Urban Fantasy

Modern myth was reinvented in this weeks story by the way gods are portrayed as existing in our everyday lives. When we normally hear about the myths of gods and what they do it usually takes place in areas far removed from ourselves. In this story they could not be any closer. It's actually quite genius that the gods exist in both America and England. There are not many contemporary readers that cannot relate to where these gods exist. Also in many myths we read the gods are removed because of their actions. A Greek god who is defined by how he reacts to a sacrifice will not mean as much as how a god reacts to a business scandal. I mean that's just really what creates this great interest, the fact that these gods are faced with everyday occurrences. This doesn't come as a great revelation considering that this is the basis for the whole genre but it really is its greatest strength. I mean really seeing Spider deal inside of the business world is just so grounding, no matter how exactly he does it. The interaction with the real world exists.

The Aquatic uncle

I can't think of any very prominent symbols, at least by my definition. I understand that the outstanding feature of fishiness is mentioned a lot. But as far as one concrete representation of this fishiness I just don't see it in the story. If it's there it's definitely not obvious. I will say though that it's obvious that fish are looked down upon but that's more of a theme than a symbol. I mean I guess he's using the uncle as a symbol of the past generation judging the new but it doesn't work for me. People don't act like that, it's completely exaggerated. Fish are the old generation and swimming might be ignoring new traditions. But it seems like a weak symbol to me. I'll run with it though. The uncle not coming on land is a symbol of the older generation shunning the new developments. Let's say that it's technology. Those on land are the iPhone users and video game players and those in the water have phones with cords and are just starting to watch TV. The land people really want the sea person to get an iPhone so that keeping touch will be easier but the sea person refuses to. Land people are young and sea people are old people. This is the symbol.

I honestly did not connect with the story at all. I could see how the author was trying to make the reader connect by fitting the uncle to a predetermined stereotype. He's the one relative we all have who is stuck in the past. Except that I don't have that relative so my connection ends there. As far as the relationships in the story the large spread out family is also something I do not have. I can see how this might easily cause connection with someone who does though. I mean if I'm going to stretch this here, and I mean really stretch this, I can say that I connect to the main symbol of old not accepting new as it applies to my job. I make virtual environments yet some old people think I'm trying to be a master painter from the 15th century and so they don't understand how the computer helps. The 2D is the water and the 3D is the land, I'm using the future and my traditional art teacher is the past. I guess if I had a girlfriend who switched into fine arts I could say she went back into the water.

If I had to make this I would go with animation. I would have to make the characters like able and flesh out the relationships. Yeah there would need to be a lot of work done on the uncle especially. He's not endearing enough which is the only thing that would save his character. I mean in the book he just seems like a huge jerk. Also the fiancé too. I can have her go to water but she is definitely not marrying the old fish, that's just not going to sell, or if it does it'll be to the wrong crowd. I mean this is setup like a kids story but it finishes like a drama. It's just not cohesive and that's going to need to change. It needs to stick to one tone. For animation it'll need to be cutesy the whole way through, no old young marrying. No straight up prejudice, at least without some cushioning. Also their names need to change. You can't have characters with names you can't pronounce.

Harry Potter and his hard choices

Let me start off by saying that I really enjoy the Harry Potter series. I grew up with the books, and as such I technically grew up at the same time as Harry and the rest. One thing that always stood out to me about the stories is that he was faced with so much hardship for kid. I knew kids grew up in hard places sometimes but this was obviously a new extreme. It was the first time I experienced any sort of abusive parenting in media. I mean he was living underneath the stairs. Along with this spirit of darkness and hardship comes hard choices. There's so many hard examples to choose from. For example in the first book Harry faces extreme decisions. When he discovers the mirror that shows you what you most desire. For him it is his murdered parents. Dark. So now he sits for hours trying to be with a family that he never had the chance to know. He is told that it is fake and that he needs to come back to reality. I cannot even imagine how hard is must be for a child who finally has a way of seeing his murdered parents to walk away from that. Most grown adults wouldn't have the power to do that. I mean to finally find your family after so long, especially seeing as he does not have one currently, and the only one he ever had known was abusive, and then to walk away from that is impossibly hard. Also at the end of the story Harry is put in a situation of life or death when Voldemort uses him to find the sorcerer’s stone.  He fights back and refuses, struggling until he passes out. Think about it. Here’s a kid faced with the worst murderer of all time, the one responsible for killing his parents, and he decides to stare him down and tell him no. He chooses to hold the stone. He could’ve been killed for that, and I would argue that many would’ve given the stone and tried to run.

Tolkien's Universe

Tolkien's universe is one of the most diverse that exists in literature. I personally think that his stories go far beyond the Hero's Journey. For example I read the Simarillion which definitely goes beyond these predetermined stereotypes. To start with the story does not center on a hero. In fact the story is much more focused on the negative energies. Morgoth is the center of most of the conflicts. Morgoth for those who don't know was Sauron's master, and one of the most corrupted creatures in middle earth. Too further the point I will point out that the other end of spectrum is not much brighter. Feanor one of the main elves of the story is twisted and corrupt in his own way. Although he creates beautiful things he covets them and his lust for them leads him to the greatest acts of violence. Another thing to notice is that unlike the hero's journey all of these characters start out extremely powerful. There is no learning curve, no refusal, no teachers. They are who they are from the beginning. Also there is much more tragedy involved in these stories. When the simarils are stolen the quest to retrieve them is not one that is successful. And that's one of the things that's great about Tolkien's stories. When there is a win it is not without consequence, and there is no guarantee that there will be a win. For example when the hobbits return from destroying the ring the come home to discover that their home has been ruined. In the hero's journey one would assume that they would come to see everything perfect and waiting for them. Another example is after when Frodo leaves middle earth. He is so scarred from his adventures that he feels the need to leave everything he knows to search for peace. He is completely ruined by the violence that he has experienced. In the hero's journey a character like this would finish the adventure and revel in his accomplishments, possibly rolling in money and accolades. This is not what happens in the slightest in The Lord of The Rings. It doesn't happen in the Simarillion. It doesn't happen in The Children of Hurin. It just barely ever happens.

Witches

As far as the witches in Aunt Maria go they are certainly archetypes. Their characters are powerful in ways that create the image of similarity with other characters, meaning that their similarity does not control them it empowers them. That being said how they are being portrayed is certainly representative. Women in power are not kindly looked upon in our society. They themselves usually come in different archetypes. For example the tiger mom is a powerful women, and the name says it all. There many examples to use but for one lets look at business. A male CEO is often successful whereas a female CEO is often considered more ruthless. I think it has to do with how we portray the use of power. A wizard for example when endowed with magical powers usually uses it for good to do incredible deeds. A witch on the other hand is usually portrayed as evil, using her powers in selfish ways. I think anyone can see this. Name a popular wizard, he was probably the good guy. A popular witch was probably the bad guy. It seems oversimplified but it is the truth.

The King in Yellow: Weird as Hell

What is weird? The King in Yellow that's what. When stories fictional motif, a motif which barely receives any explanation, can become so real to the reader that he finds himself wondering what it could be based off of and if it is manifested in real life in anyway at the moment, that's weird. But that is exactly what happens when someone reads The King in Yellow. I mean the title of the book is a question in itself, who is The King in Yellow? Well by the end I'm not so sure I want to know. This knowledge seems to break those who try to bear it. And that's also extremely weird. Murderers and monsters are scary. But knowledge? Since when can knowledge be so horrifying? The knowledge contained within the fictional stories involving Carcossa seem to be deadlier than any knife wielding serial killer. This is the root of the weirdness I think. Taking an element that seems so normal and making it deadly. It is strange, unsettling, and leaves the reader unsure of what he knows. In the case of The King in Yellow it makes him afraid of what he does not know or might know in the future. Not many stories do this well and those that do have reached true weirdness. Another example one might site would be The Masque of Red Death. We are presented with a force, plague, which embodies itself in a sentient being. This being acts malevolently and without bounds. The transcendence of sickness from its natural but unthinking force into a thinking killer is weird. Taking something and raising it to a deadlier degree, although in this case the element is already deadly, is what makes it weird.

Kwaidan: Horror values in the East

On reading Kwaidan a few things struck as very odd. It wasn't the fact that this story used ghosts of the most unusual kinds but how they acted. It made me extremely curious as to why these spirits might act so differently between Eastern and Western culture. Not only this but also how karma worked in this stories. The power of karma was exhibited extremely differently than one might see in Western culture. For instance in the story of the blind musician one notices a few peculiar things. The ghosts are not directly menacing. They do not commit intentional acts of violence during the story (although it is mentioned that they have in the past). In short their main act in the story is having the blind musician play for them. They do not harm him, and even promise him reward, although it is hinted that this might be a dangerous trick. In the end the ghost sent to fetch the musician does rip his ears off. But he does not do so wantonly or in direct act of punishment. He simply cannot see the musician. He can only see his ears. He wants to bring the ears back as a sign of good faith to his master that the musician was not there and that he was unable to fetch him because of this reason. He has no idea he rips of the ears of the blind musician. So why does he do it then? It is because the protection turning the musician invisible was not applied to his ears. This is another very interesting part of the story. In western horror this mistake would’ve been made to someone who deserved it. The laziness or stupidity of this mistake would’ve been applied to someone who warranted this level of stupidity. Or it might have been done maliciously. But it would never have been just a simple mistake. In the Kwaidan it is though. The blind musician who has done no wrong and has only made error because of his obvious disability is punished even more for no apparent reason. It is just because. This is not the only time mistakes like this appear in these stories. For example the man who married the spirit of winter also suffers such an occurrence. The spirit of winter, or ghost, tells him if he ever tells anyone of how they met that she would kill him. Later on in the story he unknowingly marries the spirit. Even later on in their relationship he tells of how he met a spirit in his past. The wife than breaks into a rage and tells him that he broke his promise and that she will let him live to take care of her kids. If he fails to do so, than she will kill him. This sort of occurrence would never happen in Western stories. He didn’t do anything wrong. In Western stories I might actually argue that this confession might have been rewarded.