Okay! I have gotten back on top of things after my vacation, and am now able to properly organize my thoughts on it! (only took me a little more than month...)
I recently got to spend three days on holiday in the city of London, (or rather near the city of London. The hostel was technically outside the borders of "the city of London", but was still very much within the city itself.)
While I wouldn't go so far as to say the air is different, or something cliché like that, the atmosphere definitely was different.
I'm used to cities where cars are the most common mode of transport and the way the streets are designed is optimized for them, at the expense of pedestrians. This was really not the case with London. The roads were narrower, and there was always a crosswalk to be found, and in particular the roads where almost entirely one-way. I imagine that being a driver in a city like London would be incredibly stressful, but as a pedestrian, it was wonderfully refreshing.
Another thing I noticed was the trees. You don't get many trees in American cities, the ones that we plant on the sides of roads are often skinny, and most inner-city parks leave more than something to be desired. Not so with London. the trees were really thick, because they're also really old, further London's specialty seems to be the garden (the equivalent of a park) and it would not be uncommon to simply run into a green spot just on your way to the next thing. It was wonderful how simple it was to find someplace to sit and relax, (and even just how many people took advantage of it. the gardens were teeming with picnickers and walkers, even people taking naps in the shade.) the frequency of the gardens, combined with the tendency of most British buildings to stop at two or three stories made the city so much more open and friendly that most cities that you find in the US.
In an effort to not make this post unreadably long, here's a whirlwind synopsis of the places I went and what's so great about them.
*note* due to me being super-smart, I did not actually take any pictures while there, so.... yeah, no pictures. You're on the internet, you can find probably better pictures than I would have taken!
The Parliament building (Big Ben):Big Ben is not the name of the tower, but rather of the bell itself. There you go, you now know something new about London! (or at least, to most people it's new.) There is something undeniably "present" about a large stone tower that doesn't translate as well in a picture. When you can see the Bell tower, you KNOW it's there, more so than your average glass and steel beams skyscraper.
Westminster Abbey: This place was gorgeous! there was something a little bit odd about walking through what was essentially the fanciest indoor graveyard to ever exist. There were endless amounts of incredible statues, and it was fascinating to read the plaques recording the importance of people from five hundred years ago. There was an interestingly large number of generals, but none that I had ever heard about, instead finding the tombs of people such as Sir Issac Newton, and Jane Austen (the later of which was not actually buried on the site, but was still honored with a plaque) would be the less showy but ultimately much more memorable occurrences.
National Gallery: Understanding great art is hard, but I didn't have to really understand everything to recognize that there was more talent in that building than I could properly appreciate.
British Museum: This place is way to amazing and big! We actually came back the last day, in an effort to catch all the things we didn't have time for on our first visit! highlights include The Rosetta Stone, some pieces of the Pantheon, Byzantine Spoons that people had carved messages into (almost like fortune cookies) and several Egyptian statues whose names have been chipped off and replaced by 'Ramses II'....... Jerk.
National History Museum: the most surprisingly interesting thing that we visited. This museum had one of the greatest entrances ever. There is something about a dinosaur skeleton amidst the stone arches and stained glass windows that just can't be beaten. Besides the DINOSAURS, highlights include pretty much every animal in there somewhere... and a dodo skeleton. Place is pretty cool.
Science Museum, London: This was something of a niche interest for me. Basically, I don't think many of you will be as excited as I was to get to explore a collection of old geometric tools for creating various shapes before we had all those fancy computers to do things for us. But I think even the least scientific person would find it cool to look at a to-scale moon lander, and watch the progression of clocks and other time-keepers over the centuries.
The Eye of London: While the eye of London is more touristy a location than the type of location that I generally like, I could not deny that the view from the top of the wheel was really quite something.
The Tower of London: This may have been one of the coolest things that I saw in London. The Tower of London was a castle built on the outskirts of the old town. So I got to walk in a real castle! and get a tour! One of the coolest things I've gotten to see! (Also, the Yeoman Warder tours are worth it, there is nothing like getting your home state personally insulted by a heavily mustached veteran of the British military)
The Tower Bridge: Though there was not enough time to get a tour of the bridge, My goodness it's a nice-looking piece of architecture!
The Borough Market: I got to try a meat-pie, so clearly this place was pretty cool. It was a wonderful change to see all these small vendors. There's an air of friendship that you get in a place like that, which is not to be found in a supermarket.
St. Paul's Cathedral: This is what happens when King Henry the eighth tries to out-do Westminster Abbey. Seriously, this place is decked out with a LOT of shiny stuff. It's honestly amazing. As an added bonus, if you've ever wanted to get to the same height as the top of the eye of London, except to go entirely under your own muscle-power, you can do that! Entirely by stairs! That don't always feel structural stable! It's intense.
The Globe Theatre: This was the grand finale of the London trip, and one of the coolest things I have ever gotten to experience. To be able to see a Shakespeare performance of As you like it from the ground floor of a recreation of the Globe Theatre was absolutely astonishing. Truly spectacular.
There was always so much going on that I'm sure I missed some key details, but I hope I was able to share some of the cooler aspects of the trip with you all, It was REALLY quite amazing!
Showing posts with label unsolicited opinions on life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unsolicited opinions on life. Show all posts
Aug 5, 2015
Jun 14, 2015
KOHT#47
This will be my last post for a decent while, I'M GOING TO ENGLAND!!!
I am super excited for this trip, but it'll mean my access to drawing materials is very limited.
Hidden Mage is planning to do some more in-depth character sketches for Crusader's of Rat-Blight though, so keep your eyes out for that!
and, an Unsolicited Opinion of England will undoubtedly follow my return!
did I mention I'm excited right now?
Feb 28, 2015
Just a parting thought for the month...
This week, The FCC voted to reclassify the internet as a Common Carrier, helping to ensure so-called net neutrality. This was a major victory for the internet!
Good job internet!
...Not that you were paying attention though, there was an ambiguously-colored dress for you to argue about instead.
Good job internet!
...Not that you were paying attention though, there was an ambiguously-colored dress for you to argue about instead.
Jan 13, 2015
Take That!: The evolution of the catchphrase
What? I only mentioned this post a little while ago, I don't see why there's any probl......ah.
Okay, this has been nearly two months since the original announcement of it, that's a good bit longer than I originally intended to take. Let's see if I still remember everything I wanted to say! (if only there was some way to record my thoughts, maybe on paper somehow...)
The Evolution of the Catchphrase:
Doing the research for this was by far the hardest task I have undertaken for this blog, I have only very spotty knowledge of popular culture, so I wanted to make sure that I didn't miss any really big ones, and while I have done my best to go through all the major categories, I'm sure there are several ones that I have incorrectly dissed, dismissed, or just plain missed.
There seem to be really three types of Catchphrases: The Self-assured, The Risk-taker, and The Unnerver. (and so continues my inability to properly affix labels to things.) These three types all accomplish different objectives, but always have the same general aim: to enhance one's own position while undermining the position of your challengers, but go about it in different ways. Depending on the character one or more of these options may present itself as the preferred option, but the choice also greatly depends on the situational context.
The Self-assured response is best suited for those characters who are almost always in control of the situation. The character uses this type of response to assert themselves as superior to what ever is trying to oppose them. (Holmes' "Elementary, my dear Watson." or He-Man's "By the power of Grayskull!") it is interesting to note, as with He-man, that the superior power that the character refers to in a statement of this kind does not have to be the character themselves.
The Risk-Taker, like the Self-assured response, is an attempt to intimidate by enhancing one's own abilities. However, rather than stating why the character is superior, it is instead stated why they are dangerous. By doing so, the opposition is challenged as to whether it is in fact a good idea to mess with the character. At it's barest form the character is saying "are you sure about this?" implying that the opposition should not be. (Han Solo's "Never Tell me the odds." or the Terminator's "I'll be back.") this type of catchphrase works best for unpredictable characters, to further unnerve the opposition, but can also be used as large-scale battle-cries with equally great effect. (such as "For Gondor!" or "Avengers Assemble!")
Lastly the Unnerver, which seeks to undermine the confidence of the opposition by pointing out some flaw or reason why the opposition is weaker. This is most commonly chosen by darker characters, who are really saying. "I don't need to be great, but I am better than you." (some examples are "Do you feel lucky punk?" or "Doom's word is law.") this category also roughly applies to mid-combat shouts ("Hulk smash!" or "Fus-Ro-Dah!") as they are an attempt to shake the resolve of the opponent just as you strike.
(Yes, yes, I know, Fus-Ro-Dah is technically dragon speech and a magic spell more than an attempt at intimidation, but if it didn't also send you flying through the air, it would still be an effective battle-cry in that regard.)
The Catchphrase is a rather odd literary tactic, because when you think about what the person is doing, they make little sense. Usually employed just prior to some Feat of prowess, the character utters a few words, often ones that do not even apply to the situation at hand. However, by stating this phrase the character also alludes to every other time they have prevailed or performed similar feats, because they used the statement then as well. The catchphrase is the epitome of self-reference, using the past accomplishments of a character to help set the reader's mind to accept whatever event is about to unfold. The author subconsciously affects us to increase the effectiveness of the person involved.
The best proof for this is the delay. In my research I did not come across any catchphrases that you only hear once. That's not a catchphrase: That's a quote. The catchphrase's power does not necessarily have its full impact even if your character were to utter it in their very first appearance. Because oftentimes the actual words are not what we are hearing/reading. In short, the catchphrase is a manner for an author to clue in their readers that something big is about to go down.
Of course that is just my Unsolicited Opinion, and I would welcome anyone with thoughts on the matter!
Oct 4, 2014
Combat: the spotlight of gaming.
Okay, so originally, I was planning to simply talk about the focus on combat in Role-playing games (particularly D&D) and the lack of comparative effort put into such arenas as stealth and negotiation, but on further reflection, this issue proves endemic in the entire gaming genre. Let's look through the whole field of gaming first before we hone in on how RPGs fit in all of this.
One of the biggest categories associated with gaming are video games(and I'll be using the term video games to refer to both PC games and console games), so I think it's probably the best place to illustrate my point.
The truth is most video games have combat in them, and if combat is an option it is usually a vital game mechanic. While some genres are notably peaceful, for many more combat and violence is the main tool (the meat) of the game. Yes, you can brew potions in Skyrim, but why would you when you can just go kill dragons instead, and the controls for fighting those dragons are a whole heck of a lot clearer than the alchemy system. So if we really need those potions, we'll buy them from an uppity merchant OR (if you're one of those people) kill a merchant that no one will miss and steal the potions. Then get back to dragon-slaying. The reason? It's more fun!
Well why is that?
We've just decided that it's more fun to either rob/kill an innocent civilian or to pay hard earned money for a product, than it is to do the work of creating the product ourselves. All so that we can get back to the main (usually violent) point of game. Why do we feel like this is a normal and okay thing to do?
The answer is found back in the very roots of gaming: sports.
Sports are a conflict, one that we have attempted to organized so that the competitiveness of the athletes can be expended in a method that doesn't (usually) cause any serious injury. But for some reason, we prefer to be competitive physically more so than mentally, (there's certainly a lot more football players than chess players in the world) the only solution I can think for this is that it harkens back to our genetic heritage, and we have an instinctive affinity to overcoming physical challenges.
Furthermore, sports key into another of our instinctual objectives: social dominance.
Humans are social, but we also like to be on top of the scene, in such a way that we can gain the respect of those around us. Sports are a prime way of doing this, because the competition provides us with a rubric for who deserves our respect. although one could argue that you are proving your dominance when you are victorious in a mental challenge, doing so does not have the same instinctive respect that physical dominance provides. If there's an angry bear trying to eat you and someone, would you rather that other person is strong enough to fight off the bear? or smart enough to hide from the bear so it chases you instead? mental dominance is not an admired trait in the distant past.
Okay, so we like sports because they let us show off to everyone, what does that have to do with everything?
well, combat games(particularly Multiplayer ones) are really virtual sports, a tool we can use to scale ourselves. We grind our way through countless hours of gameplay, just to get that shiny badge of recognition from the game. think back to your early days playing Call or Duty or another similar game weren't you impressed by that guy with all the stars on his profile? didn't you wish you could be as cool as he was?
And that's how this all ties back to RPGs. One the biggest parts of an RPG is watching your character grow, from fighting off pesky goblins to epic combats with the newest dark doomsday deity, we find it enjoyable to watch ourselves climb the rungs of the power ladder, both in the world the game is set in and with our own abilities.
But you can't really experience that same growth with talking. While it makes sense that a fight with a dragon is more difficult than fighting an orc, the difficulty of negotiations are often so dependent on variables that one cannot create an accurate "scale" with which to measure. Since there is no real scale, there's no feeling of progression, and you are left with a repetition that ends up being largely unfulfilling (yet if you beat 1000 slimes you can get this one secret.... but I digress) negotiation-based progession does not really work, because you can't really tell if you're making progress. That's the reason that games do not usually focus on negotiating or stealth. They aren't consistent enough.
Truth is: combat is fun because you can use math on it.
We find assigning numbers to your physical abilities a lot more realistic than assigning yourself values in Rebuttals or Evade Questions. Communication is such a fluid situation that stats for your abilities make little sense. You can (almost) always kill something by hitting it hard enough, but you can't always convince someone with the same techniques. Therefore you can't really use as complex of a system for negotiation or stealth as you would with combat. Without the sense of progression that is the backbone of every RPG, games that focus on negotiation or stealth make you feel like you're going in circles without really getting anywhere. This makes the gameplay itself less entertaining and requires a lot more comedy or story strength to get you to keep playing.
But we never get tired of pwning n00bs or ransacking villages, why? Because we're showing them who's boss: social dominance via gaming.
But anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so to sum it up:
We like combat in our RPGs because it lets us know that we're getting somewhere. Yes there are situations where diplomacy and stealth are required, but they are more often tied to story and advancing the plot than they are to your character. RPGers (and gamers in general) are self-centered, and getting an Axe of +10 damage is WAY cooler than an Axe of +10 to making smart remarks.
Communication is something that happens on an inspirational basis, trying to quantify it takes away some of what makes it special. So while I don't like the way that violence and destruction is sewn into the very core of RPGs, just consider for a moment running a pacifism D&D campaign? I would give you an hour before something gets lit on fire. violence keeps our interest, because we like to measure ourselves against the obstacles. I don't greatly like the way that violence is necessary in nearly every RPG, but I understand why it's there, and I can respect it for the role it has in the gaming industry. Because despite the gratuitous blood and gore, it keeps us involved enough to make stories. Who hasn't named their favorite sword? (not counting those times when you just got a new ability and you made a lame pun out of it) That's the sign of being connected and immersed in the game you are playing, the goal of every game company. (you know besides getting you to pay real money for virtual items and stuff. Thanks Diablo 3 and Candy Crush)
It's just plain awesome when you get that crit right when most needed. because you were invested in the fate of your character, and were concerned that this might be the end for them. But turns out their going to be around for a few more turns at least, and that makes you glad.
Natural 20. The answer to every problem.
NEXT TIME: it's a surprise!!!
One of the biggest categories associated with gaming are video games(and I'll be using the term video games to refer to both PC games and console games), so I think it's probably the best place to illustrate my point.
The truth is most video games have combat in them, and if combat is an option it is usually a vital game mechanic. While some genres are notably peaceful, for many more combat and violence is the main tool (the meat) of the game. Yes, you can brew potions in Skyrim, but why would you when you can just go kill dragons instead, and the controls for fighting those dragons are a whole heck of a lot clearer than the alchemy system. So if we really need those potions, we'll buy them from an uppity merchant OR (if you're one of those people) kill a merchant that no one will miss and steal the potions. Then get back to dragon-slaying. The reason? It's more fun!
Well why is that?
We've just decided that it's more fun to either rob/kill an innocent civilian or to pay hard earned money for a product, than it is to do the work of creating the product ourselves. All so that we can get back to the main (usually violent) point of game. Why do we feel like this is a normal and okay thing to do?
The answer is found back in the very roots of gaming: sports.
Sports are a conflict, one that we have attempted to organized so that the competitiveness of the athletes can be expended in a method that doesn't (usually) cause any serious injury. But for some reason, we prefer to be competitive physically more so than mentally, (there's certainly a lot more football players than chess players in the world) the only solution I can think for this is that it harkens back to our genetic heritage, and we have an instinctive affinity to overcoming physical challenges.
Furthermore, sports key into another of our instinctual objectives: social dominance.
Humans are social, but we also like to be on top of the scene, in such a way that we can gain the respect of those around us. Sports are a prime way of doing this, because the competition provides us with a rubric for who deserves our respect. although one could argue that you are proving your dominance when you are victorious in a mental challenge, doing so does not have the same instinctive respect that physical dominance provides. If there's an angry bear trying to eat you and someone, would you rather that other person is strong enough to fight off the bear? or smart enough to hide from the bear so it chases you instead? mental dominance is not an admired trait in the distant past.
Okay, so we like sports because they let us show off to everyone, what does that have to do with everything?
well, combat games(particularly Multiplayer ones) are really virtual sports, a tool we can use to scale ourselves. We grind our way through countless hours of gameplay, just to get that shiny badge of recognition from the game. think back to your early days playing Call or Duty or another similar game weren't you impressed by that guy with all the stars on his profile? didn't you wish you could be as cool as he was?
And that's how this all ties back to RPGs. One the biggest parts of an RPG is watching your character grow, from fighting off pesky goblins to epic combats with the newest dark doomsday deity, we find it enjoyable to watch ourselves climb the rungs of the power ladder, both in the world the game is set in and with our own abilities.
But you can't really experience that same growth with talking. While it makes sense that a fight with a dragon is more difficult than fighting an orc, the difficulty of negotiations are often so dependent on variables that one cannot create an accurate "scale" with which to measure. Since there is no real scale, there's no feeling of progression, and you are left with a repetition that ends up being largely unfulfilling (yet if you beat 1000 slimes you can get this one secret.... but I digress) negotiation-based progession does not really work, because you can't really tell if you're making progress. That's the reason that games do not usually focus on negotiating or stealth. They aren't consistent enough.
Truth is: combat is fun because you can use math on it.
We find assigning numbers to your physical abilities a lot more realistic than assigning yourself values in Rebuttals or Evade Questions. Communication is such a fluid situation that stats for your abilities make little sense. You can (almost) always kill something by hitting it hard enough, but you can't always convince someone with the same techniques. Therefore you can't really use as complex of a system for negotiation or stealth as you would with combat. Without the sense of progression that is the backbone of every RPG, games that focus on negotiation or stealth make you feel like you're going in circles without really getting anywhere. This makes the gameplay itself less entertaining and requires a lot more comedy or story strength to get you to keep playing.
But we never get tired of pwning n00bs or ransacking villages, why? Because we're showing them who's boss: social dominance via gaming.
But anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so to sum it up:
We like combat in our RPGs because it lets us know that we're getting somewhere. Yes there are situations where diplomacy and stealth are required, but they are more often tied to story and advancing the plot than they are to your character. RPGers (and gamers in general) are self-centered, and getting an Axe of +10 damage is WAY cooler than an Axe of +10 to making smart remarks.
Communication is something that happens on an inspirational basis, trying to quantify it takes away some of what makes it special. So while I don't like the way that violence and destruction is sewn into the very core of RPGs, just consider for a moment running a pacifism D&D campaign? I would give you an hour before something gets lit on fire. violence keeps our interest, because we like to measure ourselves against the obstacles. I don't greatly like the way that violence is necessary in nearly every RPG, but I understand why it's there, and I can respect it for the role it has in the gaming industry. Because despite the gratuitous blood and gore, it keeps us involved enough to make stories. Who hasn't named their favorite sword? (not counting those times when you just got a new ability and you made a lame pun out of it) That's the sign of being connected and immersed in the game you are playing, the goal of every game company. (you know besides getting you to pay real money for virtual items and stuff. Thanks Diablo 3 and Candy Crush)
It's just plain awesome when you get that crit right when most needed. because you were invested in the fate of your character, and were concerned that this might be the end for them. But turns out their going to be around for a few more turns at least, and that makes you glad.
Natural 20. The answer to every problem.
NEXT TIME: it's a surprise!!!
Aug 27, 2014
The Villain: Part 2
There are however some stories that do well with their villain. Though these are fewer in number they are generally some of the best. There are a couple different approaches that can give you a good villain, and they vary widely between the two. interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a bridge between different extremes. Perhaps the issue of time is more important to a good characterization then anything else.
I have found that more than anything these "success stories" could be grouped up into four categories, although there are other villains that work without being any of these categories, most of the ones that do work are part of one of these four groups.
The Sympathetic/Admirable Villain: (ex: Magneto)
Perhaps the least memorable of the villain types, if only because in your mind they're not really villains. The sympathetic villain will be found opposing your main character, but not generally because they have some evil scheme in mind, generally their motives are benign enough, it is most often their methods that put them into conflict with the hero. Sometimes the villain's goal is selfish, but nevertheless one that we sympathize with. (the best example for this being Barbosa in Pirates of the Caribbean. Tell me you didn't feel bad for him when the apple rolled out of his sleeve.)
The Unknowable Villain: (ex: Sauron)
The opposite of the sympathetic villain, the Unknowable villain is very much evil. They're just not in the picture. Their perspective is removed and relatively unimportant to the actual meat of the story. Often the characters will not directly interact with this kind of villain, they will encounter the villain's minions, or otherwise feel the villain's influence, but will be unlikely to actually meet the villain face to face. (WARNING: this type of villain only works if he remains removed for the entirety of the story. many villains of this category lose steam once they enter into the actual workings of the plot, as they turn out to be generic evil people.)
The Eccentric Villain: (ex: Cruella De Vil)
A little bit of a strange choice, but some of the best villains are completely crazy. This only works if the villain is overdone and really rather haywire. this kind of villain will not even attempt to be normal and is apt tor get sidetracked at least once during their villainous monologue (oh but that's a story for another time) and is really pretty bonkers. It's hard to have a villain like this in a serious story, but they work quite effectively as comedic villains, and can be if nothing else, Memorable, which is a key trait for determining where they stand.
The Intriguing Villain: (ex: Darth Vader)
Lastly, the Intriguing villain is the most basic, but perhaps the most difficult villain to create. Yes, your villain is evil. Yes they are evil without real reasons. Yes they will treat all their allies like crap and Yes they are never happy.
But they sure are fun. If your villain has enough personality and general "coolness" that they can be a general jerk to everyone, and people will love it. Most Star Wars villains fall (or attempt to fall) into this category, as do the villains of Avatar: the last Airbender or BBC's Sherlock.
The villain is one of the most important parts of a story, and too often they are just another egomaniacal world conqueror. but if you can get it right, your story will often be greatly improved. (although you may get "the villain is more fun than the hero" syndrome, so shape up your main character too.) A Hero is defined by their Villain. and when a villain is special, the whole story benefits for it. a last parting bit of advice, if your ever find your villain saying:
"after I get ABCD, I will be UNSTOPPABLE! HA! HA! HA!" to a hero who may or may not actually be in danger.
You've missed your mark.
NEXT TIME: I actually don't know how long it'll be until I do another one of these posts, I leave for college tomorrow, and have really no idea how much free time I will or won't have. Also topic-wise nothing is currently jumping at me. I will continue to upload comics however (to the whole five people who read them.) so stay tuned!
I have found that more than anything these "success stories" could be grouped up into four categories, although there are other villains that work without being any of these categories, most of the ones that do work are part of one of these four groups.
The Sympathetic/Admirable Villain: (ex: Magneto)
Perhaps the least memorable of the villain types, if only because in your mind they're not really villains. The sympathetic villain will be found opposing your main character, but not generally because they have some evil scheme in mind, generally their motives are benign enough, it is most often their methods that put them into conflict with the hero. Sometimes the villain's goal is selfish, but nevertheless one that we sympathize with. (the best example for this being Barbosa in Pirates of the Caribbean. Tell me you didn't feel bad for him when the apple rolled out of his sleeve.)
The Unknowable Villain: (ex: Sauron)
The opposite of the sympathetic villain, the Unknowable villain is very much evil. They're just not in the picture. Their perspective is removed and relatively unimportant to the actual meat of the story. Often the characters will not directly interact with this kind of villain, they will encounter the villain's minions, or otherwise feel the villain's influence, but will be unlikely to actually meet the villain face to face. (WARNING: this type of villain only works if he remains removed for the entirety of the story. many villains of this category lose steam once they enter into the actual workings of the plot, as they turn out to be generic evil people.)
The Eccentric Villain: (ex: Cruella De Vil)
A little bit of a strange choice, but some of the best villains are completely crazy. This only works if the villain is overdone and really rather haywire. this kind of villain will not even attempt to be normal and is apt tor get sidetracked at least once during their villainous monologue (oh but that's a story for another time) and is really pretty bonkers. It's hard to have a villain like this in a serious story, but they work quite effectively as comedic villains, and can be if nothing else, Memorable, which is a key trait for determining where they stand.
The Intriguing Villain: (ex: Darth Vader)
Lastly, the Intriguing villain is the most basic, but perhaps the most difficult villain to create. Yes, your villain is evil. Yes they are evil without real reasons. Yes they will treat all their allies like crap and Yes they are never happy.
But they sure are fun. If your villain has enough personality and general "coolness" that they can be a general jerk to everyone, and people will love it. Most Star Wars villains fall (or attempt to fall) into this category, as do the villains of Avatar: the last Airbender or BBC's Sherlock.
The villain is one of the most important parts of a story, and too often they are just another egomaniacal world conqueror. but if you can get it right, your story will often be greatly improved. (although you may get "the villain is more fun than the hero" syndrome, so shape up your main character too.) A Hero is defined by their Villain. and when a villain is special, the whole story benefits for it. a last parting bit of advice, if your ever find your villain saying:
"after I get ABCD, I will be UNSTOPPABLE! HA! HA! HA!" to a hero who may or may not actually be in danger.
You've missed your mark.
NEXT TIME: I actually don't know how long it'll be until I do another one of these posts, I leave for college tomorrow, and have really no idea how much free time I will or won't have. Also topic-wise nothing is currently jumping at me. I will continue to upload comics however (to the whole five people who read them.) so stay tuned!
Aug 25, 2014
the Villian: part 1
The Villain of a story is one of (if not THE) most integral parts to formulating a successful tale. Yet at the same time, the villain is also one of the most squandered opportunities that any story represents. Too often the villain of a story opposes the hero for very meaningless or even fake reasons (I'm looking at you pretty much every comic book villain ever.) and this is a prime example of the oversimplification that stories are so prone to doing. If the hero of the story can be a complex and three dimensional character with their own, why should their opposition be any less complex, any less thoughtful. In truth, the best villains are every bit as admirable as the heroes they oppose. some of the most satisfying conflicts occur when both sides have an admirable goal.
The idea of a villain who was still an admirable individual is not a new idea by any sense. even Homer, who's principle audience would have been the descendants of the Greek invaders, painted Hector, eldest son of Priam and the most powerful of the Trojan heroes as an honorable individual, who refuses to sell out his less-than-penitent younger brother, despite the fact that the odds are against both him and his city. Likewise pretty much every pantheon of gods has at least one "evil" deity who is associated with death or strife or mischief, but will still stand by the other gods at various points in the mythology
The other form of ancient story is the kind that has no villain. both The Odyssey and Beowulf, although featuring people and creatures that oppose the hero, do not really have villains. Yes there are foes, (Cersei, and Grendel, Polyphemus and the Dragon) but the actions of these foes do not dictate the course of the story, in the same way that The Joker orchestrates the occurrences of The Dark Knight or how Darth Vader affects the course of the Star wars trilogy. Ancient stories were focused on the hero, and him alone.
Which is why everything is King Arthur's fault.
King Arthur is the one who started the trend of illogical villainy that plagues some other wise brilliant stories (such as Ronin in Guardians of the Galaxy, and numerous unnecessary characters in Game of Thrones) Morgan le Fay and her sisters will do anything in their power to ensnare and oppose Arthur and his knights, without Arthur himself having done anything to them. (they are venting their rather legitimate frustration at Arthur's father, by opposing his son.)
But King Arthur is not the only legend to have illogical villains. Robin hood also has to regularly deal with Prince John, Guy of Guisborne and the Sheriff of Nottingham, all of whom have really no redeeming characteristics and are just greedy brutes.
And that doesn't mean you can't have a greedy brute who likes hurting people as your villain. But it does mean that no one cares about your villain. If your villain is the generic vileness that is found in so many stories (which is really Disney's fault but...) then it should be the hero that drives the plot, not that villain. Because in truth, the hero of your story is really only as good as the villain(or obstacle) they overcome.
There has been a growing trend in modern stories to have chapters from the villain's perspective, both to change up the points of view AND to establish the villain as dangerous by having him be evil to either some unlucky nobody or an inept minion. this rather generic scene can be found in almost any movie (it even snuck it's way into The Hobbit) and will always end with the villain dispatching whoever is groveling before them.
Oh, aren't they so evil!!!
Next Time: The Villain, part two: the ones that got it right
The idea of a villain who was still an admirable individual is not a new idea by any sense. even Homer, who's principle audience would have been the descendants of the Greek invaders, painted Hector, eldest son of Priam and the most powerful of the Trojan heroes as an honorable individual, who refuses to sell out his less-than-penitent younger brother, despite the fact that the odds are against both him and his city. Likewise pretty much every pantheon of gods has at least one "evil" deity who is associated with death or strife or mischief, but will still stand by the other gods at various points in the mythology
The other form of ancient story is the kind that has no villain. both The Odyssey and Beowulf, although featuring people and creatures that oppose the hero, do not really have villains. Yes there are foes, (Cersei, and Grendel, Polyphemus and the Dragon) but the actions of these foes do not dictate the course of the story, in the same way that The Joker orchestrates the occurrences of The Dark Knight or how Darth Vader affects the course of the Star wars trilogy. Ancient stories were focused on the hero, and him alone.
Which is why everything is King Arthur's fault.
King Arthur is the one who started the trend of illogical villainy that plagues some other wise brilliant stories (such as Ronin in Guardians of the Galaxy, and numerous unnecessary characters in Game of Thrones) Morgan le Fay and her sisters will do anything in their power to ensnare and oppose Arthur and his knights, without Arthur himself having done anything to them. (they are venting their rather legitimate frustration at Arthur's father, by opposing his son.)
But King Arthur is not the only legend to have illogical villains. Robin hood also has to regularly deal with Prince John, Guy of Guisborne and the Sheriff of Nottingham, all of whom have really no redeeming characteristics and are just greedy brutes.
And that doesn't mean you can't have a greedy brute who likes hurting people as your villain. But it does mean that no one cares about your villain. If your villain is the generic vileness that is found in so many stories (which is really Disney's fault but...) then it should be the hero that drives the plot, not that villain. Because in truth, the hero of your story is really only as good as the villain(or obstacle) they overcome.
There has been a growing trend in modern stories to have chapters from the villain's perspective, both to change up the points of view AND to establish the villain as dangerous by having him be evil to either some unlucky nobody or an inept minion. this rather generic scene can be found in almost any movie (it even snuck it's way into The Hobbit) and will always end with the villain dispatching whoever is groveling before them.
Oh, aren't they so evil!!!
Next Time: The Villain, part two: the ones that got it right
Aug 13, 2014
First post!
So this is the first post I have NOT to include a comic or cartoon of some nature. Eventually I will group these general opinion-giving posts in one place, but for now I think they're just going to be scattered randomly throughout.
I think it is fairly obvious from my comics that I am something of a geek...or is it nerd? once upon a time they were mostly the same thing. The brainy kids at school who were mostly ignored but everyone. But with the current uptick in popular interest into what were once "nerdy"/"geeky" areas. (science-fiction films, Dystopias and Fantasy worlds in particular) there has formed a real but rather fuzzy distinction between the two terms. What is it that constitutes that division?
Looking in an online dictionary (merriam-webster for those who like details) makes the very slight distinction in that nerds are obsessed with more technical or academic fields, while the geek can be obsessed with mostly anything, so long as they seem socially awkward and not generally popular.
I feel that this is somewhat outdated in it's view, but nevertheless, the distinction between academic and hobby is one worth noting, but is that the only division? I feel there may be something of a slight superiority by those listed in the nerd category, as they feel the avid pursuit of Physics or Computer Programming is more important then the pursuit of the latest Star Wars rumors (which is, in my opinion, debatable) there is however some truth that the nerd category is a more cohesive whole, many of it's major fields (Science, Math and Computer Sci.) dovetail nicely together, while the geek category, though far larger, is split up into several smaller groups.
e.g. two stereotypical nerds meet at a party, and get into a discussion. one is a Chemistry buff, and the other is into Computer Graphics, they could find a mutually interesting topic to discuss with, in my opinion relative ease.
Two stereotypical geeks meet at a party and get into a discussion. One is obsessed with World of Warcraft (Man are you that out of date? WoW is pretty much done by now.) and the other wears a Starfleet insignia whenever they leave their house. I think that there is little common ground for these two, and while they may be able to find some it would be harder than the previous example.
"Well that's not quite fair." you say "you picked geeks from far corners of their genres, no wonder they didn't mesh well." and while I concur with you I would argue that it doesn't really change anything, as another large blow to geek unity is their firm support for their favorite _____ as the best. If a guy with a brown robe and a padawan's braid runs into a guy in a fez, they will start to argue about the clear similarities between their respective weapons of choice, and the idiosyncrasies of each. (yes, yes, the sonic screwdriver isn't a weapon technically, but with the way it's being used lately I think my claim isn't too far-fetched.) likewise the Millennium Falcon has been pitted against the USS Enterprise many a time. And this competitive nature is not confined to the sci-fi, it plagues Fantasy fans as well, it's just that the Lord of the Rings is some much better then anything else that nothing can manage to stand up to it. (cue disagreement from Game of Thrones and Harry Potter geeks.)
The truth is, Geeks are not concerted in their beliefs. While Nerds are willing to admit the value of other subjects, many geeks will outright dismiss things as rip-offs.
Anyway, all in all, the distinction is certainly there, and is I think only likely to grow more pronounced with time. So I felt it was a good idea to help everyone (myself included) to better understand what exactly divides the two. I'm sure others will think differently and I would welcome your thoughts on the matter. (though I would ask people to be respectful)
NEXT TIME: The Evolution of the Villain, and why they needed to change.
I think it is fairly obvious from my comics that I am something of a geek...or is it nerd? once upon a time they were mostly the same thing. The brainy kids at school who were mostly ignored but everyone. But with the current uptick in popular interest into what were once "nerdy"/"geeky" areas. (science-fiction films, Dystopias and Fantasy worlds in particular) there has formed a real but rather fuzzy distinction between the two terms. What is it that constitutes that division?
Looking in an online dictionary (merriam-webster for those who like details) makes the very slight distinction in that nerds are obsessed with more technical or academic fields, while the geek can be obsessed with mostly anything, so long as they seem socially awkward and not generally popular.
I feel that this is somewhat outdated in it's view, but nevertheless, the distinction between academic and hobby is one worth noting, but is that the only division? I feel there may be something of a slight superiority by those listed in the nerd category, as they feel the avid pursuit of Physics or Computer Programming is more important then the pursuit of the latest Star Wars rumors (which is, in my opinion, debatable) there is however some truth that the nerd category is a more cohesive whole, many of it's major fields (Science, Math and Computer Sci.) dovetail nicely together, while the geek category, though far larger, is split up into several smaller groups.
e.g. two stereotypical nerds meet at a party, and get into a discussion. one is a Chemistry buff, and the other is into Computer Graphics, they could find a mutually interesting topic to discuss with, in my opinion relative ease.
Two stereotypical geeks meet at a party and get into a discussion. One is obsessed with World of Warcraft (Man are you that out of date? WoW is pretty much done by now.) and the other wears a Starfleet insignia whenever they leave their house. I think that there is little common ground for these two, and while they may be able to find some it would be harder than the previous example.
"Well that's not quite fair." you say "you picked geeks from far corners of their genres, no wonder they didn't mesh well." and while I concur with you I would argue that it doesn't really change anything, as another large blow to geek unity is their firm support for their favorite _____ as the best. If a guy with a brown robe and a padawan's braid runs into a guy in a fez, they will start to argue about the clear similarities between their respective weapons of choice, and the idiosyncrasies of each. (yes, yes, the sonic screwdriver isn't a weapon technically, but with the way it's being used lately I think my claim isn't too far-fetched.) likewise the Millennium Falcon has been pitted against the USS Enterprise many a time. And this competitive nature is not confined to the sci-fi, it plagues Fantasy fans as well, it's just that the Lord of the Rings is some much better then anything else that nothing can manage to stand up to it. (cue disagreement from Game of Thrones and Harry Potter geeks.)
The truth is, Geeks are not concerted in their beliefs. While Nerds are willing to admit the value of other subjects, many geeks will outright dismiss things as rip-offs.
Anyway, all in all, the distinction is certainly there, and is I think only likely to grow more pronounced with time. So I felt it was a good idea to help everyone (myself included) to better understand what exactly divides the two. I'm sure others will think differently and I would welcome your thoughts on the matter. (though I would ask people to be respectful)
NEXT TIME: The Evolution of the Villain, and why they needed to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)