So this is why I never finish things except NaNo novels: the shiny wears off an idea/piece of writing and then something new and pretty comes along. Bye bye consistency, hello attention span of a goldfish.
So I try to knuckle myself down to one thing and one thing only, but then there are the beautiful phantom calls of the things I'm ignoring, telling me this could be my one and only chance to get that idea when it's still fresh and cool. Sometimes they get better by leaving, like wine. Sometimes they get worse, and over time the deep red skin wrinkles and the taste gets overripe, and that weird black stuff starts oozing out (OK, this metaphor is going too far) but eventually, even if it doesn't go completely rotten while you've been waiting, it'll still turn out to be one of those fruits that doesn't actually taste of anything and is like eating flavoured foam. So leaving an idea is a good thing if it turns into a better idea, and it's also a good thing if it turns out to be a stupid idea, however disappointing that might be, but there is also the risk of just plain old losing enthusiasm for it. You just end up with this quite awesome idea that you can't be bothered to do anything with, because you thought it up ages ago and the sparkle's worn off.
But then my writing has also suffered for keeping doggedly on with something for which I have lost enthusiasm. I pushed myself onwards with 'Cyberknights' and 'Captain Colney and the Avaricious Angel' in the post-NaNo belief that eventually through pure infinite monkey syndrome I'd end up with something good. In both cases, though, they changed in the writing because I was forced to move forward without stopping to garner ideas or decide how the characters needed to develop. 'Cyberknights' had a definite feel of the YA 'esoteric archetype academy' style (e.g. the 'Vampire Academy' series), which is by no means a bad style, but didn't fit with the level of horror violence I was going for and the more adult themes and subject matter I wanted to wrestle with. It'll still probably turn out as YA, but that's because of the main character, who is only like 16. Some good things came out of the first draft, but it was like a story about a police academy with swords as well as guns, and had completely the wrong feel. 'Captain Colney' has gone through so many incarnations, but it didn't have a plot in any of them. Now I've stepped back and started fleshing out backstory, I've realised that I was missing the point the whole time. So, revelations:
1. 'Cyberknights' is about knights, dammit, and therefore the plot should come first and be full of much derring-do. The moral quandries are completely tied in with the situations the characters find themselves in, so as long as they're challenging, the character development will follow.
2. The thing I love most about 'Captain Colney' is the character of Captain James Colney, so why was I focusing on pretty much everyone except him? His backstory from his youth is much more interesting than anything happening when he's 40. I think it was because I didn't trust myself to be able to write a character I had so much affection for, but following him earlier on should help with that. I'm still a girl, and therefore will probably never write satisfactory non-Gary Stu men, but at least he's in my age group.
Of course, none of this helps if I keep on writing the random little things I'm working on at the moment. One of them is a Solomon Kane-style hero battling demons in a post-apocalyptic setting (yes, I'm obsessed, so sue me) and is enormous fun to write with no pretensions to quality. The other is a strange little tale about modern day fairies, basically a 'Dark Romance' but not about vampires. Also with a very British feel, as fairies are very European to me. Not an original idea, as there are quite a few 'fairy' romances out there right now, but it at least allows more interpretation than the standard vampire setup. Are fairies a bit wussy? Not really - if you think about it, Glamour is a kind of magical date rape drug. It brings in all kinds of issues of consensuality. Fairies have historically been pretty nasty (as emphasised by the Discworld fairies and the recent roleplaying game Changeling) and also are somewhere between impossibly beautiful and sex on legs. So, different morality providing danger to the relationship, plus people who are canonically way more likely to embody ideals of attractiveness? Sounds like a romance to me.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Monday, 22 February 2010
A plethora of reviews 2 - the actual Solomon Kane review
So, Solomon Kane. Dour puritan, avatar of holy justice, protector of the weak...
...And evil pirate. Wait, what?
'Solomon Kane' is the first of a planned (well, hoped for) trilogy of films bringing Robert E. Howard's classic character to life. Problem is, the actual material is very limited. Howard only wrote 9 stories about Kane, augmented by some fragments and a few poems. The stories themselves are mostly very short, and rarely cover more than a pretty standard monster hunt. Howard never elaborated on Kane's life or motivations. So this is an Origins film. And oh boy did it suffer for it. OK, no, that's not fair. It's an OK film. It's even pretty cool in places, and there are shots of James Purefoy as Kane that I am going to print out and stick all over the walls in my room of crazy (not just the shirtless ones either), but it isn't Solomon Kane for me. It's a really interesting character, but one of the reasons Howard never gave him a backstory (I assume) is because Kane is a goddamn force of nature. He's someone who doesn't feel emotions other than righteous anger, guilt and pity. The only experiences from his past he carries in his heart are the ones that brought him to the brink (he was enslaved by Arabs and whipped, he was held in the cells of the Inquisition, etc.) I don't want to imagine Kane getting bratty as a small boy and storming out of his father's house.
But on the other hand, this is an exploration of the man rather than the legend, and I imagine a film in which he just kicks demonic ass would become a bit monotonal after a while. This is Solomon Kane at his weakest, in the fine old tradition of knocking 'em low so they can come back fighting. James Purefoy is brilliant as Kane, really throwing himself into the character. He seems more comfortable with the subtle, tormented Kane on the path of peace than the caricature of callous evil at the beginning, but that may just be that the character arc from bratty kid to ruthless pirate is explored in far less depth than the journey from damnation to redemption. Nevertheless, when Kane fully becomes the solemn soldier of God, Purefoy brings a suprising amount of depth to the silent, purposeful path he carves through his enemies. There are some truly crowning moments of pure awesome, as well, though there are many more opportunities that are not taken up. It's a shame, because the peace-loving Kane is kind of pathetic (with no real motivator for his change of heart other than fear) but the transformation into vengeful warrior of God is truly epic. When he flips out and starts killing people, you can see the fear in the eyes of the friendly Puritan family he took up with. Yeah, that guy's been sleeping next to you and hanging out with your teenage daughter. (But, honestly, you didn't get that he was dangerous from the horrific homemade tattoos and religious scarification all over his torso?) The fighting is pretty good as well. Kane kills with delicious efficiency, his martial prowess in line with that of the literary character. It's just a pity that the pivotal scene itself was so messy: the tension is all wrong and the script emphasises the morality play aspect of the film in an unsubtle and rather idiotic way. In terms of pacing, the least number of separate actions you need in a scene like that, the better. Throwing your arms up and crying out to the heavens is inappropriate when your friends are in danger and you're just going to go AWOL from your path of redemption anyway.
There is also an unpleasant slip back into uselessness when Kane believes the girl he needs to save is dead. Essentially, he goes hard off the deep end, but it seems strange given our limited exploration of his pre-revelation character that he would become so ineffectual. Perhaps he had to get ratarsed just so his old shipmates actually recognised him. Shortly after this, Kane becomes officially more awesome than Jesus.
The supporting cast is pretty stellar, in a muted kind of way: Max von Sydow, whose two scenes are sadly some of my least favourite, not because he is bad but because they are unnecessary, the ever reliable Pete Postlethwaite, Alice Krige, whose luminous beauty seems to defy age, Mackenzie Crook in a kind of good but superfluous side story and Jason Flemyng as Malachi, the big bad. Oh, and of course, that annoying girl from the version of 'Peter Pan' in which every girl's daddy issues about Jason Isaacs were fully explored. I'll stop being so flippant, but Rachel Hurd-Wood is very irritating. She is fine as a perfect, sweet object for the camera to linger upon as we reflect on her innocence and hidden depths, especially with that hair and those eyes, but the minute she opens her mouth I lose sympathy. Admittedly, some of that is probably the script, and she is pretty passable when she's in danger or shouting rather than saying awful 'independent seventeenth-century girl' lines. Also, I did like the bit where she was watching Kane wash his hands (which apparently had to be done shirtless, not that I'm complaining) - a typical innocent voyeur/bathing scene without the actual transformation into a love interest/sexual awakening. It helps that she looks about twelve. Sweetie, it's difficult not to have the hots for Solomon Kane, but he is so not interested.
Malachi is, I feel, a wasted opportunity. I read a review that said it was difficult for Jason Flemyng to be scary, but Malachi really could have had the creepy paedophile vibe if they had given him, you know, more than five minutes screentime after hyping him up the entire movie. His makeup was rocking, but it's a criminal waste of a fantastic actor.
The backstory was kind of lame, there was some massive special effects fail and a definite hint of they-did-not-do-the-research, but the filming is very pretty, and there were definitely times my swashbuckling little heart was stirred. Most importantly, the central character is well portrayed. He is better thought out than Howard's version, and it helps that the actor is so invested in the role. James Purefoy doesn't seem the geeky type, but if it had been anyone else, I probably would have assumed they were geeking out in the dream role from their childhood. It's really heartening to see how focused he is on getting the core of the character right and then fleshing out everything else. Also, I never thought a Somersetshire accent could be sexy, but there you go.
*sigh* This turned more into a randomly-accrued blow-by-blow account of my thoughts about the film, but really, it rather reflects my feelings about the film. In theory, I liked it. In theory, I liked it a lot. In actuality, there were so many niggling little things that I couldn't get into it. Like what the hell crazy version of seventeenth-century England were they living in where a possessed sorceror can take over a county or two and nobody noticed? Where was the monarch? It could have been one of the times of civil war, but it all seems a bit early for that. If we assume Kane was, say, 15 when he sailed with Sir Francis Drake, and that it was right at the end of Drake's life, and that Kane is around the same age as James Purefoy (46, I think), then it still only takes us up to 1627. So James I was in power and, honestly, Britain was reasonably peaceful. So it seems weird that the monarch just didn't give a damn about Devon and Somerset.
However, leather trousers, swashbuckling goodness and some pretty fine storytelling and atmosphere make this worth a watch, especially if you're a Solomon Kane fan. You just might have to adapt to the less awesome Kane, and wait for the next film to really love him. I suspect that if this didn't flunk completely at the box office and they somehow managed to get funding for a second one, and got the same people to do it (i.e. director, writer, main actor), the second film could be outstanding, at least for those of us who like our heroes dour, asexual and full of the righteous wrath of the Lord.
Disclaimer: I do not have a room of crazy. The only time I came close it was art dammit, not crazy.
...And evil pirate. Wait, what?
'Solomon Kane' is the first of a planned (well, hoped for) trilogy of films bringing Robert E. Howard's classic character to life. Problem is, the actual material is very limited. Howard only wrote 9 stories about Kane, augmented by some fragments and a few poems. The stories themselves are mostly very short, and rarely cover more than a pretty standard monster hunt. Howard never elaborated on Kane's life or motivations. So this is an Origins film. And oh boy did it suffer for it. OK, no, that's not fair. It's an OK film. It's even pretty cool in places, and there are shots of James Purefoy as Kane that I am going to print out and stick all over the walls in my room of crazy (not just the shirtless ones either), but it isn't Solomon Kane for me. It's a really interesting character, but one of the reasons Howard never gave him a backstory (I assume) is because Kane is a goddamn force of nature. He's someone who doesn't feel emotions other than righteous anger, guilt and pity. The only experiences from his past he carries in his heart are the ones that brought him to the brink (he was enslaved by Arabs and whipped, he was held in the cells of the Inquisition, etc.) I don't want to imagine Kane getting bratty as a small boy and storming out of his father's house.
But on the other hand, this is an exploration of the man rather than the legend, and I imagine a film in which he just kicks demonic ass would become a bit monotonal after a while. This is Solomon Kane at his weakest, in the fine old tradition of knocking 'em low so they can come back fighting. James Purefoy is brilliant as Kane, really throwing himself into the character. He seems more comfortable with the subtle, tormented Kane on the path of peace than the caricature of callous evil at the beginning, but that may just be that the character arc from bratty kid to ruthless pirate is explored in far less depth than the journey from damnation to redemption. Nevertheless, when Kane fully becomes the solemn soldier of God, Purefoy brings a suprising amount of depth to the silent, purposeful path he carves through his enemies. There are some truly crowning moments of pure awesome, as well, though there are many more opportunities that are not taken up. It's a shame, because the peace-loving Kane is kind of pathetic (with no real motivator for his change of heart other than fear) but the transformation into vengeful warrior of God is truly epic. When he flips out and starts killing people, you can see the fear in the eyes of the friendly Puritan family he took up with. Yeah, that guy's been sleeping next to you and hanging out with your teenage daughter. (But, honestly, you didn't get that he was dangerous from the horrific homemade tattoos and religious scarification all over his torso?) The fighting is pretty good as well. Kane kills with delicious efficiency, his martial prowess in line with that of the literary character. It's just a pity that the pivotal scene itself was so messy: the tension is all wrong and the script emphasises the morality play aspect of the film in an unsubtle and rather idiotic way. In terms of pacing, the least number of separate actions you need in a scene like that, the better. Throwing your arms up and crying out to the heavens is inappropriate when your friends are in danger and you're just going to go AWOL from your path of redemption anyway.
There is also an unpleasant slip back into uselessness when Kane believes the girl he needs to save is dead. Essentially, he goes hard off the deep end, but it seems strange given our limited exploration of his pre-revelation character that he would become so ineffectual. Perhaps he had to get ratarsed just so his old shipmates actually recognised him. Shortly after this, Kane becomes officially more awesome than Jesus.
The supporting cast is pretty stellar, in a muted kind of way: Max von Sydow, whose two scenes are sadly some of my least favourite, not because he is bad but because they are unnecessary, the ever reliable Pete Postlethwaite, Alice Krige, whose luminous beauty seems to defy age, Mackenzie Crook in a kind of good but superfluous side story and Jason Flemyng as Malachi, the big bad. Oh, and of course, that annoying girl from the version of 'Peter Pan' in which every girl's daddy issues about Jason Isaacs were fully explored. I'll stop being so flippant, but Rachel Hurd-Wood is very irritating. She is fine as a perfect, sweet object for the camera to linger upon as we reflect on her innocence and hidden depths, especially with that hair and those eyes, but the minute she opens her mouth I lose sympathy. Admittedly, some of that is probably the script, and she is pretty passable when she's in danger or shouting rather than saying awful 'independent seventeenth-century girl' lines. Also, I did like the bit where she was watching Kane wash his hands (which apparently had to be done shirtless, not that I'm complaining) - a typical innocent voyeur/bathing scene without the actual transformation into a love interest/sexual awakening. It helps that she looks about twelve. Sweetie, it's difficult not to have the hots for Solomon Kane, but he is so not interested.
Malachi is, I feel, a wasted opportunity. I read a review that said it was difficult for Jason Flemyng to be scary, but Malachi really could have had the creepy paedophile vibe if they had given him, you know, more than five minutes screentime after hyping him up the entire movie. His makeup was rocking, but it's a criminal waste of a fantastic actor.
The backstory was kind of lame, there was some massive special effects fail and a definite hint of they-did-not-do-the-research, but the filming is very pretty, and there were definitely times my swashbuckling little heart was stirred. Most importantly, the central character is well portrayed. He is better thought out than Howard's version, and it helps that the actor is so invested in the role. James Purefoy doesn't seem the geeky type, but if it had been anyone else, I probably would have assumed they were geeking out in the dream role from their childhood. It's really heartening to see how focused he is on getting the core of the character right and then fleshing out everything else. Also, I never thought a Somersetshire accent could be sexy, but there you go.
*sigh* This turned more into a randomly-accrued blow-by-blow account of my thoughts about the film, but really, it rather reflects my feelings about the film. In theory, I liked it. In theory, I liked it a lot. In actuality, there were so many niggling little things that I couldn't get into it. Like what the hell crazy version of seventeenth-century England were they living in where a possessed sorceror can take over a county or two and nobody noticed? Where was the monarch? It could have been one of the times of civil war, but it all seems a bit early for that. If we assume Kane was, say, 15 when he sailed with Sir Francis Drake, and that it was right at the end of Drake's life, and that Kane is around the same age as James Purefoy (46, I think), then it still only takes us up to 1627. So James I was in power and, honestly, Britain was reasonably peaceful. So it seems weird that the monarch just didn't give a damn about Devon and Somerset.
However, leather trousers, swashbuckling goodness and some pretty fine storytelling and atmosphere make this worth a watch, especially if you're a Solomon Kane fan. You just might have to adapt to the less awesome Kane, and wait for the next film to really love him. I suspect that if this didn't flunk completely at the box office and they somehow managed to get funding for a second one, and got the same people to do it (i.e. director, writer, main actor), the second film could be outstanding, at least for those of us who like our heroes dour, asexual and full of the righteous wrath of the Lord.
Disclaimer: I do not have a room of crazy. The only time I came close it was art dammit, not crazy.
A plethora of reviews - The Wolfman and Solomon Kane (which would make an awesome film if you put the two together)
I have had so many external artistic stimuli over the past couple of weeks I can hardly keep up! Firstly, two films that registered on my radar ages ago and have taken a long time to get to the cinema have finally arrived: 'The Wolfman' remake, and 'Solomon Kane', which has been the subject of so much squee in my day-to-day life that everyone must be getting truly sick of it. Secondly, I have recently achieved my goal of three years and bought an Xbox 360 Elite machine, so there are many beautiful games to waste time with (though when is art ever a waste?) so I will probably leave those till a separate post (when I've finished them).
'The Wolfman' - I have to admit, in my extreme ignorance, that I haven't seen the original. I am familiar enough with the general set up of Universal monster movies that I feel I know the genre, but for the sake of integrity, I will review it as a stand-alone film rather than a remake. Perhaps when I see the original, I can review it as a remake. The reviews for this have been on the whole terrible, but I hadn't read them when I watched the film (something I wish I did more often). I really enjoyed it, but had a feeling that I was going to be one of the few people in the world who would. I loved it for the stunning Gothic visuals, the creepy, elegant score and the fact that, at least for some of the film, they used monster makeup and costumes instead of CGI (a particular bugbear of mine). This is the England of 'Wuthering Heights' and M.R. James, a haunted country of ancient mysteries and dramatic landscapes, of twisted trees and misty moors. It's an England I have longed to see on film, and for pure Gothic spectacle, it is incredible. It's also very nice to see Danny Elfman write a score that is appropriately creepy, but not with that Elfman-esque kookiness so overused now. It wasn't too up front, just sneaking in round the edges, but intensely beautiful when it needed to be.
Ok, so now the bad stuff (deep breath): this is a film which I enjoyed at the time, but in retrospect, and upon reading reviews of it seeking answers as to why others didn't think the same, it isn't all that good. The things I enjoyed are still there, but the script is pretty bad and I think Benicio del Toro, as the lead, expected more of the character's internal strife to come out on film. Unfortunately, subtlety was not the name of the game with most of the other performances, from Anthony Hopkins' eccentric old Welsh landowner to the rhubarb-mumbling villagers and the Mystic Gypsies (TM). Emily Blunt gives a passable performance, but she doesn't have that much to work with in Gwen, a rather limpid love interest. The stand out Hugo Weaving was stunning in what could have been a dull English bobby role, but in his hands turned into a thing of wonder. His inspector Abberline, a skeptical policeman who leads the hunt for the werewolf terrorising the local populace, is a charicature of the archetype, with a good dash of bumbling humour and heroism that makes him a breath of fresh air after del Toro's approach of gurning his way through the part. Also notable is the underused Art Malik as Singh, Sir John Talbot's manservant.
The pace is uneven, with too much action for a tense horror and too little to make it exciting. The trip to the asylum in London feels like they decided that because every film in the Gothic Victorian style has to have an asylum, they had better include one too. The whole London segment could easily be cut out, as indeed it did not feature in the original as far as I am aware. Large parts of this film could have been taken out, but when it comes down to it, there is little to replace it. Maybe a more gradual exploration of the change Laurence Talbot undergoes? Whole months go by in the blink of an eye, the film lurching from one full moon to the next, as apparently the director (or editor - I think this was probably messed around with quite a bit) thought the bits with the werewolf in were the most important ones.
In conclusion, I enjoyed it and it's worth a watch, but it isn't a classic by any means. 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' managed to be glorious and reasonably well-respected despite really awful flaws. I think this is too self-conscious of its place in the canon, and yet fills the time with over-the-top gory action scenes. If it had let go a bit, the audience would have had a lot more fun. If it had been more restrained and had better scripting, it would have been more of a homage to the 1941. Instead, like the wolfman himself, it is caught between savage, silly fun and ponderous, intellectual exploration, without ever balancing the two.
Hm. I'll do Solomon Kane in a separate review, as these always seem to end up very long...
'The Wolfman' - I have to admit, in my extreme ignorance, that I haven't seen the original. I am familiar enough with the general set up of Universal monster movies that I feel I know the genre, but for the sake of integrity, I will review it as a stand-alone film rather than a remake. Perhaps when I see the original, I can review it as a remake. The reviews for this have been on the whole terrible, but I hadn't read them when I watched the film (something I wish I did more often). I really enjoyed it, but had a feeling that I was going to be one of the few people in the world who would. I loved it for the stunning Gothic visuals, the creepy, elegant score and the fact that, at least for some of the film, they used monster makeup and costumes instead of CGI (a particular bugbear of mine). This is the England of 'Wuthering Heights' and M.R. James, a haunted country of ancient mysteries and dramatic landscapes, of twisted trees and misty moors. It's an England I have longed to see on film, and for pure Gothic spectacle, it is incredible. It's also very nice to see Danny Elfman write a score that is appropriately creepy, but not with that Elfman-esque kookiness so overused now. It wasn't too up front, just sneaking in round the edges, but intensely beautiful when it needed to be.
Ok, so now the bad stuff (deep breath): this is a film which I enjoyed at the time, but in retrospect, and upon reading reviews of it seeking answers as to why others didn't think the same, it isn't all that good. The things I enjoyed are still there, but the script is pretty bad and I think Benicio del Toro, as the lead, expected more of the character's internal strife to come out on film. Unfortunately, subtlety was not the name of the game with most of the other performances, from Anthony Hopkins' eccentric old Welsh landowner to the rhubarb-mumbling villagers and the Mystic Gypsies (TM). Emily Blunt gives a passable performance, but she doesn't have that much to work with in Gwen, a rather limpid love interest. The stand out Hugo Weaving was stunning in what could have been a dull English bobby role, but in his hands turned into a thing of wonder. His inspector Abberline, a skeptical policeman who leads the hunt for the werewolf terrorising the local populace, is a charicature of the archetype, with a good dash of bumbling humour and heroism that makes him a breath of fresh air after del Toro's approach of gurning his way through the part. Also notable is the underused Art Malik as Singh, Sir John Talbot's manservant.
The pace is uneven, with too much action for a tense horror and too little to make it exciting. The trip to the asylum in London feels like they decided that because every film in the Gothic Victorian style has to have an asylum, they had better include one too. The whole London segment could easily be cut out, as indeed it did not feature in the original as far as I am aware. Large parts of this film could have been taken out, but when it comes down to it, there is little to replace it. Maybe a more gradual exploration of the change Laurence Talbot undergoes? Whole months go by in the blink of an eye, the film lurching from one full moon to the next, as apparently the director (or editor - I think this was probably messed around with quite a bit) thought the bits with the werewolf in were the most important ones.
In conclusion, I enjoyed it and it's worth a watch, but it isn't a classic by any means. 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' managed to be glorious and reasonably well-respected despite really awful flaws. I think this is too self-conscious of its place in the canon, and yet fills the time with over-the-top gory action scenes. If it had let go a bit, the audience would have had a lot more fun. If it had been more restrained and had better scripting, it would have been more of a homage to the 1941. Instead, like the wolfman himself, it is caught between savage, silly fun and ponderous, intellectual exploration, without ever balancing the two.
Hm. I'll do Solomon Kane in a separate review, as these always seem to end up very long...
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Solomon Kane (no, not the film, the short stories)
First of all, the original short stories written for Weird Tales by Robert E. Howard are awesome. They aren't well written (purple prose, repetition of already over-the-top phrases, and did he really think normal people in the Sixteenth Century talked like that? OK, they talked completely differently from how we do, but not like that) but they are frankly ridiculous amounts of fun. Howard began as he clearly meant to go on in 'Red Shadows', the first Kane story: our tormented hero is tracking a villain called 'Le Loup', thinking back to his discovery of a young girl murdered by Le Loup's band of cut-throats. There follows a tale of derring do, but with a tone infinitely more grim than the swashbuckling style of Dumas and Sabatini. Kane's world is one of mud, blood and damnation. Themes that run through all the Kane stories are reflected strongly in 'Red Shadows', but the pace becomes erratic in the second half, and overall it isn't the best example of Howard's work. However, Kane's adventures become steadily more enjoyable as time goes on, with the very short 'Skulls in the Stars' and 'The Rattle of Bones' bearing up nicely in terms of action, as well as cementing Kane's character as a stalwart hero to be reckoned with.
When Howard again tried for slightly longer tales with Kane, his 'Moon of Skulls' was a composite of the themes, characterisation and cool but slightly confusing action scenes found in his other stories. There are slightly unpleasant sexual overtones associated with the damsel in distress, Marylin (who is described as very childlike and asexual), and there is definitely Conan-esque titillation as a sweet and innocent young white woman is chained up and whipped by a haughty and beautiful African queen, but Kane's motivations are pure in the sense that Howard does not see the need to protest the righteousness of his fixation on Marylin. The peak of his exploration of the character must occur during 'Wings in the Night', Howard's last complete Solomon Kane story. In previous stories, Kane's characterisation has always been fixed, and he just happens to the bad guys ("What happened, dude?" "Solomon Kane happened." Not a real quote, sadly!). In 'Wings in the Night', Kane is driven to the edge and goes right over. It's a transformative process that gives us dilemma without angst. Because when Solomon Kane is upset about something, he goes and kills it.
The new film apparently has an exchange in which Kane declares that Meredith, the beautiful, innocent Christian girl he has sworn to save "is my soul" [edit after seeing the film: this line doesn't occur as far as I remember, but the point is still there in a much more long-winded reply]. This seems eminently fitting, as the women in Kane (the damsels in distress, anyway) are symbols of his quest to redeem himself. By saving, or avenging, them, he seems to think that he can erase the darkness of the world and somehow 'make it right'. I know Conan (and to a lesser extent Kull) is Howard's most famous creation, and that those stories essentially created the Sword and Sorcery epic, but for me, Solomon Kane is a much more sympathetic hero. For a start, he is tragic and tormented, and while he is unfalteringly brave, he is also selfless in his overwhelming protective instincts towards others, and his sense of guilt and melancholy when he beholds the bodies of those he couldn't save is deeply affecting. He is a man who is compelled to do good because it is the right thing to do.
When Howard again tried for slightly longer tales with Kane, his 'Moon of Skulls' was a composite of the themes, characterisation and cool but slightly confusing action scenes found in his other stories. There are slightly unpleasant sexual overtones associated with the damsel in distress, Marylin (who is described as very childlike and asexual), and there is definitely Conan-esque titillation as a sweet and innocent young white woman is chained up and whipped by a haughty and beautiful African queen, but Kane's motivations are pure in the sense that Howard does not see the need to protest the righteousness of his fixation on Marylin. The peak of his exploration of the character must occur during 'Wings in the Night', Howard's last complete Solomon Kane story. In previous stories, Kane's characterisation has always been fixed, and he just happens to the bad guys ("What happened, dude?" "Solomon Kane happened." Not a real quote, sadly!). In 'Wings in the Night', Kane is driven to the edge and goes right over. It's a transformative process that gives us dilemma without angst. Because when Solomon Kane is upset about something, he goes and kills it.
The new film apparently has an exchange in which Kane declares that Meredith, the beautiful, innocent Christian girl he has sworn to save "is my soul" [edit after seeing the film: this line doesn't occur as far as I remember, but the point is still there in a much more long-winded reply]. This seems eminently fitting, as the women in Kane (the damsels in distress, anyway) are symbols of his quest to redeem himself. By saving, or avenging, them, he seems to think that he can erase the darkness of the world and somehow 'make it right'. I know Conan (and to a lesser extent Kull) is Howard's most famous creation, and that those stories essentially created the Sword and Sorcery epic, but for me, Solomon Kane is a much more sympathetic hero. For a start, he is tragic and tormented, and while he is unfalteringly brave, he is also selfless in his overwhelming protective instincts towards others, and his sense of guilt and melancholy when he beholds the bodies of those he couldn't save is deeply affecting. He is a man who is compelled to do good because it is the right thing to do.
Oops, forgot to give this a title.
I have this small problem: I want to commit myself to sitting down and writing, but I cannot decide what to work on to the exclusion of everything else.
I could draft my novel from last National Novel Writing Month (usually titled 'Vestiges', but I'm experimenting with the rather overused and obvious title 'Kingdom Come'). Or the one before that, though I have fewer hopes for that...it is pretty awful. But I think 2009's novel is worth salvaging, once I get rid of the truly awful bits and large chunks of the setting.
I could write the other 50,000 words of 'Cyberknights'. However, this would involve ignoring the royal mess I made of the first 50,000 or spending precious time drafting it and really, where would that end?
I could have yet another bash at 'Captain Colney and the Avaricious Angel', my ongoing attempt to write awesome swashbuckling prose. I'm thinking of actually writing the origins story rather than just referring to it in the past, because at least that way I have a plot. But I have tried several times before, got a little way, and stalled, so it might be a lost cause. Pity, since I love the characters deeply.
I could start playing with 'Mirabilis', my take on modern fairies, probably a young adult book, though I'm under no illusions of how difficult YA books are to write. Also, I don't have access to the book containing the legend my core premise is based on.
I have a bit of an itch to write a fantasy novel as I'm currently halfway through 'Pawn of Prophecy' by David Eddings, but I'm sure it'll go away. It usually does when I realise how woefully unoriginal all high fantasy is. I do have an idea, but it'll take a lot more development, so at the very least I should leave it to stew for a while.
It's really difficult to make myself buckle down and write one particular thing. I have so much going on in my head that while it's OK to say "Ooh, that's an awesome idea...but I'll write it down and then it'll always be there and not clogging up my head, and I might come back to it in the future and really make something of it," about small ideas, I have half a dozen fully-fleshed-out novels in my brain, and countless other things that aren't currently bugging me to be written but are fully ready to be. As well as the new things I get every day that catch my imagination so well they make me think about them all the time.
I also feel like writing different things at different times depending on what I've been reading/watching/playing. 'Fallout 3' and 'Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl' always makes we want to do post-apocalyptic. Watching 'Supernatural' makes me want to draft 'Vestiges' (I wonder if the fact that I still think of it as 'Vestiges' means I should leave the title alone?). I'm reading various Solomon Kane short stories in preparation for the film coming out next week (squeeeeee) and I've also been reading 'Captain Blood' by Rafael Sabatini, so I'm all about the swashbuckling right now.
My instinct is to say "Well, damn them all and I'll write what I want to when I want to," but with me that ends up with me getting distracted by shinies and going and starting afresh every day, which essentially means I'll never get anything finished. I mean, if you don't make yourself knuckle down to one thing at a time, what's to stop you from leaving for something else when the going gets tough? Bloody-mindedness tends to help, but that sometimes isn't enough.
I could draft my novel from last National Novel Writing Month (usually titled 'Vestiges', but I'm experimenting with the rather overused and obvious title 'Kingdom Come'). Or the one before that, though I have fewer hopes for that...it is pretty awful. But I think 2009's novel is worth salvaging, once I get rid of the truly awful bits and large chunks of the setting.
I could write the other 50,000 words of 'Cyberknights'. However, this would involve ignoring the royal mess I made of the first 50,000 or spending precious time drafting it and really, where would that end?
I could have yet another bash at 'Captain Colney and the Avaricious Angel', my ongoing attempt to write awesome swashbuckling prose. I'm thinking of actually writing the origins story rather than just referring to it in the past, because at least that way I have a plot. But I have tried several times before, got a little way, and stalled, so it might be a lost cause. Pity, since I love the characters deeply.
I could start playing with 'Mirabilis', my take on modern fairies, probably a young adult book, though I'm under no illusions of how difficult YA books are to write. Also, I don't have access to the book containing the legend my core premise is based on.
I have a bit of an itch to write a fantasy novel as I'm currently halfway through 'Pawn of Prophecy' by David Eddings, but I'm sure it'll go away. It usually does when I realise how woefully unoriginal all high fantasy is. I do have an idea, but it'll take a lot more development, so at the very least I should leave it to stew for a while.
It's really difficult to make myself buckle down and write one particular thing. I have so much going on in my head that while it's OK to say "Ooh, that's an awesome idea...but I'll write it down and then it'll always be there and not clogging up my head, and I might come back to it in the future and really make something of it," about small ideas, I have half a dozen fully-fleshed-out novels in my brain, and countless other things that aren't currently bugging me to be written but are fully ready to be. As well as the new things I get every day that catch my imagination so well they make me think about them all the time.
I also feel like writing different things at different times depending on what I've been reading/watching/playing. 'Fallout 3' and 'Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl' always makes we want to do post-apocalyptic. Watching 'Supernatural' makes me want to draft 'Vestiges' (I wonder if the fact that I still think of it as 'Vestiges' means I should leave the title alone?). I'm reading various Solomon Kane short stories in preparation for the film coming out next week (squeeeeee) and I've also been reading 'Captain Blood' by Rafael Sabatini, so I'm all about the swashbuckling right now.
My instinct is to say "Well, damn them all and I'll write what I want to when I want to," but with me that ends up with me getting distracted by shinies and going and starting afresh every day, which essentially means I'll never get anything finished. I mean, if you don't make yourself knuckle down to one thing at a time, what's to stop you from leaving for something else when the going gets tough? Bloody-mindedness tends to help, but that sometimes isn't enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)