Good Writing in Game of Thrones

I didn't start watching Game of Thrones when it first came out, but I started watching soon after, and I'm caught up by now. Like many people, I was angry over the death of Ned Stark in season one, even angrier over the so-called Red Wedding episode, and thought that the way Jon Snow's romance with Igret the Wildling turned out was ill planned.

But things do happen in real life that make you angry, so I can't say any of it was bad writing. Not at all. Not like DaVinc's Demons, which I maintain is very bad writing. No, it's good writing. But I also maintain that I don't want to watch a show that makes me feel lousy, and those maddening episodes did just that. But the story line is a good one. The show is remarkably well produced, and the characters are  interesting, so much so that you want to see what happens next, and that's good writing.

And that will keep me watching. It's refreshing to see a character that doestn' fit any of the stereotypes be such a great character like the dwarf Tyrion.  He has become a fan favorite and with good reason. He's not tall, not particularly handsome, and is hated by his own father and sister. Only his brother Jamie seems to appreciate him, and Jamie is another interesting character. At first he was a hated villain. But after the crippling loss of his right hand, his sword hand, he is slowly becoming a character with whom the audience can empathize. In other words, he is becoming a good guy. And that's good writing. Because people evolve. People do change, and when a character can change from bad to good, there is believability there.

I know it's not the first time characters have changed from bad to good, but it's refreshing to me to see it when it happens. And it's happening in Game of Thrones. And the way it happens is good writing. And I'll keep watching. It's an epic story. And a good one.

Bad Writing in DaVinci's Demons

Are TV shows known for good writing? Well, some have good writing, I've seen it myself. But I'm watching this latest HBO TV show called DaVinci's Demons, and quite frankly, the writing in the show is pretty bad. I still watch it because Leonardo DaVinci is one of my favorite historical figures. I mean, he really is one of the greatest human beings to have ever lived, and a lot of people agree with that.

So when I saw the trailers advertising the show before it came out last year, I thought it would be a great show to watch. It is entertaining to a point, and I keep watching it, but it seems I find myself shaking my head either in disgust or with complete dissatisfaction. And the reason? Bad writing.

I don't mean the dialogue. I mean the story line, and the way some of the events unfold. Take the season ending episode from last year. You have Lorenzo Medici, the top guy in the city state of Florence where DaVinci lives, and he's hired DaVinci to work for him. But he has a mistress who DaVinci happens to have a fling with, and he finds out, and then threatens to kill DaVinci. So what's the problem? Well, DaVinci had just given everything to save Medici's life, that's what. I mean the Medicis were being attacked by a rival faction, and DaVinci storms into the place, (a church of all places,) and fights off the attackers, and then carries Medici to temporary safety while fighting off several attackers at the same time. They make it to a room, where DaVinci bolts the door to keep their attackers temporarily at bay.

And Medici's response? Just as he's thanking DaVinci and offering him anything he wants, he sees a ring that he recognizes as his mistress's, and concludes (correctly) that DaVinci is fooling around with her, too, and then makes a 180 degree turn and threatens to kill him, even as their enemies are pounding on the door to break it down, so they can kill him!

To me, that made no sense at all. Again, the man was offering anything he possessed for saving his life. But hold all bets when it came to his mistress? If it was his wife DaVinci was messing around with, MAYBE then that would have worked. But it wasn't. It was a woman for hire. (To put it nicely.) And then he wants to kill DaVinci? I don't think so.

There are several other examples in that first season, I just don't have time to cover them at the moment. And now that the second season is underway, the last episode has got me shaking my head yet again. More later.

Black Sabbath Concert Was Great

Saturday, April 26th, Black Sabbath, the British rock band that began in the late 60s, performed at the Hollywood  Bowl down in Hollywood, California. And I was there. I mentioned last Friday that I was going to be there, and that I would post a review of that concert.

Well, as always, Black Sabbath put on a great performance. Ozzy sang well, (he even did his classic leaps!) Lead guitarist Tony Iommi, the inventor of Heavy Metal, was as great as ever, bassist Geezer Butler was in fine form, and new drummer Tommy Clufetos was nothing short of incredible.

I first saw Black Sabbath live back in 1975, (the Sabbath Bloody Sabbath tour,) and they were great back then, and now, forty years later, they are still just as great. I also saw their 76 tour, (Sabotage,) the 77 tour, (Technical Ecstacy,) and the 78 tour, (Never Say Die.) Then I saw them twice with Ronnie James Dio, (Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules.)

I saw them reunite in 98, and then I went to every Ozzfest that featured the reunited Black Sabbath as the headliner band. I saw them again last August, (the 13 tour,) and finally last Saturday, (their final performance in America for the 13 tour.) I can't count off hand how many times that has been, but it's a lot. But every single time it was a great performance. Every time.

They performed a good mix of their older famous songs, and then three songs from their newest album, which they call 13, because of the year they released it, 2013.

And even though they are in their mid 60s now, they still rock. From their first album, called Black Sabbath, they played the song called Black Sabbath, along with N.I.B., and Wall of Sleep.

From Paranoid, they played War Pigs, Iron Man, Paranoid, Rat Salad, and my personal favorite, Fairies Wear Boots.

From the Master of Reality album, they played Into the Void and Children of the Grave.

From Volume 4, they played Snowblind, Under the Sun, and a snippet of Supernaught, which they combined with Rat Salad.

From Sabbath Bloody Sabbath they played a snippet of the title song, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, before they broke into Paranoid.

From Technical Ecstasy, they played Dirty Women.

And from 13, they played God Is Dead?, End of the Beginning, and Age of Reason.

This is not the order in which they played the songs, though. I put them in the order of the albums the songs are from.

Only the albums Never Say Die and Sabotage were not represented, but that's OK, since the performance lasted a good two hours, and I've never seen them play longer than that. Time is the only thing that interferes with their concerts, and the fact that it has to end at all, is the only thing bad about being at a Black Sabbath concert.

But I do have one concern. Bill Ward. The band's original drummer, and one fourth of the original band is no longer a part of Black Sabbath for reasons they never clarified. They brought in Ozzy's drummer, and even though he was fantastic, I'm a stickler for tradition. I wish Bill was there. But that's in a perfect world, and the world we live in just isn't.

Nevertheless, they were great as always, and here's hoping they stay healthy and put out another album. If they do, they are sure to tour again. If they don't, then I'll be even more glad that I made this concert. Had I not, then I'd be regretting it for the rest of my life. I have enough regrets already without having to add to that list.

Long live Black Sabbath.

Rock Concert-Black Sabbath Tomorrow

Black Sabbath, the original heavy metal band, indeed the inventors of the genre, are performing tomorrow down in LA, and I will be there. I'm taking my 17 year old son, and it could very well be Black Sabbath's final performance in the Western Hemisphere. They're going back to Europe to continue their tour, and if they ever come back to the Americas is anyone's guess. As of now, I don't believe that they have any more concerts scheduled in this half of the world, and when this tour is over, who knows if they'll ever tour again.

They've already lost original drummer Bill Ward due to reasons that have never been made clear, and Tony Iommi, the lead guitarist has been having some serious health issues. He's overcome them for now, and is able to tour, but even if he stays healthy, who knows if they'll ever tour again. If they put out another album, my bet is they will, but will they put out another album? It took them over thirty years to put out their latest album called 13. I hope they do, but I won't be holding my breath.

So since they do happen to be my favorite band, I will see them, and take in every moment of the concert, as I do every time I see them. And when it's over, I will only be able to relish the memories, and consider the time well spent with my son. He is graduating from High School this June, and it will be a good way to celebrate. Can't wait. Tomorrow's the day. I'll give another review on Monday. No doubt it will be a good one.

When Do You Give a Writer Advice?

I followed a writer's link to a guest blogging where she had posted an excerpt from one of her books. In the very first sentence of the excerpt I found poor wording and/or incorrect use of words. I don't want to quote her, because as far as I know, she may be reading my blog. But my question is when should one writer tell another writer that something is wrong with his/her writing?

The answer is never. One writer should never tell another writer anything negative about his/her writing. Unless that other writer specifically asks him/her to. If one writer asks another writer to be a beta reader, for example, the fundamental reason for that is to point out how the writing can be improved, to point out what isn't working, and that includes individual words, sentences, paragraphs, plots, subplots, and the whole thing.

So unless you are the editor of a manuscript, you criticize another writer's writing only if that other writer actually wants you to, and then you do it with tact. You don't just say, hey, this sucks, or this is some bad writing. You point out that this word is unnecessary, or this sentence should be reworded, or this meaning is not clear. You don't even have to provide the correct word or words, but you can if you're sure it would work, and always with the purpose to make that writing as best as it can be.

Even reviewers should be discreet about that. I know many are not. Some reviewers seem to take a great pleasure in slamming someone's writing, and they can even get downright nasty about it. I think reviewers should be honest, but if they think the writing is bad, they can say it without humiliating the author. I've read some reviews that pointed out some bad samples of writing, and I thought that it was going overboard. Reviewers probably think they aren't, but they are. If it's bad writing, say so, and the editor of that manuscript should be held accountable, also.

Speaking of editors, sometimes I've found that an editor will completely miss the meaning of a sentence or even a paragraph in the manuscript they are editing. That happened to me in The Vase. The bottom line is if my editor didn't get what I was saying in that paragraph, then I didn't do a good enough job of writing it. Which is a very good reason to rewrite it. If your editor got the wrong meaning, then you can bet your readers will, too. Your writing must be good enough so that no one will misinterpret the meaning of what you're tying to convey.

A writer needs 100% clarity. And if anyone's writing is short on clarity, or even straight up lousy, you don't tell them unless you've been solicited by that writer for that very reason. It's like an unwritten rule. Don't criticize another writer. Unless they want you to. Period. So when I see a writer's writing falling short on what it could be, I will say nothing. Nor should anyone else.

What Makes a Story Worth Reading?

When you talk about why someone reads books, especially fiction, you're talking about a book that tells a great story. Good stories will usually be found in any book, but it's the great story that really makes a book worth reading. And great characters are just as important. Maybe more important.

Examples of great stories can be found in the H.G. Wells stories. Edgar Rice Burroughs also told some great stories but he was famous for at least one great character--Tarzan. When you have a great character, then it's the character that sells the book, not the story.

Another great character is James Bond. It wasn't the stories that made the Bond books sell, it was the character of James Bond. And the same thing is true for Robert E. Howard's character--Conan. But Howard was a great writer and a great story teller. He was an innovator and a poet. The Conan stories were just some of the great stories Howard wrote. And Conan was just one of his many great characters.

When it comes to my two books, I think both Killer of Killers and The Vase contain great stories. As for great characters? I would say the main character in KOK is a great character. The world's greatest martial artist has got to be up there with the Bonds and Conans. And Trent Smith is just that. He's Judan, which is the highest ranking black belt in Japanese Ju Jitsu.

But Killer of Killers is also a great story. It's not just about revenge. In fact, I don't think it's got anything to do with revenge. Vengeance, yeah, but not revenge. At least, not in the beginning of the story. You see, Trent Smith isn't after the bad guys for revenge. He's a vigilante, to be sure, but he doesn't become a "vigilante" for revenge.

Unlike Spiderman, who fought crime because his uncle was murdered, or Batman, whose parents were murdered, or Daredevil, whose father was murdered, or The Punisher, whose family was murdered, and etc, etc, etc...nobody Trent Smith knew had ever been murdered.

It's the principle that drives Trent Smith. He has values. And he's a fanatic. An extremist. In fact, after the Prologue, I reveal that right away.  Here's the first paragraph of Chapter One:

It could be said he was an extremist. Those who came to know him might even agree. To be sure, he was a man who lived for justice. At least for now. He called himself Trent Smith, and he strode the L.A. Airport with a singular purpose. A former football star was arriving tonight, and Trent planned on meeting the infamous athlete face to face.

So, I'm admitting from the get go that the main character is not just a ho hum type of character. He's an over the top fanatic about justice. And that drives him, and it drives the story from start to finish. In fact, it drives the next story, KOK's sequel, Killer Eyes even further.

Speaking of Killer Eyes, I just wrapped it up yesterday, but I'm not calling it finished. No. I've learned too many time with KOK and The Vase not to be quick on the trigger. I've been guilty with both of those books of sending them to the publisher before they were quite ready. And just because you've finished writing a book doesn't mean it's ready to be sent to the publisher.

No. I'll reread it at least twice more before I submit. But don't worry, that won't take long. Look for Killer Eyes to be ready sometime this summer.

Disturbing Scenes in Stories

After reading about the rape scene in Game of Thrones, and hearing other people comment about it, I wondered if any of my stories had disturbing scenes. Well, there are no rape scenes in any of my books, but there is plenty of tragedy, and any tragedy can be interpreted as disturbing. As for how disturbing, I suppose it depends on what kind of tragedy.

Any kind of cruelty committed by someone against someone is disturbing. And the highest degree of disturbing might be measured by the scale of the cruelty. In both Killer of Killers and Killer Eyes there is plenty of killing, several murders, and vengeance killings. Each scene by itself can be disturbing. How disturbing? That's up to the reader. Perhaps not so disturbing compared to mass killings. I say that because in both books, there is mention of the Nanking massacre, which occurred during World War II. The invading Japanese army committed widespread atrocities in that event, mass murders of civilians, men, women and children, and it has been called one of the worst atrocities in the history of the world.

A book was written about it called The Rape of Nanking. It was written by a Chinese American woman, and shortly after publication, she committed suicide. I remember reading about it not that long ago. Just why she committed suicide, I don't know, but the point is the massacre at Nanking is not only a tragedy, but very much disturbing. And that is the backdrop to the story line in Killer Eyes.

You see, the main antagonist in Killer Eyes is the daughter of a Chinese man who had survived Nanking. The man had formed a Killers Guild which had the original purpose to hunt down and kill any Japanese veteran who had participated in that horror. When the man dies, (of natural causes,) his daughter takes over, but she is overly zealous. She is out of control. And the Killers Guild changes under her leadership to a bunch of perverted outsiders, who mostly aren't even Chinese. And their victims are no longer Japanese veterans of the Nanking nightmare.

Oh yeah, that's where Trent Smith comes in. But I can't divulge any more of the story or plot without giving away spoilers. I'm done with revisions now, but I'll still go over it again, like an editor, before I submit it to Melange. Rest assured, Killer Eyes is almost ready.