The Desert Mermaid

Rereading the Old Man's War series. I now suddenly very much want Zoë Boutin-Perry and Dairine Callahan to get together and compare notes.

Just finished The Human Division. DAMMIT SCALZI WHY YOU GOTTA LEAVE ME HANGIN'

So, yeah, awesome and funny and dammit I want more. So far always true with him.

I am also hoping that it'll make the episodic format of Doctors! easier for publishers to swallow. I've been worried about that for years.

Mostly I am ambivalent about the idea of fiddling with and changing classics. On the one hand you can get something excellent, like the Star Trek reboot that clearly loves the hell out of its source material. On the other hand, well, Star Wars. And you get tradeoffs, like with ET—CG allows for more mobility, but puppets are more convincingly THERE.* So there are arguments for both sides, and I can come down on either depending on a lot of factors.

Except in the case of Diane Duane’s Young Wizards series. When she decided to update the first books in it into Millennium Editions (which are available as ebooks from the store on her site--and on sale for a few days HOLY SHIT Y’ALL 60% OFF!), there was no ambivalence. I was all like FUCK YEAH.

Because while the originals are wonderful snapshots of the time and place they were written, the first one came out in, what, 1982?, and the most recent one in 2010. In that time our heroes age about two years or so, but their technology rockets almost thirty years from vinyl to iPods. It’s a little confusing.

And also, Diane Duane has such a fine time playing with The Latest Technology that I was just DYING to see where she’d take it.**

So, protip: if you are already a fan of the series, and have read--particularly--High Wizardry and now want to try the new version, I suggest you keep a copy of the old one handy for reference. Going back and forth to see all the changes is half the fun.

I’m saying High Wizardry in particular because, while there are other changes to the series (Nita’s Walkman becomes her MP3 player, her Alan Parsons Project LP morphs into a Coldplay CD, Duane no longer has to explain the phrase “boot up” but now has to give a brief overview of what subway tokens were, and Dairine, who was now born in 1997, has understandably but unforgivably become a fan of Star Wars: The Clone Wars instead of REAL Star Wars), the book all about using Cutting-Art State-Of-The-Edge computer technology for wizardry is the one with the most fascinating changes. A lot changed since she wrote the original in 1990.*** Computers are no longer relegated to your school’s science class. (No, seriously, in the original book they explain that Dairine is familiar with computers because her science class has one.) If even regular people are watching movies, Skyping with their friends in Iceland, publishing ebooks, 3D printing replacement skulls for accident victims, checking satellite positions, looking up who that one actor was in that one show, signing up for online tap dance classes, and playing World of Warcraft ALL AT THE SAME TIME, then why the hell wouldn't WIZARDS use that shit for magic HUH, HARRY POTTER?

The book’s main story still stands, though. The books are the same crazy smoothie of man-eating helicopters, automotive ecosystems, magical talking sharks, friendly white holes, interdimensional terminals at Grand Central Station, robot wizards, and oblique cameos by Marvin the Martian and The Fifth Doctor that has always made it so damn entertaining. Just with an updated graphics card.


*I don’t know why everyone pitched a fit over the change from assault rifles to walkie-talkies, though. Sure, man, whatever.

**I realized at some point thatThe Book of Night With Moon, which I read first in junior high, might have been the first real urban fantasy I ever read. And I am now surprised that I liked it. Most urban fantasy is a little too smugly clever for me.

***Other change: the big dang climax, which was based on a scientific paradox that has since been questioned, changed without actually changing the story much. Good on ya, Duane!

So my friend is an English teacher, and this year she decided to teach The Hobbit to her seventh graders. She asked me if I have any ideas about what to teach them. I think she was expecting a few thoughts. I NOW HAVE TWO SEMESTERS' WORTH OF LESSON PLANS.

Now to get a teaching certificate and go find some seventh graders.

At the moment we're discussing how Joseph Campbell's monomyth relates to The Hobbit.* I'm arguing the case that stopping at Rivendell counts as a Meeting With The Goddess. My case is that the Goddess is more a convenient archetype meant to suggest a well-known meeting of a sage guiding figure, and also that Elves are incredibly fabulous. I am glad she's more interested in my academic argument than my spurious bullshit, though, because otherwise I would have to pull out The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert as Exhibit A arguing Elrond's goddesslike qualities, and my friend is Mormon, so it would go unviewed.

Maybe we'll just skip right on to the Atonement. There are fewer drag queens involved.

(I'm always surprised at how overtly gendered Campbell's theory is. I think he's pretty cool, but to start with "The meeting with the Father Figure" and then immediately have to explain that the father figure doesn't necessarily have to be your dad or even a MAN tells me you need to find better terminology. Also, it tells me that George Lucas has always been one damned literal bastard.)


*Answer: pretty much exactly.

I have finally read through the entire Silmarillion.

Good GOD, that was boring.

It shouldn't be. There was a goddamn fistfight between the Dark Lord and a giant light-eating darkness-spinning spider, which ended when the Dark Lord tag-teamed 75 Balrogs with their flaming whips and swords to drive the monster off. That should be interesting to read. But Tolkien's need to be all high saga narrative style whenever he's writing about Elves makes it mind-numbing.*

Also, his total Mary-Sueing of the entire species of Elves still bugs me. He keeps insisting that they're the fairest and wisest and noblest of races and they could totally beat you at everything and they're the best times infinity, and yet the entire Silmarillion consists of them bashing each other with swords because they have FEELINGS. And they seem to be rather forgetful. Rather than improving their skills, they made all the nicest stuff right at the beginning of time, and then it all got destroyed and they forgot how they did it and so they just sat around making less-awesome things and stabbing each other with complexly-named swords. Tolkien's contention that The Old Ways Are The Best Ways leaves his world unnervingly stagnant.

I do like to entertain myself, though, with the idea that Elves (or at least some of them) are color-blind. This is my explanation for their obsession with white and grey and silver. It's a stupid thing to complain about, but I really do get bugged with the lack of color in their world, so it's fun to think that all the soft grey EVERYTHING is actually riotously colorful. And yes, I know I am full of shit, but dammit I had to do something to get through this thing.

It makes me wonder why the hell The Hobbit is one of my favorite books, when The Silmarillion bores the hell out of me and LotR annoys me with its terrible dialogue, incessant musical numbers, and long bookends of hobbit fuck-aroundery. Maybe Tolkien's just a better writer when he gives up trying to sound magnificent. Or maybe the visions in his head are far cooler than the words he can put to them. But they are impressive visions, so even after all my ranting, I gotta give it to him--the guy's imagination had STYLE.


*Makes me want to reread David Eddings' books, because of his contrasts between the High Fancy Narrative Style and What Our Heroes Really Said--the latter of which is a lot less forsoothy and a lot more grumbly.

I may not be able to argue with Christopher Tolkien, but I have to say I agree far more with this article about The Hobbit--especially since my recent curiosity about Tolkien's languages has led to another attempt to read The Silmarillion.*

I'll add, though, that one of the best things about the movies is the pure JOY with which they take you on a tour of Middle-Earth. I suppose Radagast the Brown could have been edited out, Saruman needn't really have made an appearance, the plate-juggling didn't have to be there, and the Stone Giants were over the top. But before you dismiss them as useless nods to bookish Tolkien nerds, I want you to remember James Cameron's Avatar.

My response to Avatar could best be described as an intense, burning indifference. Before it came out the producers made much of the fact that it was a carefully constructed other world, with its own ecosystem and language and culture. And yet, when you saw the movie, you realized that the glowing world of Pandora lacked personality. Three hours went by and at the end of it I somehow cared less about everyone involved. I was vaguely familiar with maybe two Na'vi (Neytiri and Tsu'tey), but I couldn't conceive of what Neytiri did when she WASN'T shepherding Jake The Dumbass around. I didn't know whether there were favorite swimming holes. I didn't know who made Neytiri's formal necklace. I didn't find out what other villagers did with their time. I didn't even know any other Na'vi names, in a movie that was purportedly meant to showcase their world.** Nobody told off-color jokes that didn't translate, nobody had a favorite fruit, nobody played an instrument, nobody secretly saved Grace's giant copy of The Lorax because it was fascinatingly alien. They were just a mass of Na'vi.***

And they hardly dwell on the world. The great wonders are passed by in favor of dragging the dull plot along. "Oh, yeah, we've got hammerheaded peacock rhinoceroses. Meh. Let's have another heavy-handed argument with the speciesist CEO!"

Now remember the delight with which Radagast shows off his rabbits, or Bilbo sits down to a nice little bathrobe dinner, or the weird little minion of the Goblin King goes zip-stringing off the scaffolding. The movie is really proud of itself and completely in love with its source material, and it wants you to share that joy. And that doesn't just mean sweeping panoramas, but also the minute details. And since even Peter Jackson can't cram every wonderful thing into a movie, the details that do show up have to suggest that this world is going on even when you aren't looking at it. The Hobbit does that. Avatar not so much.

That, I think, is what a lot of people are missing. And yet it's the delight of stories (hell, that's the whole point of our own Torn World--to showcase both a big world AND the wonderful little people living day-to-day in it). So if you ever feel tempted to gripe about those Stone Giants, just remember that they'd have improved the hell out of Avatar.


*I tried to read it in high school, but quickly discovered that Tolkiens Sr. and Jr. have all the abilities of a history textbook writer and more when it comes to making totally goddamn badass tales staggeringly boring. If my brain goes numb while reading about a battle with a giant spider, you need to spiff up your storytelling.

**There's a moment in the film when Jake has had his vision quest or something--not actually shown--and has Become One Of The Tribe, when Neytiri points out that he can now "choose a woman." She then lists a couple of women in the tribe--Jane is the best singer, Sharon sure knows how to kill the everloving shit out of a deer--while obviously hoping Jake will pick her. What was supposed to be a cute, romantic moment in the film was completely lost on me while I grappled with the idea that Jake even KNEW any other women in the tribe. BECAUSE I SURE DIDN'T.

***Na'vi language creator Paul Frommer seems to be battling this anonymity single-handedly, or at least few-handedly with the help of a small but dedicated squad of hardcore Na'vi learners. His blog is a lot more fun than the movie, and the sample sentences tell you a lot more about Na'vi life, as well!

In 2D, of course. I'd have gone that way no matter what, since 3D always gives me issues. I am assured it was the right decision.

Anyway, first thoughts:

-While I do think a lot of the character arcs in Lord of the Rings worked better in the movies, I can definitely say that Bilbo's character is Better In The Book. A lot of the reasons for this are understandable, considering the constraints of cinema, but there are a few things I definitely prefer in their original version. For one thing, I like that he didn't really consciously DECIDE to go on an adventure in the book--instead of appealing to his adventurous spirit, Gandalf pretty much flusters him into going ("You're late! If you run you can catch them!") and uses his own petty pride against him. I missed that petty pride. The noble thoughts it was replaced with were fine enough, but it's the way that little moment of "I'll show those Dwarves!" gets everyone caught by trolls, and how that contrasts with his later usefulness, that gets me. (Although the way the script took off with the fine points of Trollish cooking amused me.)

Plus, there wasn't nearly enough hobbity bitching. It's funny to realize how important it is that Bilbo piss and moan the whole way to the Lonely Mountain.

Martin Freeman did well with the script, though. I really liked some of his Ian Holm-y mannerisms.

-Even with the changes, gotta love moviemakers who are so enamored of the source material, down to the weird details. I especially liked the Stone Giants and their five minutes of fame. I always wanted to see more of them after the brief mention in the book, which was rather along the lines of, "Hey, look at those stone giants tossing boulders at each other. Don't see that every day. Pass the ketchup." I liked them as part of the action. And of course the addition of Radagast can't go wrong. (In other book-nods, I liked that Elrond commented that it was quite handy that the day and phase of the moon were perfectly aligned to show the Moon Runes, because in the book that always seemed awfully convenient.)

-Gollum was a perfect combination of lonely, hungry, tragic, childlike, and creepy as FUCK. I loved how very torn he was between eating Bilbo and actually interacting with another being after four hundred-odd years of feral goblin-chewing. I kept hearing that the Riddles in the Dark scene was pulled off well, and was DYING to see how. I was not disappointed there. Andy Serkis: finest unseen actor of our age.

-Could not stop laughing at Galadriel's rotating stand. Kept picturing her slowly spinning throughout the entire meeting with Saruman & Co. "I fear a dark time is--hang on, I'm coming back around, gimme a minute." Do they put her up in the middle of the room and hang tinsel on her at Yuletide?

It must be really annoying having her at a council meeting, too, if she just randomly drowns out the PowerPoint presentation with telepathy. GALADRIEL IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT TO THE GROUP.

-I guess one of the things about the characters is that, when you don't have an inner monologue/narrator, the motivations have to come out. But even then, these movies always wax wordy. I liked the sentiment of Bilbo's little Get Back To Where You Once Belonged speech. But my favorite version of the I Will Come With You exchange is undoubtedly the one in Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal, when Kira summons landstriders to get to the Skeksis Palace:

KIRA: They'll take us!
JEN: But--Kira, you don't have to go!
KIRA: I know.

And then they go.

I think that's another reason the Riddles scene worked so well--Gollum didn't blurt out every bit of his backstory, and Bilbo didn't carry on about how Pity Is Totally Staying My Hand Right Now, Bro. Trust the audience.

But then, if the characters quit making speeches, the movie would be over far too soon. And it was too darn fun to end. So dammit, let's have the next one! I want to see the Mirkwood spiders.

-WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE DWARVES' KINGDOM? I DON'T THINK I HEARD IT THE FIRST EIGHTY TIMES, MOVIE. SAY IT AGAIN.

Oh, swell. Just what we need: Another journalist talking out of his ass about YA fiction.

Call me crazy, but I'd say the reason different books appeal to different people isn't the people's age, it's that they're different people. There's no dichotomy between What Kids Like and What Grownups Like, like some sad Venn diagram without even its edges touching. There's no reason to assume that something adults like is automatically Not For Kids.

Kois is right about one thing: as an adult I don't respond to The Giver. And I didn't when I was ten, either. I've enjoyed crazy fantasies and space adventures--including the ones Kois maintains are Only For Adults*--since learning how to read. I'd go into the adult fiction section at the library and grab a bunch of paperbacks, then move on to YA and juvie fiction and grab a bunch more. Still do. My taste--my sense of what makes a good story--has remained remarkably consistent over the years.

On the other hand, I know people who loved The Giver when they were kids--and still do almost twenty years later.

So maybe it's not so much about your age. Maybe it's your individual taste. And maybe it's totally possible to make a book that appeals to kids and adults, so that the Venn diagram overlaps. And maybe--just maybe--that's why the books in both circles are so darn popular.

Protip: Aside from dismissing all the kids and grownups who don't fit into your Taste Somehow Does A One-Eighty In Your Late Teens theory, maybe it's a good idea if the title of your article doesn't insult, y'know, every children's author ever. Except Lois, I guess.

Special Note To Lois Lowry: My terribly belated condolences.


*Weirdly enough, when I was a kid I used to wonder what magical point in my life would change me so I liked boring grownup books. I couldn't imagine why I'd change, but most people seemed to imply that action and adventure were For Kids. So it's doubly strange that this article relegates the kinds of books where things actually happen to the adult world. Usually it's the other way around.

School's back in session, and you know what that means for the library!

That's right: we've been completely overrun by kids who look like they've never seen the inside of a library before. Some of 'em hit that fine line between not academic enough to have been in a library, but motivated enough to follow their teacher's recommendations. Others have been dragged there by well-meaning parents, who incidentally also look as if they've never been in a library before.

It's fascinating to me. I picked up Librarying at a very young age,* so it's a little weird when you get a 15-year-old coming up and saying "My teacher wants me to read a novel. Are these novels?" I keep coming across parents trying to help their kids find good books staring at the middle grade in dawning terror as they realize they are in way over their heads. And I forget they're easily confused by library jargon--you know, obscure terms like "fiction" and "picture book."**

It can either be awesome or terrible to be the one helping them. Yes, my soul dies a little every time I see a Required Reading List, but if the kid doesn't even try to find a book on the list they like--if they shove the list at me and say "I need one of these books" and when I say "Well, what kind of book do you like, so I can find one you might enjoy?" answer with a surly "Iun't care," they get Les Miserables, because WORK WITH ME HERE.

On the other hand, it's really fun when they ask what I'd recommend, and actually are interested in an answer. "Well, what kinds of books do you like? Dragons? History? Aliens? Egypt? True stories? Vampires? Mysteries?*** I've got something for that!" And when a kid comes back and loved a book you got 'em, one that you loved, then by god YOU ARE THE KING OF EVERYTHING! Makes me glad they--or their parents--were motivated enough to check out the strange new building their teacher mentioned.


*I still remember the first book I deliberately found on the shelf. I wanted to read Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, and I knew it was by Roald Dahl, so I went and looked under "D." I was maybe seven.

**Although some of the little kids come up with some clever ways to describe things when they don't know the term for it. I had one little girl (the Boss Princess, no less) quite deliberately declare "I'm looking for a book that opens things." Took me a while to suss out that she was looking for lift-the-flap books.

***I have to specify like that because sometimes when I just ask "What kinds of books do you like?" they literally have no idea. My other strategy when that's the case is to ask what kind of movies they like.

Finally picked up A Wizard of Mars. Kit, darlin', I love you, but you're acting like a dumbass again.

Not that this is a BAD thing sometimes. By the Powers, Duane's still got it. I love it when a series stays good.