Episode Review – Girls, Girls, Girls

Yeah Thanksgiving has put me behind and I’m trying to catch up.  I was all set to blog a review with this episode and tonight’s but…

Ok confession time: When the time came to watch my shows, I was clicking on the Flash more and more with a bit of dread in regards to Supernatural.  And you know what?  That’s a really horrible place to be with what was once one of your favorite shows.  Yet… slowly but surely this season has been turning around, until I actually caught up on SPN first!  And didn’t regret it!

I mean had this episode been in one of the Kripke 5, it would have been very mediocre to below average, but after the ATROCITY of season 9?  It’s practically 5 star!  Part of me is starting to seriously wonder if the show runners are reading this blog because they’re actually showing signs of improvement and fixing previously listed issues!

A few quick things before I turn this into a writing tips rant.

  • New character, Rowena.  She was… a character in multiple meanings!  She was a bit camp, but entertaining.  She demonstrated competence and being a threat without showing herself to be some overpowered Mary Sue villain like this was a cheap knock-off of Dragonball Z (yes that is part of what I think ended Abaddon as a written character).
  • Sam and Dean are behaving like… human beings!  They’re smiling!  They’re socializing!  And you know what?  That moment of Dean saying, “I’m going to die” (however it was phrased) had more punch BECAUSE we had seen greater emotional range from him earlier.
  • While there are still a few holes in the angel deal, things were at least advanced and canon REMEMBERED (nobody was more shocked than me).  Now we have an actual moral discussion, a plot to examine.  I mean imagine if they freed Metatron’s vessel from him, just the implications of that, the story possibilities!

Still, you know what thrilled me most?  What caused me a near heart attack? (besides high blood pressure and unhealthy living)  They did a GOOD retcon!

What is a retcon?


Now, I’ve had some discussion with other fans (names withheld because I literally cannot remember them at the moment) over the issue of retcons in SPN, most often why I was so angry at the ones in S9 but accepted so many others elsewhere in the series. This episode gives a wonderful example but first, we have to establish what it takes for a retcon to work, and to be good.

  1. It cannot outright contradict previously established “facts” about the work. (i.e. If an line or character suddenly claimed that Sam was the older brother and Dean the younger.)
  2. It cannot contradict previously established “facts” about the work by implication. (i.e. If there was a comic or novel that said John Winchester was a part of an elite military hunter group in Vietnam.)
  3. It should harmonize any contradictions between previously established “facts”.
  4. BONUS: It should make new story possibilities, not break them.

Now, one minor issue the show has had was that witches seemed to have some inconsistency.  What’s the retcon in this episode?  That there’s (at least) 3 types of witches: demon based, natural born, and trained.  Perfect!  1) This information does not contradict anything we’ve seen in any other episode involving witches. 2) The implications of this revelation do not create plot holes in any previous witch episode. 3) The issue with some witches seeming different from others is ACTUALLY RESOLVED!  Bonus round: New storylines to examine!  Like what if a natural born witch was to make a demon deal?  Would they become super-witch or less powerful?  Do psychics in the SPN world fit within the natural-born section or are they different?  Do all natural witches have that “spark” which Leviathans can’t replicate?  Can naturals be an angel vessel or is that an unresolvable contradiction?  PERFECT SCORE!

Yes those questions aren’t answered, but the point is that they don’t have to be.  The important, relevant plot and world-building questions were answered and these others can later be used to examine and expand future stories.  Perfect!  Well done!

Another example?  The anti-demon hex bag.  That Sam was able to find it online was possibly a huge plot hole by implication.  Oh but they retconned that perfectly too!  “Single person used it.” “Questionable reliability.”  Yes, that’s how you do that.  See it doesn’t require much, just a line or two, some tweaked word choices and you can make it all fit.  Well done everyone!

Here’s hoping the episode that concluded five minutes ago doesn’t dash all my goodwill and anger me.

So now what do I do?

So apparently I have a reader!  (I know, nobody’s more shocked than me.)  After pitching a pretty kickass idea they say:

And really, that’s about all I got. All I have so far is the setting and not really an idea for what to do with it in terms of plot/character arcs for my three main protagonists.

Whoa, asking me for help?  Well if I was pretend to be a writer…

So first question you always have to ask yourself is: what medium do I want this to go on?  Long or short form?  Long form would be like an ongoing TV series or comic book or short story series or 12+ novels.  You don’t need to have a plot or character arc ready, just start writing situations out and let the world breathe and have fun.  “I want to ask Suzie to the dance but she might learn my secret!”  “Hey let’s try out that new coffee shop that just opened!”  Monsters of the week!  Don’t be afraid to invent a situation and run with it no matter how silly or mundane it might be, the key is to try and tell the story in a way that it can ONLY happen in your world, not any other (even if they’re very similar).  After a few runs you should hopefully have figured enough out about the world and your characters that a proper plot & character arc will jump out and be so obvious you’ll wonder how you didn’t see it before.

But maybe you’re aiming more for a short form like a limited run TV or comic book series, a single novel or trilogy.  What then?  You can’t just mess around on meaningless stuff!  (Well don’t be afraid to run a short story or two – who knows if you get popular enough you might be able to release them as tie-in material in the future.)  Well forget the whole “3 types of stories [man vs ___]” deal, ultimately every story (setting aside experimental bullshit) revolves around 1 factor: Change.  You have a setting and all that, great!  That’s how the story world is today.  What could be different about it tomorrow?  It doesn’t mean it will be different, just what could be.  It’s the same with characters.  You know who they are today, who could they be tomorrow?  I think once you start asking yourself that question, the rest of it starts falling into place:

  • This change, would it be for the better or worse?
  • Would the antagonist(s) want to bring about or prevent this change?
  • Would the protagonist(s) want to bring about or prevent this change?
  • How are outside groups (if any) involved?
  • Does the change happen or not?
  • Any particular reason the change (or attempt) happened now and not before?  Later?
  • Why this protagonist or this antagonist?

The other key to remember is to always answer the questions within the logic of the story itself – don’t let your meta knowledge as author/creator infect it.  “It just can/can’t” should almost never be answer given to questions.  Sure, you the author may know that you can’t cross the streams, but how or why would the characters know?  Can they try it out?  Maybe that’s where you get your antagonist, somebody that just wants to see what happens if you do something and the protagonists have to prevent a total protonic reversal.

Hopefully these question will get you over that writer’s block and entice the muses to visit your dreams.

Moment of Brilliance – the Bay line

Once in awhile one finds something said by someone else that so encapsulates a thought you were trying to express, you can’t help but give the author major kudos.

From the always awesome Furious D we have the new term, “The Bay Line”.  What is it?

The Bay Line is named after director and explosives enthusiast Michael Bay. It’s the line where a filmmaker goes from insulting the audience’s intelligence to insulting their existence. Bay’s films only insult the audience’s intelligence, not their existence, in fact, he goes out of his way to praise their existence. The audience forgives him his stupidities, and sits back to enjoy the visceral experience of robots beating the living shit out of each other while good looking people try to emote.

They’ll let you insult their intelligence as long as you give them lowbrow laughs or big explosions, but insult their existence, and the audience will punish you, even if they don’t consciously know that they are doing it.

It was this moment when it finally hit me why I hated the Happening and Avatar (H&A) so very much.  They weren’t just insultingly stupid to our brains, they were insultingly stupid to our very existence.  Glancing at scenes from the movies again, it’s hard not to see them as subtly declaring to the audience that “you should also suffer/die as the characters are”. Avatar sort of survived by being very pretty and offering something of an “experience”, but will that hold up for the sequels?

And yet, do not horror movies contradict this lesson?  I’m not a big horror aficionado, but from scanning the plot synopsis of many of them, we notice several “outs” they give which H&A do not follow.

  1. We are generally not supposed to root for the antagonist/villain.  Well sometimes we might do so unintentionally, there’s even probably some paper to be written about “protagonist creep” in horror settings, but at their core: horror movies are about something inhuman to be fought. (yes often there are movies where the killer/whatever is human, but usually in them there is a subtext that the antagonist has given up any right to call itself human)   In H&A, we have the non-humans portrayed as just innocent victims defending themselves.  Sure once in awhile there will be an inhuman opponent that is mentioned as “misunderstood” but this is usually a small part of the movie (that could nearly be cut out without damaging the story) whereas H&A have this misunderstanding as very central aspects of the story.
  2. The movies usually have some effort to make a distinction clear between all humans vs a subset.  There’s often side characters, or maybe even one or two main characters which are portrayed as decent human beings.  While we might be seeing Jason Vorheeves killing off a lot of unlikable partying assholes NOW, there’s signs that we don’t have much to worry about him going off on a rampage to kill all humans.  In the Happening, the closest we have to likable characters/protagonists only survive by dumb luck, seemingly implying that all humans should be killed.  In Avatar, the only humans which prove themselves worthy of not being killed/expelled/whatever, are the ones that “abandon” their humanity to become something else and live somewhere else.
  3. Somewhat related to the above, horror movies also give the audience some satisfaction in that they can think “well I wouldn’t do that” while watching the victims be selfish/stupid/whatever-gets-them-killed.  Again, in H&A – there’s no sign that the audience – were they in those situations – could do anything differently to save themselves. (well… Avatar really hits the gray area)

So today we’ve all learned that, when writing or creating any kind of art, it’s probably best to make sure you’re not insulting the people you’re asking to give you money for your art. 😉

But then this is “writing talk” so leave examples, counter-examples (how do Zombie movies impact this?), and more in the comments.

Get your politics out of my…


In case you couldn’t guess, I hate politics.  And one of the biggest reasons is because of the shattering impact it has upon suspensions of disbelief.  Why do I bring this up?  Because of this upcoming Superman issue.

Now let me make something very clear: I am not upset over this for any patriotic pride or anything.  I am upset because this is stupid on so many levels.  How many?  Let’s count!

The first and biggest mistake is that Superman has (until now, anyway) been a legal citizen of the USA in the DCU.

  • If you are a male over the age of 18, the USA requires you to sign up for “selective services”.  This is so in case there’s ever a military draft, the government can press one into military service.  The law (and Supes is always lawful, remember?) requires Kal-el to be registered in the selective service.  Was he?  Could the military have drafted Superman at any time?
  • And was Clark Kent also registered in this?  What would happen if both were drafted?
  • Did Superman pay taxes?  Where did the IRS send him bills?   How does he declare his annual income?  Actually he shouldn’t – which means Superman must be legally poor.  Does the government send him welfare checks?
  • Clark must also have taxes withheld from his Daily Planet paycheck, does this mean he pays taxes twice?
  • Is his residence considered to be the Fortress of Solitude?  Looking at a political map of the Arctic, is the Fortress in US territory?  There for awhile the fortress was located in South America.  Was it still considered US soil?

So anyway, Kal-el is going to renounce his citizenship.  How stupid will this turn out to be?

  • If the Fortress of Solitude is in the US territory of the Arctic, will he now move it to another one? (perhaps greenland)  Will he then be a citizen of that nation?
  • There are issues with American airspace and all that.  If Superman isn’t a citizen, doesn’t that mean he should go to a customs station and get his visa stamped every time he wants to fly into America?
  • But wait – you’re saying – Clark is already in America.  Which is why this is so stupid!  For Superman to remain within the bounds of the law, every time he changes out of his identity of Clark Kent, he has to exit the US and then enter it legally (assuming he wants to remain lawful good).  And how much sense does it make for him to have two identities with different citizenship status?

The worse part is, like Batman Inc and all of its stupidity (and boy is there a lot), the answer is obvious.  A lot of people have dual citizenship.  Superman should be a citizen of every country on earth.  And you could have gotten a good story out of that with him journeying about the world, completing tasks and stuff to earn citizenship for each country.  You can have conflict where perhaps a country doesn’t want to grant it to him.

Instead we get something that’s only going to bring up more questions and strain our disbelief.  I remember once when I believed a man could fly…

P.S. My comic list?  Anything Green Lantern and Darkwing Duck.  Trust me, they are much more awesome.

Writing Horror

So, there’s this movie coming out later this year called Devil, you might have heard of it.

Oh M. Night… we know you can do better.  When did you become Hollywood’s punchline?  Still, at least we can learn how to do horror stories by the movie’s violation of many of the fundamentals (I say this without even seeing the movie – the trailer and synopsis are that bad).  Like Uwe Boll, M. Night violates rules so fundamental, we didn’t even think about them until they’re broken.

  1. Easy solutions cannot be present.
    This one should be obvious: whatever problem the victims in the movie are encountering, there can’t be easy solutions to it that the audience can see.  5 people stuck on an elevator?  Why can’t they just climb out?  We’ve see John McClane do it.  Now there are several methods towards solving this – the dead cell phone, stranded in the middle of nowhere, mystical forces, etc – but when you go about solving this, you have to make sure that…

    • Corollary: Preventing easy solutions should not be increasingly contrived.
      If you have a situation with a hundred easy solutions, don’t bother using it.  1 or 2 can be worked around without breaking the audiences’ suspension of disbelief but when you start getting around a baker’s dozen, they’ll start wondering why God Himself just doesn’t smite the victims already.  A dead cell phone in the middle of nowhere while the killer hunts you is a problem.  A dead cell phone in the middle of New York while the killer hunts you is contrivance and silly.  However, there is one way you can get around a group of easy solutions, and that’s by having the victims in the story not realize they are in a horror story.  Then, once it dawns on them that they are screwed, you can have a lot of solutions expire, pass, or whatever (indeed, watching the characters pass up solutions while we know they shouldn’t can add to the terror of the audience).
  2. Hope HAS to be present.
    If the victims in the story have no hope of escape or ANY solution, then it’s not a horror film, it’s just schadenfreude.  The audience is not going to be scared or unnerved at all.  This doesn’t mean that any of the victims in your story have to survive, but until the end, they must have a chance of surviving (or at least, they and the audience must believe they do).  The most common form of this is the ticking clock.  At X point in the future, the storm will pass, rescuers will come, the genie has to go back into the bottle, whatever.  Keep in mind that your treatment of rule 1 will impact rule 2 – thus the corollary above: if you keep having easy solutions blow up/expire in the face of the victims, then the audience won’t trust you when you say that if the victims just do ___ or last until X:00 PM all will be well.  Devil violates this by – well – having the devil!  Sure it might be a devil instead of Lucifer himself, but the point is: what are the victims supposed to do?  Recite latin and throw prayer beads at whoever winces?  Shoot him with the ColtSummon Santa Claus?

    • Corollary: Contrived hope isn’t OR Hope must be easy to understand/instinctive.
      I know some out there probably brought up some Japanese horror films – like The Ring – but you’ve misunderstood.  While the final solution to the horror might be difficult/contrived/whatever, hope itself cannot be.  If your story works with the horror of the unknown, the hope of the victims/audience is obvious: knowledge – by learning or understanding what we are dealing with, it might be overcome/defeated.  The ten little murder victims trope works well with this in that generally, a group of people can overpower/take out 1-2 killers, if they can just figure out who it is…  However, making the victims’ solution very difficult or completely arbitrary will shove the audience out of the story – they are seeing the storyteller’s hand too much to be invested.  Again, rule 1 will impact this.  If you have to establish a bunch of backstory/rules on why such and such solutions won’t work but this solution will work, you’re trying too hard.
  3. The audience has to care.
    The final rule that so many horror films forget: the audience has to care about the victims.  But then, that’s just kind of true about stories in general.  Get the audience caring about the characters involved and what’s happening to them then you’ll have a scary movie.

Pretty much if you can get those rules down, everything else should fall into place.  Can you think of any I’ve forgotten?

Update: How could I forget… Furious D did something along these lines before.

The best writing advice ever

By John C Wright here.

Yes I know he’s referring to reading, but it applies just as well to writing.  The only fundamental rule I’d say is that of “good”: Write the best you can, read the best stuff you can get your hands on.

The problem with the video is twofold: first, I know personally police officers and military men who play D&D and read SF and like comic books — so the theory that only unheroic folk like heroic entertainment is a weak generalization; second, the unspoken assumption behind the message seems to be that I the reader should only read, like, and identify with ‘heroes’ who look and act like me the reader–so in other words, I should only admire myself and protagonists like me, overweight yet cantankerous obscure midlist science fiction authors. It is a theory fit only for narcissism and political correctness.


Does this mean I cannot read and enjoy the Iliad, because I am not a bronze-age warrior-aristocrat? I cannot read and enjoy Milton’s Paradise Lost because I am not the naked and prelapsarian father of the human race, nor yet an immortal fallen angel made of imperishable quintessential substance? I cannot read the Gospel because I am not a saint, nor can I read the Analects of Confucius because I am not a sage, nor can I read the Bhagavad Gita, because I am not a bronze-age warrior-aristocrat?

Does this mean I cannot read any science fiction of any kind whatsoever? Because I am not an invading Martian, nor a moon-traveler, nor a time-traveler, nor the inventor of an aerial ironclad heavier-than-air ship, nor a member of the Eighteenth Race of Man from Neptune, nor a positronic robot programmed never to harm a human being, nor an immortal citizen of Diaspar the City at the End of Time, nor a false messiah raised by Martians, nor a grunt in the Mobile Infantry, nor a Psychohistorian, nor a book-burning fireman, nor an employee of Fireball, nor a Journeyman of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians and Other Seekers of the Ineffable Flame, nor am I any of the incarnations of the Eternal Champion, nor am I a diplomat for the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne, and I am not the sole survivor of the Mount Pleasant Massacre hunting through the stars for the five Demon Princes who slew my family and my world, and I am certainly not an apprentice of the Order of Seekers of Truth and Penance in exile for the crime of mercy when I aided the suicide of the only woman I ever loved.

Political Correctness is the mental disease of not being able to imagine that people have or need imagination.