Live It Up, Brother
A couple weeks back I wrote about "writing strategy" and talked about brand identity. It sparked a good discussion about writers and the identities that they portray both in the public and in their works of art. It's an interesting thing to me because of the implications it has, not only for the purposes of selling the work, but also for the impact that it has on the writer's legacy and the reader's perception of the writer!
Jessica commented a couple weeks ago about Edgar Alan Poe and how he wrote seemingly morbid stories while dealing with fairly morbid things in his own life. That got me thinking.
Jack London. Mark Twain. Ernest Hemingway. Toni Morrison.
The writers we remember, and often times the writers that make the biggest impact on the world (not necessarily in monetary ways, but drastic social change or commentary) often live extreme lives that in almost all cases are vomited onto the page in the form of stories.
They wrote what they knew, wrapping words around personal experience coupled with a lively imagination. It just so happens that what they knew was extreme. These people didn't just sit in their living rooms putting pen to paper. They were out in the world taking in the experience.
What's my point? I don't have one. I just admire my fellow artists and consider them inspirational. And I'm not knocking the people who don't strap up a sled and have dogs pull them across the frozen Yukon (I've never done it, and it doesn't sound all that fun to me), but it is fun to see what a writer's experience can lead to.
It can build them a brand identity, and it can create a legacy. See you on the other side of the page.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
I Am Legend...Will Smith Version
I Am Legend? Really?
I finally had a chance to see I Am Legend, the movie version, and I have to say I was really surprised (and, just so you're aware, as I write this post, I will be giving spoilers out for both the book and the movie). I think it's a very interesting comparison, but also one that's a little difficult. Why? Well, they're really different...
Virus...or bacteria? Either way, get to a doctor...
Since my last post about the book, I've read a couple more Richard Matheson short stories. He's a horror writer, for the most part, although I Am Legend does have elements of science fiction as well. The Will Smith movie based off the book (and of the same name) has elements of both as well, but let me try my hand at lead lines for both works of art:
Movie: Lone surviving doctor fights off blood-hungry "night seekers" while trying to find a cure for them after a cancer virus turns patients into monsters.
Book: Lone surviving man fights off loneliness as he tries to discover what has turned the rest of the world into vampires and how he can use science to discover how crosses, garlic, stakes, and mirrors have an effect on his new neighbors.
At the heart of the book, Robert Neville is a normal guy struggling not to lose his mind. Will Smith's Robert Neville is experiencing the same thing, but there are no mentions of vampires (only a couple "night seeker" comments). In the book, the entire plot revolves around vampires. It involves, in a way, a creative essay taking common vampire myths and applying science to them.
Plot, Pacing, and People
Both stories (book and movie) create an excellent, chilling atmosphere. The book takes place in Inglewood, CA.-the movie in New York, NY. Either way, the silence, as they say, is deafening. The world is a very creepy place. For the sake of the audience, Will is given a dog to befriend him (so that he doesn't have to talk to himself). How cool would it have been, though, had Will been silent the entire first half of the movie?
The cast of characters is very different. In the book, Mr. Neville is completely alone with the vampires. His breakdown is one of loneliness (which he fights the entire book), complicated by glimmers of hope (he befriends a dog that becomes a vampire as well) and ultimately ending in his deception. There are "living vampires" (people that have the germ but who aren't dead) and then there are the undead.
In the movie, Will Smith has some mannequins and eventually some real human counterparts. But, here the movie is entirely different from the book. In both, the "infected" trick Robert. In the book, their deception runs very cold, hitting at Neville's ultimate desire for companionship. So, when they pull one over on our hero, it's crushing.
Will is tricked once, but it's not nearly as bad. Plus, Will gets bailed out of his loneliness. In the book, Robert Neville never finds a cure for his fear.
The Endings
I love the ending to the book. No ending is better than the last sentence. It's excellent (I'm not even going to tell you what it is - read it!). The plausibility of the living vampires being able to trick Neville is a little shaky, but I'll take it. What's cool, though, is that the book never bails out on the premise that Robert Neville is utterly alone. There's no hope. Mankind, as we know it, does not exist anymore. Which is what makes the last sentence so powerful.
As for the movie, there is hope. A lot of it. There's hope to go around. There's a cure, there are still living humans...it's quite uplifting. Both Robert Nevilles (Smith and book) end up being heroes, but for entirely different reasons. Smith because of his resilience and the cure that he discovered. Book Neville just because he's the last survivor.
Final Thoughts
I liked the movie. It was good, but I have to admit that I was disappointed. The book was better. I was expecting the book, which would have been awesome, but we didn't quite get that. I would encourage everybody who has seen the movie to check out the book. I think it's worth it. It's not the best story I've ever read by any means, but it's pretty darn good.
Any other thoughts?
I finally had a chance to see I Am Legend, the movie version, and I have to say I was really surprised (and, just so you're aware, as I write this post, I will be giving spoilers out for both the book and the movie). I think it's a very interesting comparison, but also one that's a little difficult. Why? Well, they're really different...
Virus...or bacteria? Either way, get to a doctor...
Since my last post about the book, I've read a couple more Richard Matheson short stories. He's a horror writer, for the most part, although I Am Legend does have elements of science fiction as well. The Will Smith movie based off the book (and of the same name) has elements of both as well, but let me try my hand at lead lines for both works of art:
Movie: Lone surviving doctor fights off blood-hungry "night seekers" while trying to find a cure for them after a cancer virus turns patients into monsters.
Book: Lone surviving man fights off loneliness as he tries to discover what has turned the rest of the world into vampires and how he can use science to discover how crosses, garlic, stakes, and mirrors have an effect on his new neighbors.
At the heart of the book, Robert Neville is a normal guy struggling not to lose his mind. Will Smith's Robert Neville is experiencing the same thing, but there are no mentions of vampires (only a couple "night seeker" comments). In the book, the entire plot revolves around vampires. It involves, in a way, a creative essay taking common vampire myths and applying science to them.
Plot, Pacing, and People
Both stories (book and movie) create an excellent, chilling atmosphere. The book takes place in Inglewood, CA.-the movie in New York, NY. Either way, the silence, as they say, is deafening. The world is a very creepy place. For the sake of the audience, Will is given a dog to befriend him (so that he doesn't have to talk to himself). How cool would it have been, though, had Will been silent the entire first half of the movie?
The cast of characters is very different. In the book, Mr. Neville is completely alone with the vampires. His breakdown is one of loneliness (which he fights the entire book), complicated by glimmers of hope (he befriends a dog that becomes a vampire as well) and ultimately ending in his deception. There are "living vampires" (people that have the germ but who aren't dead) and then there are the undead.
In the movie, Will Smith has some mannequins and eventually some real human counterparts. But, here the movie is entirely different from the book. In both, the "infected" trick Robert. In the book, their deception runs very cold, hitting at Neville's ultimate desire for companionship. So, when they pull one over on our hero, it's crushing.
Will is tricked once, but it's not nearly as bad. Plus, Will gets bailed out of his loneliness. In the book, Robert Neville never finds a cure for his fear.
The Endings
I love the ending to the book. No ending is better than the last sentence. It's excellent (I'm not even going to tell you what it is - read it!). The plausibility of the living vampires being able to trick Neville is a little shaky, but I'll take it. What's cool, though, is that the book never bails out on the premise that Robert Neville is utterly alone. There's no hope. Mankind, as we know it, does not exist anymore. Which is what makes the last sentence so powerful.
As for the movie, there is hope. A lot of it. There's hope to go around. There's a cure, there are still living humans...it's quite uplifting. Both Robert Nevilles (Smith and book) end up being heroes, but for entirely different reasons. Smith because of his resilience and the cure that he discovered. Book Neville just because he's the last survivor.
Final Thoughts
I liked the movie. It was good, but I have to admit that I was disappointed. The book was better. I was expecting the book, which would have been awesome, but we didn't quite get that. I would encourage everybody who has seen the movie to check out the book. I think it's worth it. It's not the best story I've ever read by any means, but it's pretty darn good.
Any other thoughts?
Monday, January 7, 2008
I Am Legend...or Robert Neville?
Will Smith Isn't in this One
I just finished reading I Am Legend (don't click that link if you're looking to avoid spoilers) by Richard Matheson. It's sort of a novelette - not quite short story, not quite novel (which is basically the definition of novelette...moving on). And it's good. Not great, but very good.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but thought that I'd write a short post about the prose side of the house. First off, the story provides a great example of what time does to works of art. I didn't know much about it before picking it up. Matheson wrote it in 1954. He staged it in 1976. That's good context to have. Why? Well, without giving too much away, we've seen this same story about a billion times since.
At the time, in 1954, this was ground breaking. The world hadn't seen anything like this yet (similar things, sure, but not quite the same). I'm sure this hit pretty hard. Since that time, though, we've seen a lot of what I Am Legend puts on the page. With that in mind, let me write up a quick assessment:
Pros and Cons
Pros:
Hard core science fiction fans will love the story, because Matheson takes his time to back it up with scientific elements. I won't go into detail, but science does weave itself into the plot, and Matheson does it with excellence.
The tone and setting are great. Eerie, lonely, dramatic, and at times psychotic. As a reader you're engaged at the right level. It's cool.
The ending is brilliant. You have to read the last sentence to understand. It's interesting, and it fits perfectly with the rest of the storyline.
Cons:
Will Smith isn't the hero. I know, how fair is that. Will Smith wasn't even born when the story came out, but I saw the previews before I read the story... I was expecting Will Smith (in fact, he's on the cover). The hero's name is Robert Neville. It actually fits the character, but it doesn't fit Will Smith. I was expecting Will Smith. I can't fault the writer, I'm just saying.
I think it could have used a bit more action. We hear a lot of what the main character is thinking, we see him interact with his house a lot, and sometimes he does get out and the conflict rises, but I could have used a bit more action.
Some of the "science" to me is a little far-fetched. Some of it (I don't want to give anything away) is great, but other things (I'm just going to say the word "crosses" for those who have read the story) are a little implausible.
I Am Will Smith
Should you read the story? Absolutely. It's a short read at 158 pages (small type), but it's pretty good. Should you see the movie? I don't know, but I'm anxious to compare the two. I'm guessing that I'll like the movie better, but that's because I'm an action-adventure writer, so I like things to move very quickly. We'll see, though, you never know...
Have you seen the movie or read the story? Let me know!
I just finished reading I Am Legend (don't click that link if you're looking to avoid spoilers) by Richard Matheson. It's sort of a novelette - not quite short story, not quite novel (which is basically the definition of novelette...moving on). And it's good. Not great, but very good.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but thought that I'd write a short post about the prose side of the house. First off, the story provides a great example of what time does to works of art. I didn't know much about it before picking it up. Matheson wrote it in 1954. He staged it in 1976. That's good context to have. Why? Well, without giving too much away, we've seen this same story about a billion times since.
At the time, in 1954, this was ground breaking. The world hadn't seen anything like this yet (similar things, sure, but not quite the same). I'm sure this hit pretty hard. Since that time, though, we've seen a lot of what I Am Legend puts on the page. With that in mind, let me write up a quick assessment:
Pros and Cons
Pros:
Hard core science fiction fans will love the story, because Matheson takes his time to back it up with scientific elements. I won't go into detail, but science does weave itself into the plot, and Matheson does it with excellence.
The tone and setting are great. Eerie, lonely, dramatic, and at times psychotic. As a reader you're engaged at the right level. It's cool.
The ending is brilliant. You have to read the last sentence to understand. It's interesting, and it fits perfectly with the rest of the storyline.
Cons:
Will Smith isn't the hero. I know, how fair is that. Will Smith wasn't even born when the story came out, but I saw the previews before I read the story... I was expecting Will Smith (in fact, he's on the cover). The hero's name is Robert Neville. It actually fits the character, but it doesn't fit Will Smith. I was expecting Will Smith. I can't fault the writer, I'm just saying.
I think it could have used a bit more action. We hear a lot of what the main character is thinking, we see him interact with his house a lot, and sometimes he does get out and the conflict rises, but I could have used a bit more action.
Some of the "science" to me is a little far-fetched. Some of it (I don't want to give anything away) is great, but other things (I'm just going to say the word "crosses" for those who have read the story) are a little implausible.
I Am Will Smith
Should you read the story? Absolutely. It's a short read at 158 pages (small type), but it's pretty good. Should you see the movie? I don't know, but I'm anxious to compare the two. I'm guessing that I'll like the movie better, but that's because I'm an action-adventure writer, so I like things to move very quickly. We'll see, though, you never know...
Have you seen the movie or read the story? Let me know!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Business Strategy and Writing?
The Freedom of Choice
Many writers may start to get a little frustrated when I start to talk about their writing in business terms. Why? Writing is such a personal practice, a calling even. Business is just business. People trying to make a money or support a cause (nonprofits). If it helps you to think of your writing in the nonprofit sense, please do so, but this post should still apply to you!
I talked last week about differentiation, or more broadly, strategy. Let me define strategy: "Strategy defines how an organization (or individual...i.e. writers) intends to create value for its shareholders, customers, and citizens" (as defined by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in Strategy Maps, 2004). Another view from Michael Porter (popular business strategist) would be that: organizations should position themselves in a way that creates a competitive advantage.
Strategy for the writer is (as defined by me, J Sherer): "How a writer intends to add value to his/her publishers, readers, and society." The way in which the writer adds value (and the degree to which value is added) creates a competitive advantage for that writer.
For the writer, then, strategy is about making a set of decisions that add value for publishers, readers, and society. The writer has the freedom to make these choices, and in that freedom of choice and decision-making, the writer develops a strategy.
Writing Strategies
Let's take a look at some famous writers and their strategic approach to writing:
J.R.R. Tolkien: To create a fanciful world, write with vivid, unfettered creativity to mold a story that unfolds with epic purpose.
Michael Crichton: To utilize research and science to present action-oriented stories with a real base for believability.
Stephen King: To frighten the mass market by writing easy-to-read horror stories that play on common fears.
I could go on, but I think that should suffice for now. Notice all the decisions that were made by the writer just to get that one sentence completed. If we start to unpack those statements we see where the writer is adding value. Let's take Michael Crichton, for example. He writes for the mass market, so in that sense he has to choose a form of expression for his writing. To a certain extent it asks for a literate, intelligent reader that wants more than just pure action. The reader wants something tangible and well thought out to go along with the action. Otherwise, to that reader, it's not believable. What decisions is he making? Decisions that pertain to storytelling (bringing in research and science), plot (believable, but far-fetched), a character set (smart, scientific people), and even his voice (which sometimes sounds a little like a prose textbook).
That is how Michael Critchon adds value to his publishers, his readers, and society.
Hopefully, you're beginning to get excited about this strategy thing. If not, I'll just sit back and enjoy my own analysis, because I think it's fun. But, what are some writers that you've read that you would like to analyze? Toss them into the comments and let's talk about them.
Many writers may start to get a little frustrated when I start to talk about their writing in business terms. Why? Writing is such a personal practice, a calling even. Business is just business. People trying to make a money or support a cause (nonprofits). If it helps you to think of your writing in the nonprofit sense, please do so, but this post should still apply to you!
I talked last week about differentiation, or more broadly, strategy. Let me define strategy: "Strategy defines how an organization (or individual...i.e. writers) intends to create value for its shareholders, customers, and citizens" (as defined by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in Strategy Maps, 2004). Another view from Michael Porter (popular business strategist) would be that: organizations should position themselves in a way that creates a competitive advantage.
Strategy for the writer is (as defined by me, J Sherer): "How a writer intends to add value to his/her publishers, readers, and society." The way in which the writer adds value (and the degree to which value is added) creates a competitive advantage for that writer.
For the writer, then, strategy is about making a set of decisions that add value for publishers, readers, and society. The writer has the freedom to make these choices, and in that freedom of choice and decision-making, the writer develops a strategy.
Writing Strategies
Let's take a look at some famous writers and their strategic approach to writing:
J.R.R. Tolkien: To create a fanciful world, write with vivid, unfettered creativity to mold a story that unfolds with epic purpose.
Michael Crichton: To utilize research and science to present action-oriented stories with a real base for believability.
Stephen King: To frighten the mass market by writing easy-to-read horror stories that play on common fears.
I could go on, but I think that should suffice for now. Notice all the decisions that were made by the writer just to get that one sentence completed. If we start to unpack those statements we see where the writer is adding value. Let's take Michael Crichton, for example. He writes for the mass market, so in that sense he has to choose a form of expression for his writing. To a certain extent it asks for a literate, intelligent reader that wants more than just pure action. The reader wants something tangible and well thought out to go along with the action. Otherwise, to that reader, it's not believable. What decisions is he making? Decisions that pertain to storytelling (bringing in research and science), plot (believable, but far-fetched), a character set (smart, scientific people), and even his voice (which sometimes sounds a little like a prose textbook).
That is how Michael Critchon adds value to his publishers, his readers, and society.
Hopefully, you're beginning to get excited about this strategy thing. If not, I'll just sit back and enjoy my own analysis, because I think it's fun. But, what are some writers that you've read that you would like to analyze? Toss them into the comments and let's talk about them.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Marketing and Writing
Marketing + Writing = ?
A lot of you know that I make my cash as a marketer, but that I also do this thing on the side called writing. Both have a little bit of art to them, both have a little bit of science. Let's, for the sake of this post, think a little more on the scientific end of things for a bit. Most of the writers out there are going to start cringing, but just give me a few minutes of your time...
"It's called a voice..."
Differentiation is at the core of business strategy, or said more appropriately, "Business strategy is defined by differentiation." What does differentiation mean? It's a big word that writers may understand at its root level, but how does it pertain to writing?
Well, let me propose this to you. As writers, we create what the business world would call a "brand identity." Yes, unfortunately, you are creating one...each and every one of you writers. "But I only write for art!" Good for you! You're still creating a brand identity, though. Even a brand experience. And why? Well, if you are trying to sell your work, it will come down to needing brand awareness! (If you're not, you're just creating a brand experience that you alone can enjoy with your closest friends).
How are you going to stand out in a market completely saturated with excellent, marginal, and terrible writers? (all of whom have been published). There it is. You're going to create a brand identity.
"But, you don't understand, my work is from my own writer's voice! That's what sets me apart!" True. However, that's only a piece of a much bigger pie. Understand that when you create a work of art, you're making choices. Those choices will differentiate your work. They will differentiate your life.
They will build you a brand identity.
Next time, I'll go further down this path to explain how this may affect you, the writer (and you readers as well). Stay tuned...
A lot of you know that I make my cash as a marketer, but that I also do this thing on the side called writing. Both have a little bit of art to them, both have a little bit of science. Let's, for the sake of this post, think a little more on the scientific end of things for a bit. Most of the writers out there are going to start cringing, but just give me a few minutes of your time...
"It's called a voice..."
Differentiation is at the core of business strategy, or said more appropriately, "Business strategy is defined by differentiation." What does differentiation mean? It's a big word that writers may understand at its root level, but how does it pertain to writing?
Well, let me propose this to you. As writers, we create what the business world would call a "brand identity." Yes, unfortunately, you are creating one...each and every one of you writers. "But I only write for art!" Good for you! You're still creating a brand identity, though. Even a brand experience. And why? Well, if you are trying to sell your work, it will come down to needing brand awareness! (If you're not, you're just creating a brand experience that you alone can enjoy with your closest friends).
How are you going to stand out in a market completely saturated with excellent, marginal, and terrible writers? (all of whom have been published). There it is. You're going to create a brand identity.
"But, you don't understand, my work is from my own writer's voice! That's what sets me apart!" True. However, that's only a piece of a much bigger pie. Understand that when you create a work of art, you're making choices. Those choices will differentiate your work. They will differentiate your life.
They will build you a brand identity.
Next time, I'll go further down this path to explain how this may affect you, the writer (and you readers as well). Stay tuned...
Monday, December 10, 2007
Why We Write
Selling Words on a Page
It occurs to me that the title of my blog has many meanings. The first is literal-exchanging thoughts typed or written onto a page for money. That's an ideal that many writers dream of. Even successful writers have limited monetary success. Published authors who write excellent books making no more than $30,000 a year (without benefits!) or less. Of course, for every billion writers in the world there's a Michael Crichton, a Dan Brown, a Stephen King, a Jeph Loeb, a J.K. Rowling, a Robert Ludlum. They sell a million books, they make movies, and they make bank.
The second meaning of my blog title is still fairly literal and relates directly to the marketing side of things. Without a strong push for people to actually read the material, it doesn't get read. And trust me, there's no lack of trying on behalf of these writers.
There's another meaning that's not so literal. It refers to getting an audience to buy into a work of art. The art of selling the words to the reader. Creating a believable world, a compelling storyline, interesting and dynamic characters, and strong emotional connections. It's putting what's in your head onto the page and eliciting a positive response from your audience.
My Writing
I write because God gave me the desire. It's that simple. When I was a kid I used to pretend I was part of movie trailers. Give me a wiffleball bat and I became a knight fighting off hordes of ogres. Eventually, I started putting the thoughts onto a blank page of paper. And I didn't always just write. Sometimes I illustrated pictures. It didn't matter as long as I had the opportunity to express what was going on inside my head.
And then a couple things happened. I started reading more. I started writing more. I studied the art of it (I still do!). All of the sudden I was a writer. I even intended to major in Creative Writing in college (fortunately, I learned just before registration that writers don't make money). I've even tried to stop over the years, but I keep coming back to it.
I've published several stories, been interviewed by a local paper, and I started TimeSlingers.com with my friend, Nathan Scheck. I'm very fortunate. I consider it a gift from God, and I'm grateful that He's given it to me.
Part of what I've always hoped to do is to use writing as a means for ministry. I'm not a great evangelist, probably never will be, but I can write. So, it's with great pleasure that I am able to say that when stories like The Arena (published several years back in Dragons, Knights, and Angels Magazine) and Understanding (on sale now at Amazon.com as a part of the Infinite Space, Infinite God anthology) have been released to a larger audience.
It's not just about money. It's about the art itself, it's about ministry, and it's just fun. So, thanks to everybody out there who has read the anthology, and to those who have taken the time to check out TimeSlingers.com. I appreciate it, and I hope God continues to give me the ability to write, because I really enjoy it.
With that, I leave you with a little self-promotion (it's titled "Selling Words on a Page," okay?). Here are some reviews of Infinite Space, Infinite God (I happen to like the first one best):
Until next time...God Bless!
It occurs to me that the title of my blog has many meanings. The first is literal-exchanging thoughts typed or written onto a page for money. That's an ideal that many writers dream of. Even successful writers have limited monetary success. Published authors who write excellent books making no more than $30,000 a year (without benefits!) or less. Of course, for every billion writers in the world there's a Michael Crichton, a Dan Brown, a Stephen King, a Jeph Loeb, a J.K. Rowling, a Robert Ludlum. They sell a million books, they make movies, and they make bank.
The second meaning of my blog title is still fairly literal and relates directly to the marketing side of things. Without a strong push for people to actually read the material, it doesn't get read. And trust me, there's no lack of trying on behalf of these writers.
There's another meaning that's not so literal. It refers to getting an audience to buy into a work of art. The art of selling the words to the reader. Creating a believable world, a compelling storyline, interesting and dynamic characters, and strong emotional connections. It's putting what's in your head onto the page and eliciting a positive response from your audience.
My Writing
I write because God gave me the desire. It's that simple. When I was a kid I used to pretend I was part of movie trailers. Give me a wiffleball bat and I became a knight fighting off hordes of ogres. Eventually, I started putting the thoughts onto a blank page of paper. And I didn't always just write. Sometimes I illustrated pictures. It didn't matter as long as I had the opportunity to express what was going on inside my head.
And then a couple things happened. I started reading more. I started writing more. I studied the art of it (I still do!). All of the sudden I was a writer. I even intended to major in Creative Writing in college (fortunately, I learned just before registration that writers don't make money). I've even tried to stop over the years, but I keep coming back to it.
I've published several stories, been interviewed by a local paper, and I started TimeSlingers.com with my friend, Nathan Scheck. I'm very fortunate. I consider it a gift from God, and I'm grateful that He's given it to me.
Part of what I've always hoped to do is to use writing as a means for ministry. I'm not a great evangelist, probably never will be, but I can write. So, it's with great pleasure that I am able to say that when stories like The Arena (published several years back in Dragons, Knights, and Angels Magazine) and Understanding (on sale now at Amazon.com as a part of the Infinite Space, Infinite God anthology) have been released to a larger audience.
It's not just about money. It's about the art itself, it's about ministry, and it's just fun. So, thanks to everybody out there who has read the anthology, and to those who have taken the time to check out TimeSlingers.com. I appreciate it, and I hope God continues to give me the ability to write, because I really enjoy it.
With that, I leave you with a little self-promotion (it's titled "Selling Words on a Page," okay?). Here are some reviews of Infinite Space, Infinite God (I happen to like the first one best):
Until next time...God Bless!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
"Just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber..."
"Heroes does something like that..."
The Heroes finale aired on NBC last night, and after commenting last week about how I thought it might hurt them, I thought it would be necessary this week to discuss at length how it actually turned out.
First, one very interesting thing to note is that Heroes is written by multiple people, but last night they gave the writing credit to one of their big guns...Jeph Loeb. A friend of mine recently passed along some of Jeph's comic books, and he's had a ton of writing credits under his belt, so, needless to say, I was pretty excited to see him listed as the primary writer for the season finale.
Another interesting choice was made that I did kind of expect. It wasn't a hard ending. In other words, it was much more Empire Strikes Back than it was A New Hope. It ended, but there's a lot more to be resolved.
I won't go into details, because I don't want to add too many spoilers (although you should feel free to do so in the comments), but those were two things I found intriguing. But what did I think overall?
"...and totally redeems itself!"
Okay, yeah, I really liked last night's episode. I thought it was definitely up to par with Season 1 (although, Season 1 is still better overall). The writing was tight, it made sense, it cleared up some loose ends, it contained a good deal of action and suspense, and it left things open.
There were still some story arches that definitely needed more effort. We still didn't get connected to some of the emotional consequences of the show. Some of the things that came up (okay, one spoiler), like Nikki's, "I have a virus" didn't really pan out well. It needed more attention drawn to it, but they ran out of time. So, it wasn't all perfect, but it was pretty good.
Moral of the story? Not sure. But, definitely don't rush your story home at the last minute. If you've got a guy on third base, don't have him steal home plate just before a rain delay. Wait it out, keep the suspense up, and when the rain has passed, drive him home (all right, bad analogy).
If you're gonna send him home, though, make sure he's fast. Real fast. Bring in a substitute runner...like Jeph Loeb. I guess a really good writer can come in and clean things up really well, even with a struggling storyline.
Excellent writing. It's fun for a writer to watch another writer just kill. It's inspiring.
What'd you guys think of the season finale?
The Heroes finale aired on NBC last night, and after commenting last week about how I thought it might hurt them, I thought it would be necessary this week to discuss at length how it actually turned out.
First, one very interesting thing to note is that Heroes is written by multiple people, but last night they gave the writing credit to one of their big guns...Jeph Loeb. A friend of mine recently passed along some of Jeph's comic books, and he's had a ton of writing credits under his belt, so, needless to say, I was pretty excited to see him listed as the primary writer for the season finale.
Another interesting choice was made that I did kind of expect. It wasn't a hard ending. In other words, it was much more Empire Strikes Back than it was A New Hope. It ended, but there's a lot more to be resolved.
I won't go into details, because I don't want to add too many spoilers (although you should feel free to do so in the comments), but those were two things I found intriguing. But what did I think overall?
"...and totally redeems itself!"
Okay, yeah, I really liked last night's episode. I thought it was definitely up to par with Season 1 (although, Season 1 is still better overall). The writing was tight, it made sense, it cleared up some loose ends, it contained a good deal of action and suspense, and it left things open.
There were still some story arches that definitely needed more effort. We still didn't get connected to some of the emotional consequences of the show. Some of the things that came up (okay, one spoiler), like Nikki's, "I have a virus" didn't really pan out well. It needed more attention drawn to it, but they ran out of time. So, it wasn't all perfect, but it was pretty good.
Moral of the story? Not sure. But, definitely don't rush your story home at the last minute. If you've got a guy on third base, don't have him steal home plate just before a rain delay. Wait it out, keep the suspense up, and when the rain has passed, drive him home (all right, bad analogy).
If you're gonna send him home, though, make sure he's fast. Real fast. Bring in a substitute runner...like Jeph Loeb. I guess a really good writer can come in and clean things up really well, even with a struggling storyline.
Excellent writing. It's fun for a writer to watch another writer just kill. It's inspiring.
What'd you guys think of the season finale?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
