Pretty Monsters, by Kelly Link

I first encountered this book of short stories in one of my fiction writing seminars at Western Washington University. My professor who assigned the book wasn't particularly in love with it, but it had been recommended by another professor, so she taught it. I am very grateful that she did. I am not normally very interested in short stories. I figure that's why I often find myself daunted by the idea of writing them; because I don't read them often enough to write one well. But I'm getting off track, and short story long, pun unintended, without this book being assigned to me, I might have never known it existed.

Pretty Monsters is perhaps best characterized as Slipstream (a nicer and more accurate name for the western-appropriated portion of Magical Realism). The worlds put forth by Link's stories range from ones that largely obey the rules of our world to full-on worldbuilt fantasies (three guesses which settings I prefer). Many of these characters are really solid. The concepts are intriguing, and the language is casual but masterfully crafted.

The only thing which put me off was the structure of some of these stories. One or two that I can think of off the top of my head introduced conflict, rose to a climax, and then stopped abruptly. I understand from my classwork that this is a somehow "fashionable" move in fiction, but Link's application of it seemed a little extreme. I could spout some existential defense of the cutoff ending, saying it mirrors life because we never know what will happen or what is to come, making the stories more relatable, relevant, resonant, whatever you please. However, I personally prefer a story that answers - or at least acknowledges - a few of the questions the body of that story raises.

SPOILERS FOR SAKE OF EXAMPLE FOLLOW. PLEASE HIGHLIGHT IN ORDER TO VIEW THEM. In the story "The Library," for instance, things get pretty strange toward the end. There is some indication that the main character has passed out of his reality and into a reality where the television show he and his friends are addicted to, called "The Library," is real. He arrives in a location where, as a reader, you have no idea whether the people he interacts with are human or not due to this potential reality shift. These characters, and whether or not reality has shifted at all, are not addressed in the end of the story. Every question raised by the story is left to hang. The same thing happens with "The Specialist's Hat."

In contrast, stories like "The Constable of Abal" and "The Faery Handbag" raise lots of questions in the body of the story, but each picks at least one and gives it a solid resolution before cutting off. I think the reason this is more effective for me as a reader is because the sense of resolution in the one answered question lends a sense of resolution to the whole story. "The Faery Handbag" doesn't answer its biggest or most important question - in fact, it answers its least important question - but that leaves the open ending much less frustrating because the story still feels complete. The fact that the main character has the majority of her adventure ahead of her by the story's conclusion, where the reader cannot see it, isn't relevant because the story feels as though it has come to a natural conclusion.

Perhaps this convention is just a part of short story-telling that I don't understand. I plan on reading several more collections in the future, so hopefully you'll see more analysis in the future. I'm open to changing my stance, depending on what I see. And even though I was frustrated by the endings, many of the stories in Pretty Monsters I strongly disliked right after reading them somehow grew on me. Perhaps they just need time to breathe.

If you like short stories, and even if you don't like them, Pretty Monsters is worth more than a gander. If you give it a look, let me know what you think! I would love to discuss it with you. Cheers everybody, happy Saturday, and have a great rest of your weekend.

Meeting Neil Gaiman

So I have some catching up to do.

Several weeks ago, okay more like a month ago now, I had the extreme good fortune of being a ticketholder to what Neil Gaiman called his last US signing tour. It was in honor of the release of his novel, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, and was held in my personal favorite Portland venue, the Crystal Ballroom. Or at least, it's typically my favorite.

We aren't sure who ordered the sweltering heat, but it certainly wasn't us - the Crystal Ballroom has no air conditioning, the ballroom is on the top floor, and they typically don't even open the windows upstairs - and it certainly wasn't Neil, who was in his customary all-black and long sleeved ensemble. Oops, Neil said that he was going to keep it a secret that Portland had days like that; I guess the cat's out of the bag.

Either way, it was a delightful afternoon with approximately nine hundred people packed into one room, which Neil informed us was about the maximum comfortable number to sign for. Apparently the event the night before had gone from 8:00 PM until 2:00 in the morning (ouch). He read from chapter three of Ocean at the End of the Lane as well as an excerpt from his upcoming children's book Fortunately, the Milk (which I will shamelessly purchase without having a little one to give or read it to).

However, one of the best parts of the afternoon was the question and answer portion. Every guest had the opportunity to write a question on an index card which could then potentially be drawn at random and asked on stage. The best, or at least most memorable, question went something like: "Summarize your writing process in three words or less." He thought about that one for a long moment, and then responded, glaring, "Glare," and finished with a nod, "Drink tea." Which just about summed up the feelings of everyone in the room, including mine.

And then of course came the moment of truth. The room was divided into sections based on colored slips of paper in the copies of Ocean at the End of the Lane we were given as we arrived, and each  group was called up to cue for the signing table one at a time. I had looked forward to meeting Mr. Gaiman, even for a moment, since the second I realized that tickets for the event had gone on pre-sale. Everything of his that I've read I've enjoyed, but just as importantly, he is an incredibly encouraging person. Many of my closest friends are writers and artists of some capacity, and there have been many times that we call or message each other looking for support; insecurity seems to come with most creative territories. And then, one magical day, we found Neil Gaiman's tumblr. He spends a lot of time answering asks from fans, which has always struck me as generous, and many of those responses have to do with encouraging others not to give up on their passion because they are afraid or nervous or insecure about their work, their education, or basically anything else. So going up to that table, I wanted to thank him. Not only for the encouragement and confidence I had personally taken from his internet outreach, but for the fact that he seeks to support everyone he can. It is so easy to feel constricted or crushed by the concept that you are not good enough, or that art is not worth your time because it will not make you any money, or that nothing is ever original, and seeing an author who is so successful express so much support is not only refreshing, it's vital.

I had all these things in mind when I went up there. I was calm up until the moment it was my turn. I was good and remembered that he's a person, not the clout that his name carries. But then I was there, he was signing my books, I got my thank you out, and my mind went blank. He was a good sport about it, of course, and after I stammered something else I asked if it would be alright if I got a quick hug, and he waved me over. And I am so, so grateful for that.

Just in case, I'll try again: thank you so much, Neil Gaiman, for visiting my city, for making such a long trek around the country, for bearing the hand cramps and long hours, for sharing your newest work and your stories, for answering nosy questions, and for listening to all of us blunder our way to telling you how awesome we think you are. Please never change.

Cheers,
-Maddie

If you are interested, and you should be, go visit Neil's Tumblr at neil-gaiman.tumblr.com and get inspired!

Steamcon II: Weird Weird West

What an event! And now it's so long ago that I am having trouble remembering every breathless, gushing ounce of praise I was going to level at the internet in Steamcon's favor...

The über highlights!

1. It was the best dressed convention I have ever attended. I have shamelessly 'jacked that sentiment from a good friend of mine who was also in attendance. She's a fashion designer, if that adds the gravid tone I am looking for when I say (write?) so. IT WAS SO WELL DRESSED.

2. It included a badass expo hall full of delicious things to buy. None of which I had money for, but I hovered over things a LOT. Alright, that's a lie. I did buy some home-concocted tea from the wonderful B. Fuller's Mortar & Pestle, based locally in Burien, WA. Mmm, gotta love that home brew.

3. There were many booths for many things, like the bands performing that night, as well as the beloved Dr. Steel.

4. There was an art gallery entirely for Steampunk art and it was also a silent auction! More hovering ensued.

5. One of the panels was Steampunk Ghost Hunting, a tag team between the League of S.T.E.A.M. (who also make a huge cameo in Panic! At the Disco's new single, Ballad of Mona Lisa, available on the excellent album Vices & Virtues) and a....legitimate....Steampunk....Ghosthunting team which I can't recall the name of because I am a DESPICABLE human being!!

6. It included Outlaw Night, which, as I have previously reviewed, featured my personal favorite Steamy band, ABNEY PARK!! HUZZAH!!! Airship pirates, Victorian wenches, and Long Islands were had by all. (except me, I was driving. duh :P)

Now for round two this coming October - Steamcon III: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea!!

Dante's Inferno

Animatrix-style.

So there's this videogame of Dante's Inferno being released. You know the one. So they made a promotional movie out of the plot of the game, Animatrix-style.

Now when I say that, I mean that it's animated and switches styles at various times, lending a wide range of aesthetics and feelings to the piece as a whole. Oh, did I mention it's fabulous?

Or at least, if you're in the mood for dark, gory, terrifying animation that occasionally looks ridiculous and occasionally looks about ready to come out of the screen and eat you alive (cue demon babies and succubi, please). It recalls the style of every (good) dark vampire or goth-drama manga or anime I can think of, especially Hellsing.

I do have a quip or two with this piece, however. The first of these is Beatrice. She is, clearly, a devout and good soul in context of the story. That's the entire point, that she is a soul meant for Heaven. If this is the case, then why, for goodness' sake, does it make sense for her to strike a deal with the devil for her soul? And over Dante's faithfulness, no less? Also, doesn't just that simple act - a wager with Satan - taint her soul in the first place? It's a wholly counterintuitive plotbunny. I suppose the reason it bothers me so much is that it's so blatantly a plotbunny. There was no effort to mask the thought process of "So we need to get him to go into Hell to save Beatrice. Why is she there? She....struck a deal with the devil! That's it!" [insert sarcasm and eye-roll here]

On another note, overall I love the animation. There is only one style I have to unavoidably question. Everything about it was great, except for the title character. His face was entirely incongruous with the rest of his body. He was animated to be hugely buff, but he had giant anime eyes. I was immediately reminded of the quite unique style of Saint Seiya: Knights of the Zodiac, except on steroids. I mean really. Who thought that one up? Other than that the character design was almost flawless. My personal favorite will always be the one which reminded me of Hellsing the most: a thin but clearly monstrously strong Dante with long hair. That segment was full of my approval. I was remarkably sad to see it go.

And finally, the finale. In other words, the ending. There wasn't one. It would have been different if one of four things happened: i) Dante was unable to escape hell, ii) Dante went to heaven, iii) Dante directly stated he was condemned to a kind of outside-of-hell purgatory, or iv) if Dante bid farewell to Beatrice. None of these happened. There was no closure of any kind and while I am all for open-ended conclusions to stories for the sake of feeding the imagination of the viewer, they have to be well executed. This, really, was the thing that annoyed me the most. All of the options I listed left room for a second game/movie/story arc just fine if that was the angle the writers were going for. The difference is that mine aren't drowning in obscurity.

All the same, the animation for the creatures and fights is spectacular. It's gut-wrenching, it's visually appealing, and it certainly makes me pine desperately for an Xbox. So if you're a videogame or Hellsing fan, check this out. It's a jolly good romp through the circles of hell.

Here's a trailer, to appease the curious. Enjoy, and seriously, watch out for those demon babies.

Merlin, Season One

"In a land of myth and a time of magic, the destiny of a great kingdom rests on the shoulders of a young boy. His name: Merlin."

Thank you, British Broadcasting Corporation. Thank you for bringing the world such a glorious show. Right off the bat, I will put it this way: for a long time, I have not watched television. The only purpose my TV served was for movie nights with my parents and friends, and the (very) occasional videogame. In Summer 2009 Merlin Season One aired in the United States, and thanks to Tivo I was able to catch the first episode. Because of it, I learned a schedule for a show. I hadn't done that since I was at least nine or ten. My appreciation for it has only grown now that I own a shiny set of DVDs, for which I am wildly grateful. But before I bombard you with that, a little background.

Merlin first aired in Summer 2008 on BBC while most of us were running about the woods making up our own stories (or at least that's how it goes where I come from). It was only released to wider audiences a year later. Somewhere in the interim it gained the alternate title 'The Adventures of Merlin' in Australia and Hong Kong (IMDb tells me so). So as we speak, or respectively write and read, season two - which aired to the Brits as I was initially spazzing out over season one at home, yet to graduate from high school - is airing here in the US, just waiting to be snapped up!

Can't wait for shiny DVD set #2. My credit card tingles with anticipation. Cue the obligatory college moths reminding me that my wallet actually doesn't exist. Credit card: exit, stage left.

All shenanigans aside, this show is lovable for a lot of reasons. There are also reasons that people don't love it, and I'd like to address some of them here.
The main complaint I've heard is, as one acquaintance of mine so deftly put it, that the show "totally fucked over the story." I will agree that the BBC retelling of Merlin is far from what one might call "conventional Arthurian legend," however, such a stance completely depreciates the welcome use of revitalization. No, Merlin and Arthur are not the same age in the original tales, nor did Merlin serve as Arthur's servant. Morgana was certainly not Uther Pendragon's ward (to my knowledge) and Guinevere was even more certainly not Morgana's maidservant. However, the old stories, while perhaps not universally known, are just that: old. Don't get me wrong - I have a habit of seeking out the "original" side of things and tracing stories and pop phenomenon alike back to their respective sources - but an overhaul, when it's done well, does not have to be a negative thing. And I haven't even touched on the right to creative license, especially where legend is concerned. All in all, purists: whatever floats your boat. Honestly. Just don't get your underpinnings in a twist when I can love the original legends and the show at the same time.

I think much of my love for the show is based in the quality of the acting. Some of the effects leave something to be desired and there are moments that are outright groan-worthy, but the screen presence of the actors more than makes up for these things. To begin, Anthony Head is Uther (Arthur's father and the current King of Camelot). I could sing Anthony Head's praises all day. I've loved him ever since he was Giles on Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I loved him as Nathan in Repo! The Genetic Opera. I love him as Uther, especially because he is anything but a flat villain. Like all of the other main characters, we are allowed to see multiple facets of individuals, something that I think is quite often lost in entertainment today. Uther, though he often takes the role of antagonist in the formula of the show, also has his moments. It makes it worthwhile that he is a character that one can both love and despise, occasionally at the same time.

And of course there are the wonderous Colin Morgan as Merlin and Bradley James as Arthur. What a dynamic duo. They've almost been elevated to the point of bromance and I have to approve. Both are very talented, not to mention attractive (which always helps), and I can't wait to adventure with them into season two.

So I don't ignore the ladies, though Angel Coulby makes a great Gwen, Katie McGrath as Morgana takes the cake. In watching it with my friends, we have dubbed her "Morgana the Bangable" because oh gracious, is she gorgeous. Not to mention her clothes are amazing. I believe we decided that if you took Keira Knightly, taught her to act (both in general AND ESPECIALLY without her chin), made her more than skin and bones and then combined her with non-Twilight Kristen Stewart, you'd get Katie McGrath. Her presence on the screen is amazing, and I love the light attitude she brings to a character who has such potential for dark motivations.

Apparently Merlin was heavily inspired off of Smallville, believe me or no. It makes sense structurally: the writers have a formula (which I will not disclose for purposes of being spoiler-free) and oh, how they stick to it. But somehow, it works. Though I've never seen Smallville, one of my abovementioned friends is quite familiar with it and both sees and approves of the connection.

All in all, now that this has gone on for far too long, it's fabulous. For a good healthy romp in a time fargone from now with magical shenanigans up to your eyeballs, pay Camelot a visit. Just take care you don't wake the Dragon.

Preview!

The Call of Cthulhu: Horror Roleplaying in the Worlds of HP Lovecraft

Rather than cap off the quarter with another novel, my teacher chose instead to subject us to the horror of Cthulhu: oh was I was grateful for it.

The Call of Cthulhu: Horror Roleplaying in the Worlds of HP Lovecraft is unlike most tabletop RPGs, or so it's reputed to be (I haven't played many). It's based entirely around intellectual games - gathering evidence and getting closer and closer to solving a mystery rather than monsterwhacking. Not to say there's a total lack of monsterwhacking, it's just that in this game you typically run your ass off upon such an encounter rather than standing to fight. Take our game for example. There is no way under the deep blue heavens we would have been able to fight Yig and live. In fact, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the fact that in this game, an investigator (player) cannot "win." Instead, you have three options. One is to get out while you have the chance until forces beyond the stars come to confront you another day. Another is to go irrevocably insane and be institutionalized. The last is to die.

On that note, I think the most intriguing innovation of Call of Cthulhu is the concept of sanity points. Upon encountering disturbing things, if the Keeper (dungeon master) calls a sanity check and you fail, you start losing sanity points. If you lose enough of these suckers within a certain amount of time - or collectively - you end up doing things like going into catatonia, logorrhea, displaying "strange eating compulsions" (cannibalism, dirt, slime, whathave you), or displaying "strange sexual impulses" (exhibitionism, nymphomania/satyriasis, etc) just to name a few. For those of you who have played tabletop RPGs, there's a table for this. If there's no logical choice (or just for the sake of it) the keeper can have you roll a D10 for it. It's painful.

On an entirely different note, as of yet I think one of the most pleasant parts of tabletop roleplaying is character creation: you get to decide on so many aspects of your character - there's so much room for creativity! From home town to occupation to income to possessions, it's all there. After a little influence from the dice, the rest is up to the creator. Actually sending said character out into their little world can be problematic, because at that point it's out of your hands entirely and in those of the Keeper. A good Keeper is absolutely essential. I haven't yet tried to be a Keeper, but I can see it's a lot of work. For those of you out there who are, I salute you.

My first game experience with Call of Cthulhu was rough at best. However, there is hope: I'll be playing another game with a couple of friends soon, and hopefully it will be a little easier to move in. Until then, venture on, ladies and gentlemen.

Legion

I am not going to lie. This was the most entertaining movie I have seen in a LONG while.

I am also not going to lie when I say that this movie is in the same vein as Constantine.

And that I freaking LOVE Constantine.

Yes I am sure the comic books are better in Constantine's case.

Yes I am sure that there are a lot of people out there who will despise Legion.

But hey. Why not? It is Paul Bettany, after all.

On that note, I thought Mr. Bettany's performance was wonderful. He had such moments of tenderness. Also extreme moments of badassery. It was fabulous. The gasoline trick (which is in the trailer: this is a spoiler free zone, or I'll try to keep it that way) was one of my absolute favorites.

Also, archangel Gabriel. OH MY LORD. Not nearly as pretty as angel-fied Mr. Bettany, but he had some pretty awesome moves.

So my basic conclusion is: if you have any affinity for the supernatural movies that end up on the bad to the nearly bad side of the scale - and by that I mean excellent - drop everything. See this movie. Especially if it's in a cinetopia.

Incidentally, there is a movie that has been out for several years which looks like an almost perfect cross of Constantine and Legion, at least visual-wise. It's called Gabriel. Apparently it came out a few years ago, made in Australia. I can't wait to get my mitts on a widescreen edition of it.