stooping its long naked neck.

Wonderful!  Ooh.  I might have nightmares!

I've read a few more modern authors who seem to think that they have a similar grasp of the written language (Christopher Paolini and Cornelia Funke immediately come to mind), and well, they just don't.  I'm not saying that they aren't good.  In fact, I enjoy their work.  I simply enjoy their work for the stories, and not the long, detailed, and completely unnecessary descriptions and/or situations that I have to work through in order to read the stories.  The problem is, sometimes I'm not sure if I think stories like this are worth all the effort and time involved to actually read them.  And that's sad.

I'm not saying description is a bad thing.  Not at all.  Small details are nice. Is it vitally important that the main character is wearing a blue shirt? No, but it's okay if an author wants me to know that, as long as he/she doesn't, for no good reason, tell me that the main character is wearing a tagless, pocketless cotton blend periwinkle blue polo with a yellow stripe on the sleeves.  If the lengthy detail about the main character's shirt was to make some kind of clear point or was necessary to the story somehow, that's fine.  Otherwise, leave it out!  See, what I really don't like is when an author goes on and on about nonessential details that don't make the story more enjoyable.


What today's authors have to understand is that most of today's readers aren't interested in major detail that 1) isn't essential or at least relevant to the plot, or 2) doesn't significantly add to the enjoyment of reading.  That means that not all excessive descriptions have to be integral to the plot, but if they're not, then they had better be stinkin' good. 

Readers, for the most part, are not stupid.  They do not need an author to figuratively hold their hand.  It insults a reader's intelligence if an author includes too many non-essential descriptions. 

Maybe it's sad that society is all about instant gratification.  Maybe it's sad that we can't sit down and enjoy a lengthy book with incredible descriptive scenes.  But honestly, I haven't read many modern books that have long descriptions that take my breath away.  Most of them just make me want to put the author in the Literary Naughty Corner.  The most enjoyable literature (Harry Potter and The Hunger Games immediately come to mind) I've read lately has a good balance of description and pace.  The authors know what they need to include without putting in too much.  They know how to keep the story flowing without getting stuck in some kind of pointless drudgery that no one wants to read.  They know how to make the characters interesting and relatable without telling us a million little details that aren't relevant to the plot.  Believe me, Paolini, I could care less that Eragon likes to shave using magic.  If it's not important, or otherwise really good, don't include it.

And just so everyone knows I'm not picking on anyone, I'm going to go ahead and say that I was once quite guilty of believing that I was J. R. R. Tolkien.  I believed I had every right to write a 175,000 word YA fantasy novel, because I was just THAT good.  No.  I wasn't.  After much, MUCH, editing, that book is now under 75,000 words.  I still have some minor editing to do, but it'll probably stay under 75,000 words.  That means that about 100,000 of the words I originally included were unnecessary. 

I'm not Tolkien.

Neither are you.

Which kind of takes the pressure off every fantasy writer out there.  I mean, no matter how awesome we are, we'll never be as awesome as Tolkien.  Just something to think about.

Fiction Friday: My Second Favorite Fictional Character of All Time

I would eventually like to branch out from the fictional character thing, but I'm not feeling particularly creative right now since my mind really doesn't want to write this blog.  My mind wants to be deeply, emotionally, intimately involved in the reading of Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins, which I am only about a third of the way through.  In fact, I will have to be at work in less than two hours and would be spending every last second of that time reading, if I had not remembered that today was a blogging day.  And since I'm only two weeks into this blogging schedule thing, I figure I'd better try sticking with it for a while.

So my second favorite fictional character is someone who I very much wish were real.  I wish he were real, just ever so slightly taller, and not married...because of all the male fictional characters in the world, I would most want to be married to him. 

When most people watch or read Lord of the Rings, they're gushing over Aragorn or Orlando Bloom--I mean, Legolas.  They're talking about how dashing Faramir is, or how mischievously cute Pippin is.  There are even a few throwbacks to the late 90's who actually still think that Elijah Wood's FREAKISHLY GINORMOUS EYES are attractive.

Who do I find appealing from LOTR?  Who would I spend the rest of my life with, without hesitation?  I'll tell you who--Samwise Gamgee. 

Now, I don't have anything against Sean Astin (except maybe the fool he made of himself in "50 First Dates." You can't go from playing Samwise Gamgee to that!  Ugh!) The dude is a phenomenal actor who has played THREE of my favorite roles in all of filmdom.  Is filmdom a word?  Now it is.  He was Mikey, the main character in Goonies (GOONIES NEVER SAY DIE!).  He was Rudy (I can always appreciate a character who succeeds because he's too dumb to know that he can't possibly succeed).  He was Samwise Gamgee.  But I don't have a celeb crush on Mr. Astin.  He's a great actor, but my love for Samwise has nothing to do with him.  My love for Sam goes much, much deeper.

But in retrospect, I don't know how well a relationship with Samwise would work.  He's a hobbit, which would mean he's probably even shorter than I am...and I'm short.  He's also got hairy feet, which I could probably learn to tolerate.  Beyond that, though, is another problem.  I learned a while back that I don't really want to be with someone like Samwise.  I want to be like Samwise. 

And, okay, I want to be with him, too, but since that's not happening...

I could go on and on about Samwise's loyalty.  I could rant about how he almost drowned in order to follow Frodo, about how he killed the spider and followed Frodo even into an orc infested tower, about how he watched over Frodo in the darkness, sacrificing everything for his friend.  I could go on and on, but there's really only one thing I can say that would sum up who Samwise is.  There's only one quote from the book/film that comes to mind that is the essence of Samwise Gamgee, the reason I love him so much and aspire to be more like him.

As Frodo and Sam make their way up Mount Doom to destroy the Ring, Frodo's strength wanes.  He begins pitifully crawling forward, and Samwise reveals the depths of his loyalty for his friend.

I quote this from the book, The Return of the King by the incredible J. R. R. Tolkien:

"Sam looked at him and wept in his heart, though 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.'"

I'm honestly getting a little misty just reading that over again.  I can't let myself think too far ahead, or I will think of the Gray Havens, when Frodo boarded the ship which parted him from Sam.  I don't really have time for a full emotional breakdown at the moment.

Sam's loyalty.  That's what makes him such an unforgettable character.  He was given a charge to protect his friend, and he did not waver from it.  That's the kind of person I would like to be.  I'd like to be the kind of loyal friend who, when I cannot carry burdens, I simply carry my friends.  But...I am far more selfish than Samwise.

...maybe, since I can't be as much like him as I want to be, I can just hold out that someday I'll meet a nice little hobbit boy.  Just in case, I think I'll keep wearing ribbons in my hair, because Samwise seems to like that.

Rosie Cotton better watch her back.  That's all I'm saying.

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.