#I’ve read other books but they’re most tie ins to other media

[victory-cookies]

a few chapters into the great gatsby and it pains me to admit that it’s good and I’m enjoying it

[sarahreesbrennan]

You wrote on twitter that you were too young to be published and did fool things you later regretted. I'm curious about those regrets - is there anything you'd be willing to elaborate on?

I do want to clarify I meant I personally was probably too young, and I wasn't a babe in arms when I was published--I was 24, which is an adult! S.E. Hinton was 18 when her first book was published and she arguably invented young adult fiction. Jennifer Lynn Barnes was a teenager when her first book was published and she's always been a genius rock star. Some people are married and having kids and doing great at their jobs at 24, but some people are in college, or learning the ropes of their jobs and full-time work life in general and messing up because it still feels unfamiliar. Most of us, me included, will be making messes until we die, though we can hope for better messes.

My regrets aren't super secret--I would've conducted myself differently online and offline. One thing I've said before: I wouldn't link up my real name and my fanfic identity the way I did back when. That means having your juvenilia out there and judged, and yourself judged in a very particular way! It is hard to sit in the doctor's office and ask him for written proof you have cancer, because the internet will accuse you of faking it. (Yes that did happen. That poor man's face was like, 'Girl, why do you not live your life right.') As I've said, I have an assistant-with-antis who filters my social media and email so I don't have to come upon hostile stuff, and I do wonder if there are ways to inspire less hostility.

But to be clear regarding that example, I think fandom is awesome in many ways, and it's valuable to say you wrote fanfiction, just don't get too specific. One of my most cherished facts about a (fancy, brilliant, very bestselling) writer friend is that she wrote Sonic the Hedgehog fanfiction once. Many of my writer friends used to or still do write it! (Fanfic in general... I'm not outing a bunch of writers as avid Sonic fans...) And being open about my identity did mean I had some beautiful supportive readers from the jump, who were sweet to me and made friends with each other (Marmalade fish shoutout). I love that people connect over fiction, and that they connected over mine. My advice to others is to do it like Oscar winner Chloe Zhao, and be like 'yes I write it, yes the call is coming from inside the building, yes creative engaged people engage creatively in many ways, no you'll never know my online name!' And that's mostly how it's done these days--there are masses of fanfiction writers in TV, in movies, working as editors and agents in publishing, and who are writers, because people who are passionate about creativity are passionate about creativity in many ways. A decade ago and nobody was sure how it was going to go: I do think it went well generally, if uneasily for test balloons like me.

Overall, as regards regrets, if you're alive, you're making mistakes, and if you're growing, you're learning from them. Often the more you care, the more mistakes you make. There are some things only life experience can teach you, and I've seen people who came into writing with experience from being, for instance, lawyers which they were able to use in many ways, and there were times I wished I'd acquired experience or lost naivety in a job that wasn't my dream job. Sometimes I really didn't know what was going on, and later I was like 'Ohhh! Oh Lord.' I would say a few things I wish I'd known: How to draw boundaries like circles of salt that others couldn't cross. The personal and the professional are going to blur, but it's still important to try and differentiate them. How to pick your battles: recognise the unwinnable, find the most likely strategy for victory with the winnable ones. Know that people won't like you just because you're making life more convenient for them, so don't do it for that reason. OMG abide by contracts and make sure the contracts cover every eventuality. Learn the art of standing your ground calmly. (One day, I'll get it.)

But getting published at any age is complicated: I have one friend who was sure she was going to die after she got her publishing contract because it was her dream accomplished, and what was left? I have more life experience in my 30s, but I also had most of those years totally slain by cancer: my writing went off a cliff long before I was diagnosed, and then I couldn't write, and since then I've been scrambling. If I'd been published first at 30 I might have handled myself in style, but there definitely wouldn't have been two trilogies before the long pause. One very lovely, very talented lady who was first published in the same year I was died shortly after. You don't know what's coming: Margaret Mitchell was hit by a speeding drunk driver and we'll never know if rumours she planned to write a sequel to Gone with the Wind are true. The people whose first books were out in 2020 had a tough time, and I would've freaked out if I'd been in their position and am glad I didn't have a non-tie-in novel out--it was very strange to have two tie-ins out that year as it was! People were reading books in 2020, but it was harder for new books to get on their radar.

I didn't write the tweet to alarm anyone, or say there was a magical time it was best to be published at. Lots of amazing writers aren't published, are published feeling they're too young, are published feeling they're too old. I think my tweet was really to say, there's no precise right time, and no way to execute your dreams exactly right. I do look back on stuff and think, oh lord, me at 30 might have handled THAT better. I hope that I'll look back at me now from 50 and go, I'd crush the stuff that crushed her!

Are there things I would change, sure. But I probably would make different mistakes if it had all happened differently for me. Humans constantly torment ourselves imagining the magic way we could've got everything right, a task exactly nobody has accomplished. I've never lived a perfect life or written a perfect book, and I don't know anyone else who has. I'm really glad I was published, and really proud of all my books. If you've never done something you've regretted, how much have you done? Keep going.

[fyeahbatcat]

BatCat has been unnecessarily broken up AGAIN, in the comics. After 80 years, most Batman writers are still hesitant to allow Catwoman fully into the Batfamily, alongside Batman. As if there has to be a protective shield for Batman, in order to keep Catwoman away. What do you think it'll take, for DC to remove the BatCat time limit? Allowing for Bruce & Selina to have a more sustained relationship. Is it all on Tom King? Do you think Matt Reeves can make an impact, with his iteration of BatCat?

I really struggled with whether or not I should answer this, because there’s no way for me to be completely honest and give you the answer you were probably looking for. In any case my answer is below the cut, but be warned if you’re looking for words of comfort and solace they will not be found there. I’m just going to be very frank in a way that some may not like. 

DC Comics and Tom King told us exactly who they are on July 1, 2018. At this point I’m really not sure what else you were expecting. Yes; I fell for it at the time. I drank the Kool-Aid. But if I didn’t know better back then I sure as hell know better now. Believe what the evidence is telling you; not what you want to be true. What is evidence says it that they’ve become so morally and creatively bankrupt that they’ve resorted to outright lying to their fans and screwing over small businesses to sell comic books. 

This is going to sound very harsh but now is the time to start developing a sense of self preservation. DC Comics is not going to change. It doesn’t matter how passionate, supportive, loyal, patient, or forgiving you are. Those things have no value to them beyond their sales margins. There’s no sense in hoping that something is going to come along and inspire them to have a change of heart. DC Comics is a greedy corporation: they have no heart. 

What do I think it’ll take for DC to make a long-term commitment to the relationship? Complete financial desperation. I’m talking Marvel-Going-Bankrupt-Couldn’t-Afford-to-Buy-Paper-in-the-90s desperate. That or, to a much, much lesser degree, a complete overhaul in leadership, editorial, and organizational structure. Neither or which I think are going to happen. Not soon anyway. 

You have two options here. Number One: 

When you stop expecting anything from them and then you’ll stop being disappointed. I know people who are some how able to just roll with the punches, and take the good with the bad. If you want to just be able to enjoy reading comics as much as you can you’re going to have to become one of those people. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are bigger, far worse things happening in the world and if comics are your sense of calm in the storm and you’re able to manage your expectations, it’s worth it to continue reading. Just acknowledge that at this point we know what to expect from them and there’s no point in making a shocked Pikachu face every time they do exactly what they’ve been doing for the last 40 years. 

Your other option is very simple: it’s time to divest from DC Comics completely. DC Comics is not going to change and they’re not going to eventually give you what you if you just hold out long enough. I had to learn this lesson the hard way, and I’m telling you this so you can make an informed decision on whether or not you want to spend the next ten years of your life being constantly let down like I did. They have no incentive to change. With that said, let me introduce you to what I call “DC Comics’ Cycle of Deception.” 

This isn’t a fine science or anything but it usually looks a little something like this: 

1. The Tease AKA “Fan-Baiting” 

DC Comics/affiliates “announce” something that sounds new and exciting  or game-changing by way of interviews, solicitations, events, social media posts, etc. 

 Examples: 

���Catwoman will be the co-lead of Batman”

Lois Lane is the new Superwoman

Major character *death* 

2. The Hype 

DC begins to hype “new and exciting” event usually through increased variant covers, planned collector’s editions, tie-ins, merchandise. Sales/ pre-orders and fan engagement begin to increase. Creators engage in interviews with mainstream media outlets such as Entertainment Weekly   

Examples: 

Approx. 152,069 exclusive variant covers of Batman #50

Damian Wayne Requiem series

3. The Catch 

When the time comes it is revealed that instead of delivering whatever new and exciting story was promised, DC Comics’ pulls the rug from underneath of fans. This is commonly in the form of a bait and switch or use of shock value. 

Examples 

Batman #50 

Lois Lane dies in first issue of Superwoman 

Character is revived from death after a few issues

Story is written off as AU or dream sequence and will have no impact on future stories

4. The Backlash 

Fan express intense anger online. The backlash is sometimes reported in comic/pop culture news media.

5. The Decline 

In the months following the backlash DC returns to the status quo. Readers lose interest in current books. DC Comics’ pre-order sales begin to decline. They increasingly lose market shares and are pushed out of top 10 pre-ordered titles by Marvel.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. 

The problem with fans is we keep getting caught up in steps one and two very easily. We (and this included me for a very long time) are constantly rewarding DC Comics by throwing our money at them every time they do the absolute bare minimum. All they have to do is trot out batcat every so often in the most non-committal way and we come running. Every. Single. Time. 

They have absolutely no incentive to change, because we as fans have made it exceedingly easy for them to leech off of us. We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

If you’re really tired of DC and their bullshit and you’re ready to divest you’re going to have to stop subsidizing their scams until they’re ready to make a commitment. Full stop. That means no rushing out to buy the latest issue of Batman and Catwoman kissing on a rooftop or beach or whatever. Stop buying variant covers completely (DC and Marvel [but DC in particular] uses variant covers to artificially inflate their sale numbers. Don’t play this game). Don’t buy their bullshit Wedding Album or 80 Years of Batman and Catwoman, or whatever else worthless “collectible” hardcover they publish. Put the onus on them to earn your money. If you really feel that you must keep up with what’s happening with the characters, pirate that shit. 

If and when a time ever comes that DC is ready to commit to change and commit to their stories (and actually commit; not just say they’re going to commit; make them prove it) then, and only then, should you consider giving them any more of your time, attention, or money. 

I don’t say this to be mean or harsh or judgey. I’m saying this because you asked me what I think and I’ve been where you are. I used to think that if I was loyal enough and patient enough that eventually I would be rewarded with this big emotional payout. It never happened. I don’t want you to end up where I am. Trust me; it’s not fun on this side of jaded. 

Maybe by sharing my brutal honesty about all that I’ve learned from my experiences it will save someone out there from years of constant frustration and heart-ache. At the very least you’ll know what you’re getting yourself into. 

[timeagainreviews]

Thoughts leading up to series 12

Happy holidays, friends! I know, I know. It's been a while. I would love to sit here and say I have been away doing important things, but really I've been hibernating. The results of that awful election, mixed with the holidays had left me feeling a bit lethargic as of late. That being said, I had a nice Christmas. Being an immigrant, I don't see my family on holidays. My boyfriend and I spent the day piecing together a Babylon 5 jigsaw puzzle. I made my pal Gerry a celery for his 5th Doctor cosplay and he gifted me a replica of the Li H'sen Chang poster from "The Talons of Weng-Chiang." It was a very Doctor Who Christmas! Sadly, there was no Doctor Who Christmas episode!

Alas, it hardly matters, as new Doctor Who is mere days away! As I did last year, you can expect weekly coverage for each new episode. I'm looking forward to getting back into the groove of consistent writing. Usually, the fandom is more abuzz when the show is actually airing, so please remember to check in with this blog, as I will be watching along with the rest of you!

If you recall, prior to series eleven, I made a list talking about some of my hopes and expectations for the new TARDIS team and the new production team. Seeing as series twelve is just days away from premiering, I thought I might do it again. Let's get to it, shall we?

The Thirteenth Doctor

Seeing Jodie Whittaker back in the TARDIS for another round of adventures has me massively excited. One of the downsides to Christopher Eccleston's run is that we never really got to see him develop the role of the Ninth Doctor. I'm hoping we'll get to see more aspects of her character. Seeing as I don't expect her to regenerate any time soon, there's still much of her personality left to explore. We've met the friendly adorkable Doctor, now let's see her bend a little.

One of my primary complaints about Jodie Whittaker's portrayal as the Doctor was that I didn't think she got scary. While I love her bravery, running headlong into danger, I would like to see a shade or two of her dark side. Up to this point, she's been too friendly to be scary. I know I'm not the only person with this complaint, so it will be interesting to see what a year of hiatus and refocusing will do for her. Honestly, I hope they don't change her too much, as she's pretty great. I'd just like to see them flesh her out a bit.

Other than her personality, I'm also hoping to see some costume variations. The trailer for the new season does give us Jodie in a bow tie, which I am all for. I've also seen a picture where her trousers are black. I'm hoping they continue to tweak her costume here and there, as watching the Doctor's costume evolve over time has always been one of my favourite things about the show.

Chris Chibnall's return

Was there anyone from series eleven that drew more ire than Chris Chibnall? Sure you got the people who hated Jodie solely because she was a woman, but on the level of legitimate concerns, Chibnall was up there. I myself threw a bit of mud in his direction, and I don't feel as though it was without good cause. The general management of the show seemed a bit aimless, despite many promising elements.

Something about the way series eleven was received gave the BBC pause to reevaluate the show's trajectory, and I have a distinct feeling that Chibnall was at the heart of a lot of it. From his lack of a season-long story arc, to the villains being a bit shit, to an overly dour tone, his first year as showrunner left something to be desired. The fact that we didn't even get a single webisode during this gap year shows me that they're still not 100% sure what to do with Doctor Who.

However, having said this, Chibnall's core TARDIS team is one of the most exciting aspects of series twelve. I can't wait to see more from this great line up of characters. And if the exciting trailer for this new series is anything to go off, we're in for quite a ride. Chibnall's most recent endeavour as showrunner was last year's "Resolution," a much-needed bit of classic Who villainy in the form of a Dalek. I was left feeling optimistic that Chibnall was capable of delivering solid storytelling. And that's the operative word- optimistic. As long as he doesn't get needlessly gritty, I'm cautiously optimistic that this year-long hiatus has yielded positive results.

The Companions

Like many other viewers, my chief complaint about the companions has to be Yaz. She really got shafted on the level of character development last year. When you have someone as talented as Mandip Gill, it's a shame to waste her. I know the fandom was quite vocal about this fact, so I fully expect to see the show give her more time in the spotlight. I don't know anyone who disliked her character, which is a good sign that the fandom wants more of her.

Ryan and Graham were two characters that I felt got a great bit of character development. The moment when Ryan finally calls Graham "granddad," was a truly exciting moment for two characters we had grown to love. The logical next step, at least in my mind, is to test the boundaries of this new relationship. I'd really love to see Graham meet a new love interest. Introducing someone into Graham's life would make Ryan have to broaden his definition of family even further. It might also be a catalyst for his own personal growth.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't also see one or more of the companions depart from the TARDIS. My gut says it would be Graham, but I wouldn't be surprised if all three of them left at the end of the series. As much as I love the current companions, I would love to see what energy a new companion or two might do for Jodie's Doctor.

The Villains

Prior to series eleven, I was feeling very optimistic for new Doctor Who. That is until I read an article where Chris Chibnall announced there would be no returning villains. Other than the announcement that Chibnall would be showrunner, nothing had made me more concerned for the show's future than "no returning villains." It's not that returning villains are a must for Doctor Who. It's actually a rather brave thing to attempt. The reason it's brave is that if you're going to leave out classic baddies, you've got to justify your decision by crafting new classics. And I'm sorry, but some Slipknot dude with teeth in his face is not classic.

From what I've seen of the trailer and promotional stills, we're looking at at least three returning creatures from the Whoniverse. We've all seen the picture of Jodie staring down the Judoon. If I am completely honest, those have left me with the least amount of hype, as they weren't ever even full-on villains. I've always found the Judoon slightly hokey, so I could take or leave them. The plus side is that there is still plenty of room to develop them as a species. Are there non-Shadow Proclamation Judoon? Are there evil factions? I'm curious if nothing else.

Another familiar face is the Cybermen. While I feel like both the RTD and Moffat eras used the Cybermen ad nauseam, they're still a classic baddie with a solid track record. It appears they'll have something to do with the finale and that "timeless child," storyline I'm uninterested in, so fine, sure, ok. The real alien species I'm excited for is the Racnoss! Much like the Judoon, the Racnoss are also underdeveloped. I wasn't a big fan of them the first time around, which is why I'm excited for more. I'm curious to see what depth can be found in these campy arachnids. If nothing else, the makeup is fun.

The Guest Actors

Series eleven treated us to a surprisingly tender performance from Lee Mack in "Kerblam!" We got a decent turn by Mark Addy, working with not a lot to go off as the underwritten Paltraki. But without a doubt, the best performance came in the form of Alan Cumming's King James. Not only was he as hilarious as he was loathsome, but he also elevated what could have been a more straightforward performance, by finding that sweet spot of camp and contemptible.

That being said, with actors like Stephen Fry, Lenny Henry, and classic Doctor Who alum Robert Glenister joining the show, I'm hopeful we'll get at least one memorable performance out of the lot. I've not followed many of the ins and outs of the storylines, so I have no idea who anyone is playing other than Goran Višnjić as Nikola Tesla. That being said, the addition of Tesla to the series seems an obvious fit. He was an eccentric man who was a bit weird about his pet bird. I expect his story to be one of the stranger ones we'll enjoy this year, or at least, it had better be.

The BBC's involvement

I'm hoping that in this last year, the BBC weren't just reevaluating Chris Chibnall's direction for the show, but their own involvement as well. They got rid of Bake Off and Formula One, Top Gear's audience followed Clarkson over to Amazon. All that's left are partisan news coverage, QI, Countryfile, and Doctor Who. Oh and I guess "His Dark Materials," but I don't know anyone who's talking about that show. As I said earlier, it's been a year of nothing from Doctor Who as a series. Other than comics and a less than perfect VR game, we've gotten nothing from the Thirteenth Doctor and the fam. Not even a novel or webisode to tide us over. How hard would it have been, while filming series twelve, to shoot a quick little skit on the TARDIS set? The Moffat era did this a lot, and it was always nice to see a little bit of Doctor Who while waiting for more episodes.

As the last vestige of the BBC's once-great television empire, you would think they might start to give a shit about Doctor Who. I know it's a crazy concept, but perhaps shelving one of your best shows for a year wasn't the best option. It would be nice to see them put more money and effort into the show. It would be a welcome sight to see them also put more money into the budget for things like merchandise or extended universe media. We've got three books for the current Doctor and that was last year. David Tennant had over thirty novels, while Matt Smith's Doctor appeared in over 15, and Capaldi only appeared in nine. Do you remember the last time we got a Character Options figure that wasn't a repaint of another figure? The most recent one we got was Harry Sullivan, and I'm pretty sure the only new element to that figure was his head. I've seen previews of the new companion figurines, and they're great, but I want more.

Perhaps I sound a bit spoiled. Many shows never expand beyond their allotted episodes, but this is Doctor Who, a show with a broader reach than your telly. It seemed last year that they were finally giving the show its dues. There were billboards of Jodie's face everywhere. The hype was palpable. Now, it's just four days from series twelve, and I've not even seen a bus ad for the new show. A woman I see out on dog walks was surprised when I told her the show was returning on the first of January. She had no idea. This is the Doctor Who audience that they're failing, not people like me who count the days like an advent calendar. The BBC needs to decide once in for all if they're going to give Doctor Who the respect it deserves, or sell it someone who will.

And that's it for now, friends. I hope you're all just as excited as I am to be back in the blue box. If all goes as planned, I should have a new review up the day after each episode. I'm optimistic that I'll have some great things to say!

[myaphelion]

On video games, Children’s Lit, and the hatred of new media in academia

"On the other hand, television, movies, and video games have eroded what is expected of children in terms of both language skills and attention span. What these visual media have done is provide watered-down and even simplistic renderings of many classics, as well as privilege plot over characterization, style, and narrative point of view. Video games are the most bastardized of these visual media because the focus lies exclusively with what happens next. Thus, although making children more aware of the world around them has resulted in their beginning to read texts in a different way, the same means by which children have become able to challenge the existing paradigms make it more difficult for them to read those texts."

-  William Thompson, ENGL305, Literature for Children (rev. C4)

So. About this part of the Children’s Lit course I just completed.

I’m not much of a stranger to people crapping on new media—it’s been happening since the beginning of time, and I’ve read about and seen it time and time again. First music, then books, then film, then television, then more new music, then music videos, and now video games and various forms of internet media. Still, in an academic setting, especially in a school that offers courses on gaming, I didn’t expect to see this. But here we are I guess??? (Academia is garbage, don’t ask me.)

Anyway. This gives me an excuse to compare the history of children’s lit to the history of video games directed at children, along with explaining why this quote bothered me so much in a bit greater detail.

Okay, so let’s start with the quote itself and pick it apart a bit. I can agree with the author’s assertion that more easily accessible media makes it harder to sit down and do something like read a book cover-to-cover—I know for a fact it’s happened to me and several other people. On the other hand, having media that’s more easily accessible like movies, TV, and (some) video games can lead people towards reading the source of their favourite things. Not to mention that some stories can’t be told in books—choose your own adventure stories are little substitute for the programming of a game where you can see your actions have consequences in real time rather than just reading about it on a page, which may not have as immediate or as harsh an impact.

“Watered-down and… simplistic renderings of many classics [that] privilege plot over characterization, style, and narrative point of view.” What, course author, have you been watching, besides the oldest of Disney movies, and even then—even then!—they have a style all their own. Just because something is different from the original ‘classic’ that you may love, does not necessarily make it ‘watered-down’ or ‘simplistic’. I do agree that some movies, TV shows, and video games bastardize the works they’re based on. But—and this is an enormous but—books can do the very same for other universes. Have you read some of the worse Star Wars Extended Universe novels lately? God knows they didn’t help the SW canon when they were still considered canon. And your comment about ‘plot over everything’ is just… ridiculous. Some of the books I read in the course, and some of the stories you pointed out from the early days of children’s literature, by your own admission, heavily favoured either plot, characters, style, or narrative POV to the exclusion of one or all of the others. It’s not just new media that do this—any poorly-written or poorly-conceived piece can lack one or more of these things. Even good media can have problems with one or more of these things that are made up by the strength of the other areas. Some media isn’t meant to have amazing characterization, or style, or narrative POV—some media really is all about the plot, and that can be very much a positive thing.

Now, the final bit of the quote that’s relevant. Let me remind you again what it says. “Video games are the most bastardized of these visual media because the focus lies exclusively with what happens next.” As… as opposed to what, author? Do you think that people just pick up books in order to analyze the absolute crap out of them until they can only enjoy them on that level? Hell no! The ordinary person, and especially the ordinary child, will pick up a book because they want to know what happens. Nobody except the person with their head so far up their ass they can see the sun out their own mouth is picking up a piece of media to just see what the writer’s intent was—unless they’re doing an academic course, I guess. Generally, however, if a book or other piece of media is boring as sin and the reader or watcher doesn’t want to see what happens next… they’re going to put it down and not come back. Yes, style is important, and yes, authorial intent and all the rest is important too—but those things are not exclusive to the realm of literature, and they are there in video games, too.

The real point of this, however, is that the author of this course seems to believe that video games are a form of media that can never reach the heights of literature, even children’s literature. Not so. Video games are a very new medium as opposed to any other media that’s current, save for internet content, which is a baby medium even compared to video games. This means that video games are still going through the kind of growth that children’s literature went through, albeit slightly more accelerated given just how many games are pumped out per year.

When literary works for children were first introduced in medieval times, and pretty much up until the eighteenth century, they were intended merely to educate and instruct. These books tended to be directed towards literate young boys, especially in the earliest ones, and were often Christian in nature, urging young lads to follow God’s word lest they be punished in the fires of hell. As such, children’s literature didn’t really exist as we think of it today, and kids were more prone to reading whatever interesting adventure stories or tales they could get their hands on, such as Aesop’s Fables or Robinson Crusoe. These stories were never intended to be read solely by children, but rather intended for an adult audience first. However, given that they weren’t objectionable by nature, kids devoured them because of their adventurous content, and loved that these stories were fantastical and jogged their imagination.

It wasn’t until the mid-eighteenth century and John Newbery’s printing company exclusively for children’s literature that kids finally had books to call their own that weren’t just moralistic or educational. While Newbery wasn’t doing it out of some saint-like desire to provide books to children, but for monetary gain, it allowed authors who really did feel like they wanted to write books directed at children that were just for fun to finally have some precedent for their publishing. I could go on from here, but suffice to say that by Victorian times, children’s literature had finally become a full-blown genre of its own. No longer were children forced to read books that could be dry and dull, or books that weren’t really meant for them. Instead, they had books that were all their own, with stories they could relate to and sink their teeth into.

Like I said, though, video games are still new media. Kid gamers haven’t yet had their own John Newbery, but there have been companies and solo developers that have tried. During the 70s, when gaming was the hot new thing, kids’ games didn’t really exist. Everyone played Pong and its ilk, and the educational games on the Magnavox Odyssey were the closest things to kids’ games that existed at the time. Again, a pattern begins to emerge, as we see that the earliest video games either weren’t directed at children, or were mere educational games, intended to serve as teaching tools and nothing more. However, when the video game crash happened and Atari was taken down, Nintendo rose from the ashes in North America to become a video game juggernaut that still exists today. While much of their marketing was directed at kids, with ROB selling the Nintendo Entertainment System as a toy rather than the dreaded ‘video game console’, most of Nintendo’s games weren’t directed solely at children either. The developers who focused on kids in the NES days, again, were primarily educational developers, making games like Mario is Missing! that used famous characters to try and teach kids everything from geography to counting.

The PC and home computer market wasn’t much better, though this is where things begin to get interesting. While console gaming soon almost entirely dropped games directed at children, save for a few titles that were mostly tie-ins to existing children’s properties and sold on name brand alone, even if they weren’t very good, computer gaming was more concerned with appealing to children. Given that home computers were sold as devices that were meant for the whole family to use, of course kids were gunning to play games on their new computers. When the multimedia and CD revolution happened in the 1990s, several big companies rose to the top of educational software, as well as true games for children that were not intended to teach, except as a good side effect. Let’s talk about a few of those now.

Knowledge Adventure, Broderbund, and The Learning Company were three game studios that primarily focused on educational games for children. However, each of these companies tried their best to make learning fun instead of dull, like most educational games had been beforehand. One look at KA’s Jumpstart series, or Broderbund’s Living Books, or TLC’s Reader Rabbit, and it’s hard to argue that these games aren’t fun as well as educational. As a kid, I played all three of these series, and while each of them was arguably intended to educate as well as entertain, I hardly noticed. I was having too much fun learning fractions by measuring out ingredients in Jumpstart 2nd Grade, or reading about D.W. The Picky Eater, or trying to find the Math Magician in Interactive Math Journey.

However, the reigning king of children’s software in the 90s and early 00s was undoubtedly the late, great Humongous Entertainment. Their business model was to create point-and-click adventure games for kids, games that educated on the periphery, but were primarily intended to entertain. Putt-Putt, Freddi Fish, Pajama Sam, and Spy Fox have become icons of children’s media from this time period, and each of them is fondly remembered by kids of my generation because of how fun these games were. Sure, they didn’t tell very complex stories, but the down-to-earth problems of Pajama Sam, the detective antics of Freddi Fish and Spy Fox, and the kooky adventures of Putt-Putt and the one-hit-wonder Fatty Bear were all relatable for kids, and took place in worlds that children wanted to explore and visit over and over again. These games had an art style that was instantly recognizable, with animation often rivaling the cartoons of the time, or at least comparable to them. Thankfully, they’ve been rereleased on mobile devices and on Good Old Games and Steam—they haven’t been lost to time.

Still, after Humongous’ dissolution, no companies have come up to take the reins of kid game developer. While kids have been playing games intended for everyone, or even games intended for adults, games directed primarily at kids that aren’t educational have become few and far between again. The 90s had a glimmer of hope that we might get the Newbery of kids’ games, but that glimmer was shattered when Humongous went down. With independent developers and the continued presence of companies such as Nintendo that are willing to publish games for just about anyone, however, it’s pretty much only a matter of time until entertaining kids’ games can take their place neatly in the pantheon of video games.

So what am I trying to say with this whole thing? I don’t know. I guess I’m just trying to dissolve the idea that games are a less important form of media than anything else. Just because they’re new, doesn’t mean that they have no merit. They haven’t had the time to grow like most new media has, and especially in the department of entertaining children, they’re lacking. I say that given a few years—maybe a few decades—we’ll see the Newbery of gaming rise, and children will finally get games of their own that adults want to play too.

Also that that quote is still crap. I’m not going to let that go ever.

[omniversalobservations]

Marvel Age Vol. 1 No. 124 (May 1993)

Crossovers!

In other entertainment media, this refers to bringing an audience that likes one genre (like country-western music) to another, hybrid genre (country-western-rock) usually through the strength of a given performer's performance. This broadens their base of appeal, giving the artist a more mainstream audience. Hip-hoppers dream of crossing over and attracting a pop audience. Action stars like Jean-Claude Van Damme dream of crossing over and attracting more women to his pictures. In comics, the term has a different meaning. Crossovers are done within the same genre, and the one doing the crossing over is not the artist or the work, but the characters in the story.

Imagine Clive Barker characters making guest appearances in Stephen King's books. Imagine the kid from Home Alone meeting Problem Child. We occasionally see some of this. Seinfeld's Kramer did a guest shot as Kramer on Mad About You earlier this TV season. On the rarest occasions you'll even get genre-crossovers on TV, the classic example being when a few doctors from the dramatic series St. Elsewhere showed up on Cheers.

But when it comes to character crossovers, the comics medium in the champion, Marvel is the champion's champion, and there's no end in sight as long as you readers demand we keep doing them. Make no mistake, the vast majority of you do demand them, and they still do their magic, attracting readers to try a certain title they ordinarily would not buy. And crossovers can still be a lot of fun for us creative-types, too.

Industry jargon time. There are two different types of crossovers. A closed crossover is conceived of as involving specific titles where each title is equally important in advancing the storyline. Recent examples are "Operation: Galactic Storm," in seven different AVENGERS titles; "Dead Man's Hand" in NOMAD, DAREDEVIL and PUNISHER; and "X-Cutioner's Song" in the core X-titles. An open crossover is one which has a basic storyline told in one major series, but its ramifications and complications can play out in any title that chooses to get involved. Recent examples include the INFINITY trilogy (GAUNTLET, WAR, and CRUSADE); "Inferno" in X-MEN and "Acts of Vengeance" in AVENGERS.

The merits and demerits of the two types of crossovers? Open crossovers are more difficult to coordinate, due to the greater number of titles usually involved. On the other hand, they are more creator-friendly: no one is barred from participating ("Sorry, fella, this crossover is closed."). Open crossovers also enable the readers to pick and choose which tie-in issues of which they wish to partake. They pick up the key elements of the story by reading the keystone series, and the rest is just gravy.

Tom DeFalco has a theory that every other open crossover has lots of participants. Writers and artists get involved one year, discover all of the coordination headaches involved, vow to never do it again, and so pass up the chance to participate the next year. Months later, they get their sales incentive checks, realize the benefits and, forgetting the aggravation, agree to participate in the next one, having missed the intervening event. So it goes, year after year, according to the Chief.

The merits and demerits of a closed crossover? Each part of a closed crossover is essential, so to buy one is to commit to buying them all, or else the storyline is not going to be intelligible. They're creator-unfriendly, not allowing others to jump in if they have an inclination. Taken as a whole, they are probably more coherant, since more centralized scrutiny is given to every integral part. Participation in a closed crossover is probably a better sales boost for a title, since every part of a closed crossover is equally important to the advancement of the storyline.

In a crossover, there's usually one editor who's in charge of the whole magilla, and that's the person who's the regular editor of the main title character around whom the crossover revolves. The editor in charge, of course, has a supervisor (one of the executive editors) to look over everything in an advisory capacity, but the editor in charge has to do all the hands-on work: distributing the rough outline to everyone involved, answering continuity questions, and reviewing all the tie-in plots to make sure they conform to the details of the overall storyline.

Sound complicated? I'm not done yet. All the participating editors of the crossover must also submit their book's plots to the other participating editors if there's so much as a cameo of a given editor's character in their story. And once the art is done, photocopies of the artboards must also be distributed to fellow editors in the crossover so they can make certain that costume details and so forth are consistent. We're talking major league coordination here, folks, and it's never any wonder to me that try as hard as we might, there is always a detail that is a little off in one title or another.

I've initiated major storylines in closed crossovers. I've participated in open crossovers whose premises I had nothing to do with. I've read and supervised crossovers for which I had no input or participation. Let me bend your attention span a bit with some of my specific experiences.

"Operation: Galactic Storm" was based on a plot germ growing out of my QUASAR continuity. Quaze is supposed to be the Protector of the Universe. What would happen, thought I, if some aliens wanted to enlist his aid in a war with some other aliens? How would he decide which side to assist? Would he try to prevent the whole thing from happening, or would he turn his back on the whole murky affair? Well, when Bob Harras, Fabian Nicieza, and I were casting around for premises big enough to involve all the AVENGERS titles, I offered my QUASAR idea. Obviously, if the war infringed upon Earth in some way it could be "opened up" beyond the QUASAR title. Bob, Fabe, and I then thrashed out a raw outline of key events in each of the nineteen (ulp!) chapters that comprised the crossover. This took a lot of lunches.

Then we held an AVENGERS summit meeting with all the writers and editors, in order to debug and flesh out the outline. The writers were required to cover the events that were slotted for their issues of the storyline, like it or not. In most cases, there was plenty of room for the individual writers to make their portions uniquely their own, but it was still a far greater imposition upon their titles than usual. The net result, in my opinion, was pretty successful.

Last year I also participated in the open crossover INFINITY WAR. I had nothing to do with the basic premise-- the extent of my influence on the core storyline was "Since this story's so darn cosmic, and Quasar has a unique role in the cosmos, make sure he's got something special to do, please." And so he did. Writer Jim Starlin had the mad Titanian Thanos choose Quasar, of all the assembled multitude, to wield the Ultimate Nullifier. Unique enough for me. And when I wrote my tie-ins, I was obliged to deal with events in the limited series. In one issue, Quasar's role was to "find Eternity." I relished this, since I have long been interested in exploring the means by which omnipotent abstract entities acquire humanoid forms. I used my assignment to do a real offbeat story. I was happy.

For my second crossover issue, I was a little more hamstrung. My issue came between two issues of WAR and, at the beginning of the second issue, Quas was in exactly the same predicament he was in at the end of the first. I had an issue of QUASAR where he couldn't do anything! I managed to get around this as best I could by having Q go on a fact-finding quest that no one knew he went on. Whew. Then for my third crossover issue, Quas got nullified in WAR and never came back in the course of the story(!). Obviously, I had to tell what happened to him after he got nullified, and bring him back to life. This challenge was compounded by the fact that, in his own series, Quasar had already spent a few recent issues being "dead," so it was incumbent upon me to make this new experience as different from the previous one as possible. Truth to tell, I would never have chosen to do another "after death" storyline in the course of the book if I hadn't been obliged to. I now find that having had a character come back from the dead twice makes the threat of corporeal harm pretty empty.

So that's my side of the story on the subject of crossovers. They sometimes seem like a necessary evil, and sometimes like an unnecessary good! I would be interested to hear from you what you think our best and worst coordinated mass crossovers have been (I have my own theories). But as long as the idea of crossing over from one title to another remains a way to boost interest among you readers, we're going to keep doing it. And hey, maybe one time we'll get it absolutely right.

Source: Internet Archive

(image via Trusty Plinko Stick)

[bookintroventure-blog]

Review: Tell Me Three Things

Title: Tell Me Three Things Author: Julie Buxbaum Genre: Fiction/YA/Romance Series: None Date(s) Read: 01/09/17 – 01/10/17 Rating: 3/5

Summary: Everything about Jessie is wrong. At least, that's what it feels like during her first week as a junior at her new ultra-intimidating prep school in Los Angeles. It's been barely two years since her mother's death, and because her father eloped with a woman he met online, Jessie has been forced to move across the country to live with her stepmonster and her pretentious teenage son.

Just when she's thinking about hightailing it back to Chicago, she gets an email from a person calling themselves Somebody/Nobody (SN for short), offering to help her navigate the wilds of Wood Valley High School. Is it an elaborate hoax? Or can she rely on SN for some much-needed help?

In a leap of faith--or an act of complete desperation--Jessie begins to rely on SN, and SN quickly becomes her lifeline and closest ally. Jessie can't help wanting to meet SN in person. But are some mysteries better left unsolved?

Review: I had a like/dislike relationship with Tell Me Three Things, by Julie Buxbaum. It is the first time I’ve read this author and as a rule, I try not to research an author, look at the ratings, or read any reviews of a book before I dive in – after I finished reading this novel and finally allowed myself to do this, a lot of things suddenly made sense. Come, come, follow me to…

The Breakdown: Jessie lost her mother to cancer seven hundred and thirty-three days ago (she counts – I thought this was a nice touch), and a little less than two years later her father eloped with a woman he barely knew and moved Jessie halfway across the country, from Chicago to LA, to live with her new rich stepmother and stepbrother. Jessie then starts at an expensive private school, where she is largely ignored save for a few girls who like to politely make fun of her. The next week, she receives an anonymous e-mail from a boy who says he wants to help her navigate the ins and outs of her new school. Jessie makes some friends and some enemies, gains a few love interests, has woes with her new family and friends back home, all the while carrying on an online-only relationship with a boy she only knows as Somebody/Nobody, finding many overlaps and growing closer every day.

I like ending on a positive note, so we’re going to start with…

The Cons: 1. The language. A little research told me, while not her first novel period, Tell Me Three Things is Julie Buxbaum’s first YA novel. When I discovered that, the linguistic stiffness that I kept running into in the novel made so much more sense. To put it simply: It tries too hard to be current. There are too many references to actors, musicians, social media websites. Tie in the casual use of marijuana, alcohol, and slang-terms, and the desperation to connect with a younger audience becomes almost cloying. 2. The secondary characters. I’ll admit, I liked Jessie (most of the time), and the character Ethan Marks, but the other characters were rife with archetypes, and it seemed as though Buxbaum’s only experience with what a Californian is like came from too many rewatchings of Clueless, mixed with the drama of some of the older CW shows. Everybody is gorgeous, tan, size 00, with perfectly straight blonde hair, gleaming teeth, and petite noses. The girls who cause trouble for Jessie are fake around other people and vicious one-on-one, jealous and spiteful and cruel with their words. The love-interests (yes, there are multiples here) rise and fall in their affections so quickly that you’re left wondering if the author added the idea of their even being a love interest in as an afterthought during the editing process, in an effort to make her main character appear more desirable. 3. The secondary characters, again. I love a good character development – it is, as the kids say, my jam. (Do the kids still say that? Let’s pretend they do.) I have to admit that I am a sucker for seeing the caterpillar turn into a beautiful butterfly, I love delving deeper into the background of the bad boy and finding out that he has a heart of gold, I love when the mean girl sees the error of her ways and works hard to make amends. I eat it up when it’s done right. It should be slow, purposeful, realistic. In this novel, unfortunately, there was such quick progression from one extreme to the other that the only (horribly unoriginal) thing I could think to describe it as, is a light-switch personality. Jessie and her stepbrother barely speak, and then it seems on the next page that they’re sharing heart-to-hearts on the patio. Jessie hardly sees her father, then suddenly they’re fighting, then suddenly they’ve made up. She has a perfectly pleasant text conversation with her best friend back home and then suddenly the best friend is mad at her. It was like a tennis match in my mind, my attention going back and forth and back and forth, constantly trying to file away this new information. It was a struggle to keep the storyline straight, remembering who was what kind of friend or enemy at any given moment. 4. The wrap-up. It felt like a rush job at the end. It should have been obvious to Jessie how it was all going to play out – it was certainly obvious to me – and then when we did get our big reveal on who SN was, and then it just...ends. Everything is okay with everyone and it’s all over. I don’t know what I was hoping for, but I know that what was delivered was lackluster.

TL;DR:

Cons: The language tries too hard to be hip, the secondary characters are two-dimensional and overly changeable, and the ending was *blows raspberry into an echo chamber*.

And now, The Pros: 1. The inner-monologue. Jessie, when she’s by herself and not interacting with anyone, has a very clever, very entertaining monologue. It’s relatable, the way she pokes fun at herself or has a silent sarcastic conversation with herself. You get to see her as a very intelligent, albeit a bit neurotic, individual. I also like when she allows herself to focus on her sadness and feeling of displacement, without it coming off as terribly dramatic and woe-is-me, like when she describes her bedroom at her stepmother’s house, and how it is not her room, but instead a room that she is being allowed to sleep in. 2. The rare quotable gems. There were a few lines in the novel that were very much out of place, but for a surprising reason: They were too wise, too rational. Those lines throughout the book developed in me the theory that, as a writer for adults, Julie Buxbaum is probably very, very good. The one that sticks out most in my mind is something Jessie’s best friend said to her following her mother’s death: “Just so you know, I realize that what happened is not in any way okay, but I think we’re going to have to pretend like it is.” Beautiful. 3. Somebody/Nobody himself. His anonymity was never really irritating to me, and as an anonymous penpal, he really was everything a penpal should be. He was a good listener, but offered up some good information about himself as well. He was supportive and encouraging to Jessie, and all-in-all, just a very good friend.

TL;DR: Pros: Intelligent protagonist, nuggets of wisdom, awesome penpal that I wish I’d had in high school.

Looking at this now, I can see how it would seem that the cons outweigh the pros, but the pros mentioned above made it so I was able to keep reading, and breeze through the book in just over a day. While I don’t think it is one that I, as a twenty-six-year-old woman, would re-read, I definitely think it’s got some merit and could make a good read for someone in the book’s demographic. Females, probably ages 13 to 17, I would think.

**While it’s sold out right now, I got my copy of Tell Me Three Things from BookOutlet.com for $5.49, which is incredible considering it came out less than a year ago and still sells new for about $17.99. You can make a wishlist and they’ll e-mail you when it comes back in stock!**