Novel Review: Mistborn

I’ve decided recently to try my hand at writing book reviews. I’ll start with works that have been out for a few years, cutting my teeth, and perhaps working to new releases, eventually.

Mistborn is an Epic Fantasy trilogy published by Tor in 2006-2008, written by Brandon Sanderson.

I chose Mistborn as my first for a few reasons. It’s the book series I’ve read most recently, and one about which I feel I have a real opinion. But I also chose it because I’ve mentioned Brandon Sanderson and his efforts at teaching aspiring writers multiple times since I’ve started the blog. It would be negligent of me not to look into the work of the man whose advice I have adopted so often.

I’m reviewing the trilogy as a whole, although I’ll offer some thoughts about each individual work, as well. I’m going to try to avoid spoilers, though the series is several years old at this point.

Let’s start with what Brandon Sanderson has grown famous for: his magic systems. He deserves every bit of the praise given to him here. He has some of the most coherent, logical, internally consistent magic systems I’ve ever read. His strategy of putting multiple systems in a single world is inspired, perhaps revolutionary. And Sanderson’s Laws of Magic (the first of which is here: http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/ ) are a brilliant application of plotting rules to Fantasy.

Mistborn, perhaps even more than his other works, put this  strength on full display. He creates some of the most intriguing, world-specific problems I’ve ever seen, and has the characters solve these problems in ingenious ways. Scenes of action and violence enrapture the reader because he provides an innate understanding of how the system functions. Even the quiet scenes are defined by the evolution of the magic, which is thick with revelation throughout the entire series. There are very few, brief moments where I thought I noticed small inconsistencies, but they hardly served to distract from the whole.

The plotting of each book is often every bit as strong as the magic. In Writing Excuses, Brandon has said that he thinks plot twists should be surprising-yet-inevitable, and he succeeds far more often than he fails. Often, a page or two before a new development, my eyes opened in sudden understanding, which kept those developments satisfying. Each new development is foreshadowed, and each is full of implications, some of which remain unstated or unexplored for hundreds of pages, but most of which are given satisfactory resolutions by the end of the series.

On the other hand, the pacing is…strange. I consistently felt as though I were moving into the climax at the opening of the third act, with a full hundred pages—if not more—left to go. This wasn’t bad, necessarily, but it’s something I’m not used to, and was slightly distracting, and a bit exhausting, in places.

His main characters—I’m including any character that gets more than one viewpoint—are all deep and nuanced, with their own conflicts, character arcs, and specialties. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. They are all interesting, most of them are sympathetic, and some of them are downright unforgettable. This is one strength that only grows as the series develops; Hero of Ages, the final book in the series, shows impressive growth as a writer in this department—and in fact, develops a character that has grown to be my favorite in all of the series, and one of my favorite characters from any series.

His side characters are more hit-and-miss. Any member of the original crew receives enough character that it’s hard to consider any of them anything but main characters. His one-off perspective characters and people that are around for less than a hundred pages do not fare so well. While he is good at developing rich, complex characters, he doesn’t seem to be as capable of expressing that depth in a handful of sentences.

Perhaps the largest hurdle I had while reading it was that Sanderson writes his 3^rd Person Limited with just one step closer to Omniscient than I am used to. The narrative is just a bit less inside the heads of the characters. Because of this, I was sometimes unsure, when a viewpoint switched, just which character’s head I was in. Bear in mind that this is likely purely personal, and you may not notice it at all.

The single largest objective flaw, however, is almost impossible to miss. Each book in the series relies on the next to build itself up. The first book, read by itself, is not wholly satisfying, because so many things are left open for the sequels to resolve. The second book is closer to complete on its own, but there are still major plot points in this book—things that effect the climax itself—that are not adequately explained until the final book. To Sanderson’s credit, almost all of these main points are tied up in satisfying ways. But the emotional impact is dampened because I often felt the hand of the author, withholding information as I read.

On a side note Brandon’s humor in his works simply did not work for me. But humor is subjective, and I’m sure many people greatly enjoy what is found on the pages of Mistborn.

None of these things make Mistborn a bad series. On the contrary. It’s both brutal and elegant, wry and tear-jerking, and above all, unfailingly clever. A must-read for Fantasy fans.

  

-------------------------

What do you think? Did you notice something I didn't mention? Did you disagree about something? Let me know in the comments!

(If you want to read the books and form your own opinion, you can find them here: http://brandonsanderson.com/books/mistborn/) 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

Going into the first Amazing Spider-Man, I expected a cheap attempt to cash in on the name, and to keep the rights for the character from reverting to Marvel. But, though the reboot felt unnecessary at times, and awkward where the origin story intersected that of the early 2000’s Toby McGuire Spider-Man, it was also full of honest effort, care, and spirit.

So, going into The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I had high expectations.

They were largely fulfilled, and maybe even surpassed. The casting continues to be perfect, the acting all but flawless, the action spectacular, the plot mostly solid. 

My biggest worry going into the film was the presence of three villains, but it’s executed much more naturally than the previous movie to attempt it—Spider-Man 3. In some places, the villain’s arcs feel just a tad rushed. But the pacing feels like it was done as well as it possibly could have been, given the basic story. (There are rumors that much of the buildup is to lead up to spin-off movies, rather than the direct sequel, which if true will affect my opinion of this issue greatly)

The relationship between Peter and Gwen drives much of this film, as it should. The progression of the romance feels natural and realistic to a degree perhaps surpassing the Iron Man films. Throughout both movies, Gwen has been treated as a legitimate character in her own right, with growth and motivations. She works to achieve her goals, whether that be pursuing her academic career or helping Peter take down a villain. She is always smart, brave, determined, and capable, and is essential to Peter’s success.

The acting is on par with the best mainstream dramas, and every interaction between major characters feels real. Sally Field (Aunt May) and Andrew Garfield demonstrate both the warmth and the disconnect between a parent and a teenage child, and produce both some of the funniest and most emotional moments in the movie. Dane DeHaan is terrific as Harry Osborn, making us immediately attached to the character (though I’m not quite as fond of the treatment of the Goblin). Jamie Foxx does well to show the development of Electro (his arc from nerdy, invisible scientist Max Dillon to the near-omnipotent Electro deserved perhaps a few more minutes).

The plot itself gets a bit convoluted, and they alter a lot of origin stories in order to fit everything in with Oscorp, as is their wont. But it hardly distracts from the well-scripted dialogue, the wonderful action, and the phenomenal acting.

Before I wrap up, I feel I should mention two things that I noticed about this film really surprised me.

One, it contains perhaps the greatest use of shaky-cam I’ve ever seen. Most of the action is shot fluidly, with a grace that elevates the action almost to an art. But in the first scene, the action is shaky and confused. I won’t spoil it—but it’s for a very good reason. This coming from a man who hates shaky-cam.

The other is the soundtrack. I noticed this before the first shot even came into focus. From the very first note, the soundtrack is sublime. The development of Electro’s theme is superb in particular, but the soundtrack has no weak point.  

The Amazing Spider-Man is a very good movie, with astounding moments that elevate above the average comic book movie. It makes no major stumbles, and the few minor gripes I have are washed away by the strengths. If the next movie lives up to the expectations set by these first two, we will have a trilogy to be proud of. It’s a must-watch for any Spider-Man fan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPOILER SECTION

What’s up with the Rhino? They get Paul Giamatti, a world-class actor on level with Jamie Foxx, and feed him five minutes of screen time? Yes, I understand that they’re setting him up for a larger part in another movie, but come on! It’s true that the Rhino is not typically portrayed as a serious threat on his own, though. SPECULATION: Maybe they’re setting up the Black Suit arc. I’d love to see that executed properly.

When I say Electro is nearly omnipotent, I mean it. He does things that I don't remember him doing in the comics, but that are entirely within suspension of disbelief—such as using his electricity as an electromagnet—and some things that caught me completely off-guard—dissolving his body and running along power lines?  

Felicia Hardy makes an appearance! Yay! SPECULATION: Maybe we’ll see Black Cat. (Hopefully not as a love interest, at least in the next movie. I vote for NO love interest in 3.)

Alistair Smythe has a cameo, which may also point to interesting things in the future.

Try/Fail: What I've Learned.

This is a sort of half-post copied from a status update on Facebook. A proper post on the subject is likely to follow soon.
-----------------------------------------------------

For years, I've been hearing about the "try/fail" cycle in regards to writing fiction. That's where your protagonist tries to solve the main problem of the story, and fails before ultimately succeeding. The common advice is "third time's the charm"--that is, the protagonist must fail twice before success.

The three tries formula has never sat right with me. Too formulaic, I guess (ha), too predictable in regards to the basic plot.

But I've just realized that, deconstructing what I'm working now to its most basic form, the protagonist tries twice unsuccessfully to solve the problem, before succeeding at the end. Maybe, the try/fail cycle rules are like most pacing or character or setting rules--troubleshooting. When something goes wrong in writing, they are something to look at, shorthand to fix it. Not restrictions. 

David Farland's free resource "NaNoWriMo Inspirations", found on his site www.mystorydoctor.com (once you've registered, also free), helped me to look at the try/fail cycle in a completely different way. I'm only a third through it, and it's already helped me a great deal.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug Review

This review contains spoilers for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

I am a huge fan of The Hobbit. It's easily my favorite book by Tolkien, and one of my favorite books in Fantasy. I loved what Peter Jackson managed to do with The Lord of the Rings trilogy; The Two Towers is on the list of my favorite movies of all time. Lastly, Guillermo del Toro is one of my favorite directors. Needless to say, I was excited to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

Needless to say, at least to those of you who have seen it, I was a bit disappointed.

An Unexpected Journey was a mixed bag. It returned us to the beauty of Tolkien's Middle Earth, reunited us with Gandalf and Gollum, and introduced us to a dozen colorful, if not all memorable, characters, in the dwarfs. But most of all, it gave us Martin Freeman as a young Bilbo. There was beautiful landscape exhilarating battles, and one song that stayed stuck in my head for days after watching it. Guillermo del Toro's fingerprints on this Middle Earth added a needed flair the series.

But the movie also gave us a half-hour history lesson for a prologue, extraneous scenes, and mood whiplash. It was uneven, rushed in some places, drawn out in others, and just overall, felt like the very long first installment to a three-part adaptation of a rather short book. I neither loved it nor hated it.

I had this on my mind as I sat down to watch its sequel, The Desolation of Smaug. My expectations were suitably lowered.

They needn't have been. The Desolation of Smaug is ten times as good as An Unexpected Journey. If it's not quite as good as the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, it's a movie I have no hesitation in recommending.

The acting is solid from beginning to end. Benedict Cumberbatch is the shining star of the movie; his performance as Smaug captures the dragon with depth and complexity perhaps even beyond the book. Ian McKellen is wonderful as Gandalf, of course. Martin Freeman's Bilbo is nuanced and subtle, and Richard Armitage captures Thorin Oakenshield's obsession perfectly. The only performance I take issue with is Ryan Gage as the lackey of the Master of Lake town--and this performance wasn't precisely bad, but was rather outclassed by every other main player on screen.

The score is as wonderful as ever, a true service to the development of the narrative. For instance, every time the One Ring comes on screen, you can hear faint traces of its theme from the main trilogy. The Ring is a background player throughout much of the story, perhaps moreso than some of the dwarfs, and the music keeps you from forgetting the truth of it.

The tone is far more even in this second installment than it was in the first, and manages to maintain a balance between the quirkiness that The Hobbit demands and the solemnity that any story involving the One Ring deserves. The suspenseful scenes, such as the first appearance of the Elvenking Thranduil, run smoothly and convincingly, while the over-the-top, almost goofy, action scenes entertain and amuse. Neither seems out of place.

What does seem out of place, however is some of immense amount of content that is added that wasn't in the book. There is an all-new character created specifically for the screen which demonstrates this perfectly. I applaud the addition of this new character, and for most of the movie, I look forward to the moments she is on screen. However, she becomes a part of a subplot that is unnecessary and unwelcome padding, which makes it disconcertingly easy to dismiss her character as equally frivolous.

The subplot of the Necromancer continues to unfold, now fitting into the whole more naturally. On the other hand, the entire climax serves as padding and build-up for the last movie.

There are two points working for this movie that cannot be overstated.

First is Smaug. I realize I have touched on him before, but I can't express how perfect his execution was. He was my adolescent imaginings brought to wondrous life. The effects, from his movement to the texture to the lighting, to his expressions, to the voice acting and and audio work, to his integration with the live action performances, is something you must see to believe. He alone is worth the ticket price.

The other thing working in this film's favor is the unparalleled way in which Middle Earth is brought to life. Never--not in An Unexpected Journey, not in the original trilogy, not in any work of fiction set on a secondary world--have I felt so drawn in to the world itself. never have I felt transported, as a book can transport me. This is a landmark in the industry, and will be a benchmark by which I judge the immersion of Fantasy films in the future.

Let me be clear: This movie has many changes from the book. Some minor, some overreaching. Some good, some bad. Most were necessary, even if they did not work for one reason or another. As an adaptation, it may disappoint hardcore fans of the book. As a movie in its own right, it is a success. As a piece to the greater whole, it can be spoken of in the same breath as The Two Towers, even if there is never any doubt which is better.

I'm giving The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug 8 out of 10. If you like Fantasy, Dragons, or incredible CGI, watch this movie. If you don't, watch it anyway, and you will.

Catching Fire Review

It was awesome. The end.

What? You want more? Ok. Everything that was good about the first movie has been improved in the second. Everything that was bad about the first one is less noticeable in the second.

Possibly the greatest strength of The Hunger Games was the casting. Donald Sutherland as Snow, Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. Catching Fire added Philip Seymour Hoffman as Heavensbee and Sam Claflin as Finnick, both of whom are perfect choices for their roles, and play them wonderfully. In fact, every performance in the movie was good at the very worst, excepting perhaps Willow Shields as Prim, who could be a bit wooden at times.

After the casting and the acting, the fidelity with the book was The Hunger Games’ strongest point, and again it is even stronger here. Catching Fire was loyal enough that, as a reader of the book, I was able to relax and trust the filmmakers to take me where I needed to go. They had to cut a few things of course, but most of what they cut is hardly noticeable, and some actually tightens the flow of the plot. I wish that they would have explained a main plot element just a little better, because I worry that some people might be confused. But other than that, I can see the reasoning behind any cut they made, even when they cut something I wished they’d have been able to keep.

The music was solid. There were only a couple of points during which I remember noticing it being particularly good, but I never had an issue with it.

One of the points in the original movie that I disliked, but that I grew to look forward to in the sequel, were the scenes away from the main character. In the books, the entire story is told from the perspective of Katniss, but in the movie adaptations, they chose to explain things to the audience that Katniss did not know. In the first movie, I felt—and still feel—that this was a weakness. But in Catching Fire, most of these end up being scenes between Snow and Heavensbee (between Sutherland and Hoffman), whose interplay is enjoyable and informative, particularly for someone who has read the books or watched the movie previously. I love these scenes.

Perhaps the weakest point of the movie was the same as the first one—that the filmmakers had to make small changes to the execution of the story in order to maintain a PG-13 rating. A couple of seconds here or there were cut or toned down, and one sequence in particular suffers from a shaky camera that never quite seems to focus on the action. But even this has been improved upon, so that it’s only truly noticeable in the one sequence, unless you’ve read the books and are looking for the places they toned down.

I was on the edge of my seat for much of the movie, and walked out of the theater completely satisfied with a film for the first time this year. I give Catching Fire an 8.5 out of 10. If it weren’t for a few minor gripes, it would get a 9.

--------------------

Ok, here’s the part where I warn about spoilers ahead. :)

These are mainly minor gripes that didn’t really influence how much I enjoyed the movie. Altogether, they cost the movie half a point.

I wasn’t totally happy with the execution of the fog. It seemed like there was an invisible line—on one side, they weren’t hurt by the fog, on the other, they were getting burned alive. I would have been happier if there had been a middle area where the fog caused minor damage. I was also disappointed by how effective the salt water was—that it just washed away the poison. I would have preferred if there had been marks left on them, irritation from where the poison had touched, even after the salt water had leeched it from them.

I was disappointed that they had to cut the foreshadowing for District 13. I could see why they did it, and even why it was necessary, but it made the reveal at the end a bit jarring.

Likewise, I wish they hadn’t needed to cut the explanation of the previous Quarter Quells and Haymitch’s victory. I would have been willing to sit the extra ten minutes for these elements to be explained, but I’m not sure everyone would have. They made the right decision, but I wish they hadn’t needed to.

I thought that a couple of scenes felt slightly rushed. Again, they had to be, for the sake of time, so I don’t hold it against the movie too much. 

-------------------------

All right! There's my opinion of it! What did you think of it? Feel free to comment and let me know!

While I Dream

I've said it before, but I mean to support myself with my writing. Eventually. For now, I write when I have the time and fantasize about having more.

And I do fantasize.

I think about the stupidest things.

Like, I want my name to never be larger than the title of the book, on the cover. I don't trust authors whose names are larger than the book's title. To me, it suggests that they value themselves more than the stories they tell, that they aren't willing to sacrifice for what they have.

It's stupid, I know. No one thinks in those terms. And authors don't even get to have an opinion about the layout of the cover, half the time. Having your name larger than the book title means the publishing firm thinks your name has grown into a brand, that it sells books better than the book title. It means you're popular. That's it.

But I spent years reading books, thinking, "Wow, this guy's arrogant. His name is twice as large as the book title, and four times as long as the series title." And I don't want my readers to think that when they pick up my book.

Another thing I think: I prefer the headers to contain the book title and chapter title, respectively, rather than putting the author name there. I'd rather my readers remember the name of my book, and not have to flip pages to remember the name of the chapter. They'll actively set out to learn my name, if I do my job right.

I know, another thing I likely won't have control over. But there it is.

Finally, I think about the picture in my About Me. I want to be smiling, I've decided. I want to smile at my readers. I want my picture to say:

"Thank you for reading my work, and if you've bought it, thank you so much for that. I care about you. I care about your hopes and dreams, your ultimate goals and those little things you always mean to do but never get around to. I really, really do. And I sincerely hope that my work has brightened this little piece of your life. Thank you."

These are the kind of things I think about while I dream.

Things I Can't Tolerate In Writing

I don't use these in my writing. I can't stand them. They're more than pet peeves; they crawl under my skin and irritate. They're poison to my enjoyment of the story.

This doesn't mean I hate you as a person, or even an author, if you use these in your work. It doesn't even mean I hate your story. But if your story contains any of these, you'd better have a compelling reason for me to continue reading. Because I usually put the book down.

1) Love Triangle.

I'm not going to be kind here. A LOVE TRIANGLE WILL NOT IMPROVE YOUR STORY. Period. There have been a handful of stories in the course of mankind where a love triangle was appropriate, useful, and entertaining. A handful in which a love triangle was an improvement to the story.

Yours isn't one of those.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

A love triangle is a contrived device to aid the also overused "will they, won't they" plot. The difference between the two? "Will they, won't they" can and has been told in new, interesting ways. Observe the Iron Man series, in which Pepper and Stark have a slow falling-together sort of romance. But there's always this question: Is Tony capable of caring about someone else more than he cares about himself? And is he able to express that?

Love Triangles, on the other hand, are trite and pathetic. The best execution I've ever seen has been in the Hunger Games trilogy, and that was strictly bearable. It would have been a better series had that not been a part of it.

I put down the Mortal Instruments series as soon as the triangle popped up. Note: I tolerated other serious offenses, but as soon as this happened, I stopped reading. AS SOON AS IT HAPPENED.

You are not immune to the harm it can do. You are not immune to me putting down the book.

2) School Days.

I've been through school. Elementary, Middle, and High School, I've been to them. I know what they're like. I didn't enjoy my time there. I wouldn't go back if I could.

Want to know a secret? 99.9% of readers feel the exact same way. If you put your characters in school, you need to be ready for the consequences. Just today, I put down a story when it revealed that the characters would be attending school.

School is not an interesting framework for a story.

School is not an original setting.

School is not innovating your genre, whatever genre you're writing in.

Consider: Must my character be in that age range?

Consider: Why can't my characters be out of school for one reason or another (summer break, school having burned down, kids skipping class--all are viable options)?

Consider: Why do these scenes need to take place during school hours? Could they not happen in the evening?

Ok, granted. if you're writing for Middle Grade or Young Adult, I might let you get away with this. Assuming you don't try to make me attend Math class. Then the book will burn.

Also granted, if you make it interesting enough, I will work through it. The Giver, by Lois Lowry, has a scene near the very beginning that's set in school. The difference? Lowry uses this everyday activity to point out that this is a totalitarian society that controls how people think, and it starts in school. Similarly, Halo: The Fall of Reach has children learning about the ancient Greeks in class. The difference? These children have been abducted from their homes and are being brainwashed into becoming the Sci-Fi equivalent to Spartan soldiers. (Both of these books are must-reads, whether you're into Sci-Fi or not, whether you're into Halo or not.)

You see where I'm going here? Your version of school will not impress me. Don't try, unless you're doing something truly incredible.

3) Character Mulch

I'm fine with an author killing off a character. I'm fine with an author who kills off a handful of characters in every book. I'm fine with an author who kills main characters, even unexpectedly. There's nothing like a main character death to set the "Anyone Can Die" mood in your stories. Nothing affects the reader to that degree, and nothing raises that much tension.

Heck, I've done it myself, more than once. Whenever the story demands a character die, I do it without the slightest hesitation.

What I'm not fine with, what I can't stand, what will make me throw down the book in disgust, is when an author kills off a character to set the mood, and doesn't consider the repercussions.

A comic book reviewer named Lewis Lovhaug (also known as Linkara) briefly described the main problem with doing this. To put it simply, you need to consider: Does killing this character provide me with more opportunities to tell great stories than I'd have if I left a character alive? Or in other words, DOES KILLING THIS CHARACTER IMPROVE MY STORY?

That's pretty vague. When you look at the surface, of course! Shocking the reader, producing emotion, is a good thing. So if you aren't sure what I mean by that, I'll go in better depth.

Does the character you're thinking of killing have an arc? A journey that he or she goes through during the story, coming out a different person? If the death is supposed to matter, the character should. And if the death isn't supposed to matter, then WHY KILL THEM in the first place???

If your character has an arc, has he or she completed that personal journey at the point you're thinking of killing him or her off? Nine times out of ten, you shouldn't kill a character before he or she completes the arc you've designed.

The only exception to that last rule is "Kill 'em All" stories, in which the unpredictability, horror, and inevitability of death is the point. This is a step beyond "Anyone Can Die". This is "George R. R. Martin must be ghost writing". This is a story set in the Vietnam war, or a guerrilla resistance of an invasion from China.

The last guideline I'll give is this: If the character has a name, don't kill them off-screen. I'm looking at you, Feist. I'm looking at you, Rowling. If the character has a name, particularly if he or she has been around for at least one year (real world or in-world), don't kill him or her off-screen. And for God's sake, don't make the death embarrassing if the character is famous for being capable or intelligent!

If you disobey any of these rules, I might not put your book down (these tend to happen more than halfway through the book), but I will refuse to recommend the book to friends. Unless the rest of your story is so awesome as to overwhelm these.

Rowling, for instance. Harry Potter has all three of these. And other problems, besides. But the rest of her story is so good, and these elements are introduced in such a tolerable way, that I still recommend the books to the curious.

Well, there's my thoughts on things I can't stand! Do you have any you'd like to share? Anything on my list you want to rant about? Feel free!

------------------

I try to link to pieces I get information or inspiration from, but sometimes I can't, and well, sometimes I just want to link to awesome stuff I've mentioned. As such...

Here is Linkara's comic review show, Atop the Fourth Wall. Consistently funny, and constantly informative to anyone who wants to learn more about comic books.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w

And here is Writing Excuses again, this time on killing characters. I tried not to repeat what they said here. It's not easy. Almost all the good points were taken. Seriously. Listen to this before you kill someone. Err, a character.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/2012/09/23/writing-excuses-7-39-death/