I commented on a blog that criticized Neil Gaiman's "The Problem of Susan" which is a critical look at the Chronicles of Narnia. Here is an excerpt of her argument:

"“The Problem of Susan”, to me, is a whole different question. It’s not an assault on God; it’s a specific, personal assault on one specific person’s affectionately rendered depiction of his beliefs. C.S. Lewis wrote Aslan to reflect his experience of God, and as I’ve said, that man loved God like nothing else. Whether you agree with him or not, he wrote Aslan with such absolute sincerity and love. I think it is unkind to take such an honest expression of someone’s religious devotion, and do this with it; no matter how much you disagree with him, or find his beliefs about women/God/whatever, to be damaging. It makes me feel all yucky to read this part of the story – a reaction I don’t think I’ve had to something I’ve read since this horrible book I got for my eleventh birthday, the contents of which I don’t remember at all, but which upset me so much I hid it under the couch and still couldn’t sleep knowing it was in the house so I got up and threw it in the trash and poured wet coffee grounds on top of it."

You have a legitimate argument, Jenny. I agree that the dream is disturbing, but I think that was Neil's point. (He admits that in the introduction after explaining his bout of meningitis.) The story was deliberately irreverent because Neil wants to remind everyone that Narnia is, at heart, just a story. At the same time, it shows the power of children stories, especially with the Mary Poppins dream. (I know what you mean about horrible books, though. The first Sandman volume made me feel the same way. Twilight made me feel that someone had taken what could've been a great book and chopped the ending into firewood and hamburger meat.)
"The Problem of Susan" is more about security, or the loss of it. Susan as an adult no longer feels secure concerning God; that's why she dreams of Mary Poppins, who is the ultimate form of security. She rescues the Banks children from constant mishaps and manages to keep the household running and stable, even when she leaves.
That said, I think the story could have been done better. It's like the Graveyard Book could have been done better with the plot. But I keep rereading both of them because Neil's style is freaking beautiful, sad, and addicting.
We should email each other. This was a fun article.

Stop at Nothing

Right now I'm listening to a CD of wolf howls. It's pretty cool, like attending an animal choir. This venture is strictly research related, as the novel I'm rewriting involves wolves. Specifically, it involves wolves in California.
The howls have deep howlers, high-pitched "woos" and yips, and bits of whining. It sounds mournful, almost. Ravens caw intermittently, like the accompanying drum. There are grunts, whines, rolling sounds, and rumbles.
I learned an important lesson a long time ago: RESEARCH!! If you need to learn stuff for your story, look it up. Use Google. Do whatever it takes to get your book accurate.
You can't cheat on this. Readers will know if you cheated. (If you didn't, then they will find out thanks to your backstabbing college roommates.)
That's all I can say tonight.

Action => Reaction

Here's a lesson I've learned from writing: no one likes a passive protagonist. We could have observant narrators in ye olden classics, but in modern stories editors want heroes who do stuff.
Exceptions to the rule can occur, however; Countess de Winter from Rebecca remains pretty passive throughout the novel, but she does do stuff.
That leads us to the reluctant hero, who doesn't want to handle the responsibility handed out to them. I love reluctant heroes, especially the ones that fail to do the job right sometimes. (Case in point: Peter Parker as Spiderman.) We all say that something must be done, but only true heroes do stuff when confronted with it. And even those heroes may continue to make the same mistakes, as we do.
"Sugar and Spice," which will be submitted to a magazine this week, started out as a short story exercise with a passive narrator. Then I made the narrator more active, but he didn't do enough. (Also, the editors didn't relate to him or his best friend, since they were careless.)
I just rewrote the story from another perspective, from a character who does a lot more and is more human than his companions. This sixth draft needs more polishing, but when it's softened I am sure that it will find a magazine.

Lesson Learned

I'm a happier and probably better writer, but I've learned an important lesson:
HAVE A CRITIC.
And here are the signs of a good critic:
1) They care enough about your work to go on a long rant about it.
2) They see potential in the story (see # 1)
3) They're willing to see the story evolve through drafts.

Enough said.

Score!

Allow me to say this before beginning . . .

YEAAAAAAAHHHHH!

Aphelion Webzine published a short doll story that I sent them, "Niloufar's Friends," about a father who tries to keep his daughter innocent. It's up now, with a one sentence description.

In general, that story shows how much tamer I've become because I've been thinking about life and death in literature. It's like marriage and love; if you use it too much, then you devalue it. And if Niloufar had killed her treacherous friend, she would have had to climb up from a deeper pit of morality. (Ironically, I then read a Joanne Harris book over the summer where Anouk Rocher gave ringworm to three bullies; I swear I did not copy it!)

It's somewhat autobiographical, because I did have an EasyBake oven before I tried to use it to make clay pots and a friend did tell me the exact same words about feeling sorry for me. (That was last spring, actually.) I was upset the whole day after that.

The idea came from an AlienSkin magazine contest about evil dolls and toys. I wrote another story with evil toys, but I knew it would be too long to meet the typical word count. "Niloufar" was cut because the dolls in it actually weren't evil, just misguided.

I'm surprised they labeled it as fantasy, and not dark fantasy, because it is dark; horror may have been too extreme. It is also probably inaccurate regarding Iranians, as I based the culture in that book from the lovely stories Reading Lolita in Tehran and Persepolis. In other words, a lot of Persians are going to send angry emails.



I'll deal with it though. The whole point of me writing about people that are not Indian, white or American is to diversify myself and become a better author.

Missing the point

Normally I only post about myself, but I really want to criticize the movie Chocolat, primarily because I love the book so much.
For the record, I started writing A La Mode BEFORE I read Chocolat by Joanne Harris, and I've tried my best not to let the novel influence the comic strip. I checked out the movie from the library a few months ago and I have to say this- it SUCKED.
Not because of Johnny Depp, mind you, although he becomes a Mary Stu in the film- in general the screenwriter, producers and directors were too afraid. They weren't willing to tackle genuine racism, evil priests, or death, which the book dealt with.
In one stupid feat they made Father Reynaud into the mayor Comte de Reynaud, who likes to maintain a conservative order within his town. Alfred Molina does a good job, but still, the new priest is meh and not really a character in the movie.
The second thing that the movie did was make the conflict between Vianne and Reynaud open rather than subtle. Reynaud always remains civil to Vianne, never announcing his intention to shut her down or to ruin her festival. Vianne just tries to be herself, even if it means shaking up Reynaud's pseudo-perfect world. Vianne's acceptance of the gypsies seems to be open defiance of Reynaud rather than her own personal feelings, having been a traveler herself. Reynaud in response to this defiance cracks down on the gypsies. In the book Reynaud genuinely fears the gypsies (having had a racist priest as a mentor and having set fire to a gypsy boat when he was fifteen) and short of violence uproots many of them from the town's river banks.
The directors then decide to simplify Josephine's growth and development. The movie here seems to get off on the right foot, with Josephine stealing some pralines from Vianne's shop and then returning to pay for it. However, they then mess it up by having Josephine leave her husband early. In the book, the gypsies arrive before Josephine decides to leave her abusive husband Paul-Marie, and she wanted to serve them. Paul-Marie has hit her many times before and only when he sets fire to one of their boats does she decide to leave. Even then, she isn't that strong. Her inner strength accumulates over time as Vianne supports her. In the movie, she suddenly receives all of this inner power.
The fourth thing the movie does (and for the worse) is not deal with Armande's decision to die. Death was a huge theme in the book, especially since Vianne's mother dealt with death as well and a man named Guillame loses his dog to cancer. All of this (with the exception of a small reference to Armande's diabetes and her death) goes out the window. The mere fact that Vianne and her daughter Anouk attend Armande's funeral (in the book Armande leaves a note telling them not to) infuriates me because it shows that some producers are afraid to be accused of promoting suicide. They also take out the whole thing of Armande having ESP, being able to see Pantoufle (Anouk's imaginary friend, a rabbit in the book and a kangaroo in the movie), and knowing Reynaud's dark secret of setting fire to the gypsy's boat as a teenager.
The fifth thing that the movie does (although it's not as bad as the lack of discussion about death) is make Vianne's sojourns sound very important, and then allow her to toss them out the window in one mere scene. Vianne struggles a lot with deciding whether or not to move, and she eventually does, as shown in The Lollipop Shoes.
If the movie had kept the theme of death, then maybe I would be more lenient, but they took a lush book on mature themes and turned it into a Hollywood production.

It's ALIVE...in a few days

The Graveyard Book is almost out! Go, Neil!
Sometimes I get really jealous of my favorite authors. I got not one, but TWO rejections this past month, one for the story "Outside My Window" and for the novella "Cutting the Cord".
"Cutting the Cord" (which is undergoing a title change and was submitted as "Her Demands") was supposed to be rejected. I'm going to submit to the intended magazine, Renard's Menagerie, as soon as I revise it one more time.
"Outside my Window" infuriated me more because when I submitted it, the editors of New Moon Magazine said, "What a chilling story!" And that was two years ago. Now, granted, the story doesn't have a moral like the other New Moon stories, and it's not that upbeat. But still, what story did they choose over mine?

...I guess I'll submit the story to another magazine after one more revision, but I AM going to keep submitting to New Moon. If I have to brave a religious man like Judge Claude Frollo, I will!
That is, assuming that I don't have to climb on Parisian rooftops.
At least they enjoyed the story.