Category Archives: Miscellanea

“When a writer is rightfully outed as being abusive/hateful, I hate to see takes like “I knew there was a reason I didn’t like their work”. It only adds to the fallacy that equates quality of work with quality of character which is a HUGE part of how abuser artists are justified in the first place!”

“Artists are not vending machines of joy, obligated to dispense performance on demand. They are human beings. And their decision to step away from this moment is not divisive; it is a refusal to be conscripted into propaganda.” — Sharon E. Cathcart on artists refusing to appear at the Kennedy Center. There’s also the practical aspect that some artists perform and don’t get paid.

I’ve not seen Heated Rivalry but this seems like a good post on its success and why it baffles Hollywood.

Mo Ryan: “A thing that often makes me see red is execs saying “but we’re doing an elevated version of [x].” What if you… just did x? When an exec says “elevated version of” you can be pretty sure they mean “I think this is trash so we’re trying to not do the thing you want but make you think we’re doing it” Total agreement with this and the rest of the thread — as she notes, specfic gets a lot of this attitude (creators who sneer they’re taking some comic book character and Transcending The Genre).

Senator Eric Schmitt is horrified Netflix might buy Warner Brothers/Discovery because Netflix is too woke.

“The sweeping cuts this week that axed crucial reporting teams on the foreign, local and sports desks, eliminated all staff photographers and most of the video team, raised the prospect that The Post is on the brink of a death spiral as subscribers flee and advertisers walk away under Bezos’ ownership.” — from a look at Jeff Bezos choosing to kill the Washington Post as a functioning newspaper rather than put money into it (he could afford it) or sell it to someone he cares. As Josh Marshall put it, “What we’re seeing is something that should be familiar to any close of observer of the news over the last generation. Let’s call it the formulaic billionaire white knight press baron doom cycle.”

“Flaws do not define a character or make him boring: bad writing does that. Flaws don’t make interesting stories: conflict does. Flaws just provide one type of internal conflict; choices present another, and the best stories involving Superman and Dr. Strange are about the choices they have to make. (Or about external conflict, which is heaps of fun.) Superman has the “can’t save them all” story, which gets reused regularly (and is vitally important for understanding the character); Dr. Strange has the “must condemn someone to save the world” story (same).” — the Mighty God King blog on writing Dr. Strange (obviously it has wider application).

“Words like “wondered,” “believed,” “my mind,” “idea,” “might,” and “thought” place distance between the point of view character and the narrative. And between the narrative and the reader. You probably don’t use those words when you’re talking to yourself in your head.” — Barbara Ross.

Art by Gene Colan, all rights remain with current holders.

Some years back, the Mighty God King blog made a series of blog posts on his ideas for writing Dr. Strange. They’re excellent and I wish he’d taken them and turned them into something of his own (only a few of them are Marvel Universe-dependent).

One of his early posts argued that a Dr. Strange series could be “House with wizards” in the sense of it being about Strange and his apprentices. I can’t say that one grabs me but that’s not the point of my post. In the comments one of (I gather) the regular commenters sounded off that he wasn’t interested in Dr. Strange because “there really is no way to define what magic’s physical limitations are and as such, its difficult to say what is and what isn’t believable for the character and any conflict he’s placed in … a character who simply ‘wields magic’ by itself, like Doctor Strange, is doomed to inevitable cases of Deus Ex Machina.”

This is nonsense but it’s an enduring nonsense among people who don’t like fantasy. Isaac Asimov asserted once that by definition, magic has no limits — it it does, then it’s just an alternate form of science. Closely affiliated is the view that this makes fantasy inferior to science-fiction — SF is bound by the rules of science, fantasy writer have no rules. It’s sloppy, easy, unlike the thoughtful rigor of science fiction (or in the case of that commenter, science-based superheroes).

First off, while it’s possible to write magic as some sort of super-science “magic with rules” isn’t the alternative. The difference between magic and science is that science works independently of who uses it; magic is selective. As Dr. Strange once put it fighting a villain who’d stolen his amulet, the Eye of Agamotto, the Eye isn’t a gun; you don’t control it simply because you’re holding it. Controlling it requires understanding the magic — and Stephen Strange understands much more than his foe. Likewise Lisa Goldstein pointed out that summoning light with magic requires understanding and wisdom; any idiot can flip a light switch.

So the commenter’s argument that magic can’t be defined or limited is bullshit. In the particular case of Dr. Strange it’s even more bullshit: Dr. Strange in the original Lee/Ditko run never wins by deus ex machina, he wins by sheer determination or by bluffing or outwitting his foe. There’s no clear statement as to his specific powers but it never feels like Ditko (who’s supposed to have been the lead creator of the two) is making it up as he goes along.

It’s true magic can be used as a get-together but so can science. In Spidey’s first battle with the Vulture, Peter Parker simply deduces the Vulture’s flight technology and then builds a gadget that nullifies it. Now it’s true Peter uses his scientific genius but pulling out a power-stealing gadget is just as much a fudge as pulling out some heretofore unknown piece of magic would be.

Magic can be badly used. Stephen Gerber in his Defenders run had some powerful mystical moments but he could also be hand-wavey in terms of Doc’s actual power levels. But it isn’t inherent in writing magic. Some mages have specific rules, some are implied; what matters, as Brandon Sanderson said, is that the writer not pull a deus ex machina. “An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.” If you establish that Dr. Strange or Dr. Fate or Harry Potter can shrink in size, it’s cool to use that at the climax. If you pull it out of your butt without any set up, that’s bad writing.

I doubt anything I’ve said would convince the commenter. But then, I think they’re completely wrong, whether I convince them or not.

Art by Frank Brunner (top), then Ditko. All rights to images remain with current holders.