#but in terms of literary roles. he is 100% the antagonist
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
sangrefae · 5 months ago
Text
i feel like it must be said that i very much enjoy mithrun, he's one of my favorite characters, but the way the community at large handles him with safety gloves as if he'll break at the slightest criticism is very frustrating considering his role in the story is that of an antagonistic force
21 notes · View notes
mediaeval-muse · 6 years ago
Text
How to Review a Book (by a College Lit Instructor)
I’ve been watching/reading a lot of book reviews lately, and I’ve noticed that a lot of book reviews sometimes struggle to separate personal opinion and taste from bad writing. While reading and art is indeed subjective, I figured I’d offer some helpful guiding questions if you’re looking to more clearly articulate why a book didn’t work for you, while also giving authors the benefit of the doubt. I’m not trying to say this is the ONLY WAY to review a book - just offering some resources for those interested. I use a lot of these questions when asking my students to talk about books beyond the initial “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it” stage - but please don’t take this post to mean I’m lecturing you on how to talk about books. I don’t mean to talk down to anyone, just offering information to do with as you please. So without further ado, click the cut below!
Premise
What is the premise of the book? What does the book’s cover/marketing say it’s about vs what does the book itself present as the main premise? What is the author’s intention with this book?
Authorial intent is tricky because ultimately, authors have no control over how readers respond to their work. It’s useful, though, to think about what story the author may have been wanting to tell and evaluating the book based on how well he/she/they met that goal. For example, does the book put romance at the forefront of the story over other elements? Does the book spend a lot of time exploring the effects of trauma?
After reading the book, how well does the content of the book match up with its dust jacket description/summary?
Book jackets/summaries are usually controlled by the publisher, not the author, so it’s worth thinking about how the publisher is trying to market the book and how the publisher creates expectations in the reader. I think it’s unfair to blame authors if their book doesn’t match up with the advertisements or things on the dust jacket.
If there is a notable difference between the book’s content and its advertising/dust jacket summary, you can talk in depth about the discrepancy between the two and how publishing and marketing affect the reading of the book. That discussion is much more fruitful than just saying that the author misled the reader or that the book was bad because it wasn’t what you expected.
What are the themes of the book? How well does an author illustrate those themes and/or bring them to the forefront?
Genre
What genre is the book? Is it a romance? Sci fi? Fantasy? Contemporary? Literary fiction? Something else? Once you identify the genre, think about what tropes are common in books of that type. Then, think about what tropes the author uses, avoids, or subverts.
Tropes are not always bad - using a trope is ok as long as it works within the context of the story (and whether or not it works can be subjective). For example, the Chosen One trope is common in sci fi and fantasy, but just because an author uses it, that doesn’t mean the book is automatically bad (see, for example, the Harry Potter series). If the story is well-crafted, these tropes can be deployed well. You can talk about how well tropes were deployed in the story to boost your depth of discussion.
Sometimes subversion is not always well-done, especially if done for no other purpose than to be subversive or shocking. For example, a book may be subversive by challenging norms in our culture only to endorse more harmful ideas. Or, the subversiveness can be so random that it doesn’t integrate with the rest of the book.
Genre also creates expectation. If you pick up a fantasy novel, for example, you expect certain things to happen (such as magic). Talking about how genre sets up expectations and how well the author meets (or doesn’t meet) those expectations can also be fruitful to discuss.
It’s ok to call a book “popcorn fiction” or “junk food” if the author doesn’t seem to be trying to create high-brow literature. Not all books are written with the intent to be grand masterpieces, and it’s ok to enjoy popcorn fiction. I suggest removing the shame associated with reading popcorn fiction and instead talking about how these books are refreshing or light or pleasurable.
Not all literary fiction/high-brow fiction is good. Classics are classics not because they are good books, but because they were historically meaningful in some way. It’s ok to talk about how a book might be significant in terms of what cultural moments it is responding to, but lacks in the areas of style, narrative, etc.
Context
Consider the background or identity of the author as well as the historical moment in which the book is written. How do those things influence the way a book is written?
Sometimes, authors write about their own experiences; a black author might write about the experience of blackness in their book, or a queer author might mirror their personal lives in their books. Maybe an author is writing about being an office temp because they were one at some point in their lives. Thinking about how authors bring their personal stories into their books is useful because it highlights how the book may be a means of self-expression.
Not everything in a book can or should be matched up with an author’s personal life or background. Not all books are autobiographical, nor should they be. Think about when it is useful to match up author and work and when it’s best to see the two as separate. Just because an author writes something, that doesn’t mean they endorse/condone it or that everything they write is 100% reflective of who they are (especially when it comes to things like villains).
The time period in which a book was written has major impacts on things like aesthetics. Aesthetic tastes in the 1800s, for example, were not the same as today, so that means a book written in the 1800s was not written with you, the contemporary reader, in mind. That doesn’t make the book bad - that just means it wasn’t for you.
Likewise, older books may reference a lot of things that were common knowledge in their day, but are lost to us. That also doesn’t mean the book is bad.
Narrative
How well-crafted is the story? Is the pace appropriate? Is there a balance between action and emotional moments?
“Well-crafted” is subjective, but you can talk about how a narrative is plotted. The most basic storytelling tool you can use is this breakdown of exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution, though a book can play with this structure and make multiple rising actions, climaxes, etc. This breakdown is useful for identifying if there is too much exposition, too much buildup, a weak climax, etc.
Fast-paced is not always an indicator of good writing and slow pacing is not always an indicator of bad writing: sometimes books rush through events and create confusion or slow down events to mirror the feelings of a character. Rushing through emotional moments may be bad because it shows the author is not giving appropriate time to weighty topics. For example, if a book spends no time unpacking the emotions of a character who has just endured a traumatic event, that can be a bad thing for readers who want a balance of action and emotion.
Sometimes, twists and surprises are poorly executed - think about the twist in terms of the overall book. Is it a fitting twist that enriches the reading experience or does it seem shoe-horned in for cheap thrills? Does the twist make the story richer or distract from it?
Characters
Are the characters well-developed? Do they grow and change over the course of the book? Do they have flaws as well as strengths? Do they act according to how a person with their personality would act?
Characters don’t have to act rationally 100% of the time. Sometimes, a character can behave irrationally if under stress or is emotion or just has a consistent character flaw. Discuss when the character’s actions are consistent with their characterization and when the author just seems to be trying to create drama or make a plot point happen.
Negative character growth can be just as interesting as positive growth. Think about what an author might be trying to accomplish with it.
A “Mary Sue” can be interesting if a character from a particular demographic is not normally featured in a protagonist’s role (for example: Rey from Star Wars is often labelled as a Mary Sue, but SW hasn’t featured a female protagonist). A “Mary Sue” can also be uninteresting if the character is too perfect (some YA novels use perfectly beautiful badass white women with no character flaws over and over). Think about what the author is trying to do and whether or not a character type is common across the genre or not.
Antagonists are antagonists - let them act immorally and think about how they are crafted as foils to the protagonists. Are they a good match for the protagonist or are they run-of-the-mill evil? How might a generic villain serve the story well? When is generic villainy insufficient?
Unlikeable protagonists can be deployed well - talk about what made an unlikeable protagonist interesting to follow vs what made them impossible to connect to. This discussion is more useful than saying “I couldn’t connect to the main character.”
Explain what you mean when you say a character is “relatable.” Relatability isn’t always an indication of good quality and varies from reader to reader. Instead, think about what character traits appealed to you.
Style
Quality of writing style can be largely dependent on personal taste, so I think it is better discussed if you can attach some descriptors to it (ex: purple prose, poetic style, very descriptive, simple sentences, etc.). Discussing style in these terms can be more interesting than just saying “the writing is bad.” Some things you can keep in mind:
The advice “show not tell” isn’t always universal. Think about when an author uses telling well.
Think about the length of sentences. It’s easier for readers to move through sentences that vary in length vs sentences that are always short or always long.
Authors don’t have to lay out everything for the reader - consider when a book over-explains or under-explains (ex: The Tiger’s Wife does a good job of leaving some things left unsaid without distracting the reader).
Ask yourself if the metaphors or figurative language is well-chosen or if it’s cliche.
How well does the author create a mood? While moods can be a matter of preference (for example, some readers might like sad books), you can think about how well the author deploys moods in certain situations (like if a sad moment in the plot is made more impactful by the writing style).
Problematic Elements
When talking about problematic elements of a book, it’s ok to say that something turned you off of a book altogether. It’s also ok to say that it didn’t. Some things to help navigate discussion:
Consider how the author is depicting something like racism, sexism, violence, etc. Are they engaging with it in a meaningful way? Are they including it to be edgy or grimdark? Are problematic things romanticized and if so, what is the effect? For example, Jessica Jones uses rape to craft a story that critiques rape culture, whereas The Warded Man uses rape to show how barbaric the fantasy world is.
Everyone’s mileage will vary re: tolerating problematic elements. It’s ok to discuss where the line falls for individual readers as opposed to saying that every book has to meet the same standards. Some people may be ok with the spanking scene in Outlander, whereas some may not - that doesn’t mean the book should be banned or labeled universally bad.
Villains are tricky - discuss when a villain’s behavior is problematic vs when it’s just villains doing bad things. I would say that the Purple Man’s behavior in Jessica Jones is used effectively, even though it’s problematic, because of the show’s overall premise and themes.
If you have more suggestions, I’d love for you to add them!
19 notes · View notes
sometimesrosy · 7 years ago
Note
Hi Rosy, I read in one of your other asks that you have been talking of canon Bellarke since 3.05. We all know the combustion that 3.07 was on and off camera. The writers (maybe or not under pressure) then confused Bellarke a hell lot in S03 before they got their brains back in Perverse Instantiation. I feel like that's the worst season for them together. Then there was the indisputable love saga that is S04 where Bellarke was set in stone.
My question to you is, say L had lived beyond 3.07, would you still hold on to your theory of canon Bellarke since 3.05?
Hmm. My theory is not “canon bellarke since 3.05.” 3.05 was when I had the revelation that the story was centered around Bellarke and their relationship and required them to be together, which means that’s when I decided they were endgame and the whole show was actually their love story in the apocalypse, and HOW they became leaders and saved the world, with the ultimate goal of creating a better society. That was just when I sat down and looked at their symbolism and story structure and allusions. 
3.02 was the first time I actually made the connection that this show was being literary, because they gave us that Dante’s Inferno reference with the painting, and went “Look at this! LOOK! I SAID LOOK!!” Then my art history geek kicked into action, and then my comparative lit geek kicked into action and the gears stared grinding. It took me three episodes (including the one that triggered my PTSD) and a LOT of confusion on my part before I put the pieces together enough to see a picture. And at that point, I don’t think I recognized that the story they were constructing went past one season, but rather carried over across ALL the seasons. So a lot developed for me after that revelation.
My theory has Bellarke as the main relationship from s1, even the pilot, although that was before they figured out their long term plot and how serious it would get, they still put the seeds of the importance of Bellarke in ep 1, as her main antagonist, it was fully possible they might have done a simpler enemies to lovers story with them. Especially considering that Bellarke was the main romantic pairing of the book and initial concept.
Okay. But back to your question about CL. Would I still maintain my theory that Bellarke was the main relationship and romance story if L had lived.
Yep.
You say s3 was the worst for Bellarke, but I actually argue that it was the TEST for Bellarke. They were individually lost and traumatized and their relationship was torn apart. Hakeldama showed the moment where they ripped off the bandaids and revealed their true pain and hearts to each other– and we saw that Bellarke WAS real. Solid. And unshakeable.
But HOW? He rejected her and handcuffed her! She shocklashed him and ran back to Lxa! Because that was the first time in s3 when both of them were real. With ANYONE. And it held up a mirror for them to face who they were and what they had become. Then they went and faced that, and both chose to leave their influences and return to their people– in full on tragedy mode, but they CHOSE.
If L hadn’t died, I don’t know how they would have resolved her storyline. She’d pretty much ruined her leadership by putting desire (for love, for power, for fame and a legacy) above her people since Rubicon. She either would have died later or become an outcast after taking out the flame and losing her power, idk. Maybe she would have taken Echo’s place in spacekru. They would have had to give her a whole new story and path. It’s hard to imagine and it might have changed the story, but it would NEVER have changed the fact that Clarke and Bellamy are and always have been, the central relationship of the 100. This is no longer just my theory. This was confirmed, multiple times by JR. 
The story was NEVER about L. She was a supporting character in CLARKE’S story. I think this was the biggest misinterpretation of s3, and we got it from both CLs and BCs. People said that L was the hero now, Clarke was the Love Interest, and Bellamy was being villainized and NONE OF THAT WAS SO. That was a totally backwards interpretation of the season. Clarke was the hero and L was her foil. Bellamy was the hero and Pike was his foil. The grounders weren’t the good guys. And the skaikru weren’t the bad guys. They reversed the story to make their favorite the hero of the show. This ended BADLY for everyone involved. 
The season was a TEST of Clarke and Bellamy’s characters and of their relationship. And they both passed the test. Leaving both characters and relationship FAR stronger at the end of the season than the beginning. Season 3 did not LOSE Bellarke. It TESTED them, and then FOUND them again, stronger.
 The CL relationship, while significant and powerful and passionate, was never part of the main story. It was ONLY a part of Clarke’s character development. It didn’t affect the vast majority of characters in the story. Where the Bellarke relationship affects nearly everyone. L was the shadow to Clarke. She was the temptation. She was a mirror of what Clarke could become if she followed her princess in the tower leadership ways. JUST LIKE Pike was for Bellamy. Could Pike’s story have continued on? Certainly, but his role would have had to change just like L’s did. If you invalidated Bellamy’s role in s3, to focus on CL, then you missed the parallels and the way the story kept them on the same KIND of journey, clearly saying that it was THESE TWO at the center of the season, not CL or L.
 I never read CL as the OTP or the central relationship. That was CLEARLY bellarke. I thought that MAKING it the center of the show was another misreading, and it seemed like every conversation they had about feelings was influenced by power and power issues, rather than trust and honesty. What people read as romantic is a personal thing, though, so if people were attracted to that, it’s a ship and let ship proposition.
But as for it’s place in the story or Clarke’s journey or Bellarke as central relationship? It was never the main point. It was an obstacle to Clarke becoming who she needed to be to be a hero. People who consider CL to be the OTP of the show don’t like this interpretation, but I’m not sure how much clearer it can be that leads of the show, who the show runner has declared to be the central relationship and soulmates who love and need each other ARE THE ACTUAL MAIN SHIP AND OTP? It was never CL? Even without the death they decided to part ways because their loyalties could not be reconciled. 
I mean. I’ve been asked this before. In different terms. If L had lived, would CL be endgame. And I have to say. No. I’m clearly coming from the perspective that Bellarke is endgame and the center of the story. From the pilot. This is why I am not worried when Clarke or Bellamy are with other people.  I don’t believe in OTP soulmates one true love kind of thing. My concept of soulmates is more… you have this intense true connection with people, but it can happen with many people in your life and they are not necessarily romantic at all. And in that case, I consider CL to be soulmates because their connection was true, but it was not endgame, it was not Clarke’s one true love. THIS SHOW,HOWEVER, DOES believe in that kind of soulmate, the one true love, other side of the coin thing. And when they call Clarke and Bellamy the head and the heart, they are showing their hand that Bellarke are endgame, soulmates, one true love and according to the s4 cliffhanger, and 5.01 and 5.03, destined to be romantic, too.
51 notes · View notes
koganeirou · 6 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
I remember a few years ago I volunteered at a festival in my town’s local J-town and there was a cosplay contest and one of the winners was a Cardia cosplay. At the time, I only knew Code Realize by name, but I thought that the cosplayer was beautiful beyond words. And I think fate’s finally run it’s course now LMFAO.
Anyway I’m done this game! and what can I say. this game is incredible. It definitely lives up to all the hype and praise it got and I think this game is one of my favourite otomes I’ve ever played. It just sounds like I’m riding the hype train because this game is treated like the holy grail but I think this game is probably my second favourite, closely behind Nightshade. I’m not really sure what more I can say other than I loved everything about this game from the bottom of my heart and I enjoyed every minute of it. anyyyyhoo more of my thoughts underneath the cut because it’s become sort of like a ritual for me to share my obnoxious opinions every time I finish a game! 
**SPOILERS**
okay I actually feel kind of bad for saying it but I kind of felt Lupin’s route to be a tad bit underwhelming?? I really enjoyed how Lupin’s route tied up all the other routes and gave all the boys satisfying conclusions if only Seven’s route was like that but idk the whole climax of wrecking Isaac with something as simple as bombs that he somehow didn’t figure out were there, and just magically getting rid of Cardia’s poison by letting Isaac suck all the energy out of her boobs just felt a tad bit trippy for my tastes?? The whole shebang on the Nautilus seemed to just drag on and on, especially with the whole Aleister and Sholmes business like I’m sorry I don’t care for any of these dudes.
**END SPOILERS**
Moving along, I didn’t like…. the majority of the villains. With the exception of Victoria (who is an amazing side character btw. Amazing villain in Fran’s route, amazing supporting character in Lupin’s route. what a woman), I felt like a lot of the antagonists were either really one note, shallow, or just flat out annoying. **SPOILERS** And that’s what made Lupin’s route that much more of a slog because you have alllll these annoying ass villains herded into literally one spot. Like I’m sorry to any Finis fans out there, but his Kaji Yuki screaming and five billion Naruto clones just started getting really annoying really fast and my annoyance with Finis ultimately triumphed my sympathy for him lmao. Still, he did deserve a better ending than just flying off the ship to his death like wtf?? Isn’t he alive in the Silver Miracles fandisc?? did he just magically come back to life??? **END SPOILERS**
My second biggest complaint is that I felt like a lot of the romance sort of depends on the common route? It’s driven by the character-center scenarios in the common route where Cardia gets to know the boys and bond with them because once you’re booted in a route Cardia’s immediately like “I think I’m in love!” and it just sometimes feels like it comes out of left field without taking the common route into consideration. and idk I just wish the routes were a little more independent and detached.
BUUUUT MOVING ALONG. Each route had their strengths and flaws, and while Lupin’s route is obviously the “true” one, I actually didn’t feel like Lupin really overshadowed the other boys? I’m glad that writers didn’t give the other boys lukewarm stories and lazily written routes because they all got the love they deserved, imo. I felt like every route offered a piece of the main puzzle; Lupin’s route was simply the route that unearthed the final piece. Each boy’s route dealt with a separate piece of the overarching plot line/conflict, which just made the world building of Steel London so much stronger. And I loved every last bit of it. I loved the steam punk aesthetic, the historical European setting; I loved all the political drama, with the terrorists plots, government corruption, hints of mystery, thriller, cringy shoujo romance etc. It was an adventure story through and through and boy did it reel me in. 
Cgs are gorgeous, backgrounds are detailed, ost is amazing and really made the scenes that much more emotional. Also kudos to the damn voice actors/actresses because boy this game has some damn good voice work. Maybe I can stop associating Daisuke Hirakawa with his creepy Laito-Bitch-chan-voice and start associating him with the beautiful man that is San now LOL.
The writing in this game is A+++. Absolutely solid. Finally, an otome game with a overly convoluted and complicated plot but no noticeable plot holes or unexplained loop holes! What an accomplishment! Jokes aside, I usually have a lot of writing complaints when it comes to otome games because I’m a critical bitch, but aside from minor gripes I mentioned earlier, I did really enjoy the game’s story and it had so many incredibly powerful moments that just made me had to walk around and take a quick break because of how shook it made me lmao. I loved the themes about atonement, forgiveness, humanity, the whole “humanity versus god” conflict, and I think in terms of complexity and depth of narrative, this game is def up there. I loved all the historical, literary, and religious references this game made and while it may not hold the integrity of the original source, it still made the story that much more fun and complex.
In terms of main characters… haha, I loved them all. They’re all precious children who deserve happiness and the world and I ended up getting attached to every last one of them.
Cardia tho? She makes this game, 100%. She truly lived up to her role as protagonist because she was the damn star. I’m very open about my appreciation for otome heroines and am very against heroine hate in general, but even still, this is the first game I’ve played where my favourite character was the heroine herself, not any of the boys. I love how kind hearted Cardia is. I love her strength, her bravery, how her character is so intricately woven into the story. But more than anything, I adored the character development she got. Code Realize truly is… her story, not any of the guy’s, not even everyone’s favourite man, Lupin’s. She’s so multi faceted and nuanced, maybe even more so than the guys. But I also loved the little quirks she had and those moments where she acts like a classic typical shoujo manga heroine made me smile like an idiot. She’s a fighter who hangs on until the very end and she’s the type of heroine that you just can’t help but pour your whole heart into rooting for. I really enjoyed how balanced her relationships with the guys were, it never felt like one out shined the other.  Shout out to Fran and Lupin for having the most romantic kiss scenes ever LOL.
As for the guys themselves, my fave order is prob San > Fran > Lupin > Van > Impey. Though if you include all the characters , It’d prob be something like Cardia > San > Fran > Lupin > Victoria > Delly > Van > Impey.
 Fran and San are really close because I loved them for different reasons and I think I enjoyed their relationships with Cardia the most. Fran and Cardia had really good chemistry and I loved watching them develop and grow together, where they both stood as equals who elevated each other, whereas San and Cardia had more of a tragic love that they both had to bend over backwards fighting for and it tickled my melodrama loving side //shot. I really adored all of the relationships Cardia had with the guys (and the friendships between the guys themselves) and while this game is mainly plot driven, I never felt like any of the character writing fell short. Everyone is just so memorable and multi faceted, you can’t help but love them.
anyway that’s enough ranting from me lmao. I regret only playing this game now since I’ve heard of it forever but better late than never. I really am glad to play this game and it’s def one of my top favourites. I’m done ranting and I’m gonna go cry now.
7 notes · View notes
aion-rsa · 8 years ago
Text
INTERVIEW: Percy Sends on James Bond on a Cyberthriller Adventure
With his work on titles like “Teen Titans” and “Green Arrow”, writer Benjamin Percy has established himself as one of the hottest talents in comics today, effortlessly blending the legacy of his characters within a contemporary, realistic-feeling world. He’s able to take a character and boil them right down to their essence whilst losing none of their potency – and this week his sights are settling on a spy known round the world as Bond… James Bond.
In Dynamite Entertainment’s new series “James Bond: Black Box”, Percy is teaming up with artist Rapha Lobosco for a story poised to send Bond racing round the world, seeking out an assassin who kills other assassins – and finds himself involved in a labyrinthine plot that brings him fully into the world of today. It’s James Bond-as-cyberthriller, and CBR spoke with Percy about just what we can expect from the series.
CBR: I know you’ve been a long-term Bond fan – how does it feel to actually now have the chance to get your hands on the character, and his world?
Benjamin Percy: A gift. A privilege. I feel joy, but I also feel pressure. James Bond might be the most recognized literary creation – right up there with Sherlock Holmes and Batman and Dracula. So I’m facing the weighty expectations of fans and the silently admonishing example of Fleming and all the other creators who came before me.
But really, this is a childhood dream come true. I wish I could go back in time and whisper in my own ear—the ear of that twelve-year-old kid who cuddled up on the couch and gorged on popcorn and religiously watched every minute of the 007 marathons on TBS. ‘Pay attention, dipshit’, I would say. ‘Because one day, you’re going to be the custodian of this character’.
The new comics run at Dynamite has so far harkened back to Fleming’s original broken brute of a character, rather than the film version. What’s your take on who James Bond actually is?
We all know – or think we know – who Batman is, right? But if you look at Bob Kane or you look at Alan Moore or Jeph Loeb or Grant Morrison or Scott Snyder or Tom King, there’s an… elasticity to their interpretations. That’s what people want. A unique take that still honors the character’s legacy.
I’m a big nerdy fan of the Bond novels and the films. They’ve blended together in my head. The same thing has happened to Sherlock Holmes. I’ve read all the short stories and novellas many times over—and my love for them is entwined with my love of the Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett and Benedict Cumberbatch adaptations.
So you’ll see as much of Fleming as you will Connery and Moore in my take on the character. Warren Ellis is a legend. I’m a punk. You’re not allowed to compare us. But my version will extend the excellent work he did, while adding a little more humor and romance. I can promise you I’ve pulled out all the stops on action: every single issue outdoes the last on spectacle.
How does the character fit within the espionage model? Why does he work in this role as a spy?
Bond is suited for his work because he is not mired in the past or especially worried about the future. He is a creature of the moment; he has to be or he’d go mad, given the ugliness of what he’s done and given the horrors that might befall the world if he doesn’t succeed. He occasionally diverts and numbs himself with pleasure but is otherwise an instrument in Britain’s arsenal. The work owns him.
He’s fascinating in that he appears at first so aspirational – wearing the best clothes, driving the best cars, winning every bet and seducing the most beautiful women – but beneath that luxurious veneer is a severely messed-up human being who can only survive by drowning himself in bourbon, losing himself in the sheets, or devoting himself to the case at hand.
The title, “Black Box,” seems like the key to the story. What is it that interests you in having Bond tackle cyber-terrorism? As a novelist and as a comics writer, you’ve always tended to have a directly political approach. Can we expect that to continue in to your run on James Bond?
Bond stories always align with the anxieties of the era. Look at “Dr. No” and the Cuban Missile Crisis as a prime example. What scares us right now? The list is long, but we’re all so vulnerable online. We live on our devices as much as we do in the real world, and it’s so easy for us to be stalked, corrupted, hacked, pirated, possessed, erased.
In one particularly nasty week, my sister’s email was hacked, my friend’s Facebook feed filled with phishing scams, our credit card info was stolen, my father downloaded a virus that locked down his computer, and my neighbor filed his taxes and discovered that someone had already done so and collected the refund. All because we carelessly clicked or swiped.
I’ve got a novel coming out this summer, a cyber-thriller called “The Dark Net.” I researched the hell out of it, visiting the Google and Apple campuses, talking to Verizon reps, interviewing hackers and coders. And you know what everybody said to me? The Russians and the Chinese were already inside the digital walls of this country. The only question was, what were they planning to do with that access? Just wait, everyone said. Something big is coming. And then, six months later, here are these allegations of Russian hacking influencing the election.
So yeah, in all my work, I’m channeling the zeitgeist, trying to make my wild storytelling as relatable and relevant as possible. You’ll certainly see that in Bond.
Bond may be the star, but he’s always part of a different strange ensemble. Who’ll he be meeting in “Black Box?” Who, in particular, is No Name, the antagonist of the story? What’s his ambition, his goal?
I’ve always been fond of the henchmen, Odd Job and Jaws especially, so I put a lot of thought into creating a colorful villain, and in doing so spliced my love of horror with my love of 007. No Name is the result. He is an assassin with a trophy room. In it he displays the death masks of his victims. And because of his own deformities (and perversions) he wears these masks when hunting. He is as unrelenting as he is grotesque. And there is one scene in particular — that takes place in the “suicide forest” of Japan — that will likely scare the hell out of readers.
But he is one of many colorful characters. Bond’s old frenemy Felix also plays a critical role in the story. So does an assassin who only kills other assassins. The big bad of Black Box is a tech mogul who is essentially a Mark Zuckerberg with criminal intentions.
Is if difficult to balance the old-school style of the series within the contemporary world? Working within the past but keeping something in the present, a little like your approach on Green Arrow?
I’m writing both “Green Arrow” and “Teen Titans,” and if you’re a comics reader, you probably know all about DC’s Rebirth. It’s about legacy. You channel the greatest elements of a series—while asking yourself, what is the greatest Green Arrow or Teen Titans story I could possibly tell right now? How can I, with my own unique skill set, make the series new while honoring those creators who came before me?
That is exactly how I’m approaching James Bond. It wasn’t a struggle at all. It’s how I’ve been trained as a comics writer.
How have you found working with artist Rapha Lobosco on the story? What kind of style is he bringing to the comic?
Pure cinema. He has such a smart sense of storytelling, pacing, how to stage a scene and make the reader feel like they’re living it. Go big with moments of high-wire action, go quiet with moments of emotional impact. His work reminds me a lot of Eduardo Risso on “100 Bullets”.
He draws with such energy and big-heartedness. This is a big platform for us, and so we’re both putting all our energy into it. There are many artists who would (rightfully) murder me for setting an assassination scene at a sumo tournament or staging a car chase in downtown Tokyo at rush hour…but he tackles these wild action sequences with gusto and ridiculous talent. Rapha is a star on the rise.
Do you have long-term plans for Bond, or is your interest in working story-to-story, creating a body of work that way?
Well, Bond isn’t mine. In my wild, what-if fantasies, his father comes back from the dead (and turn out to be a villain) and he discovers he has a child (given all the nookie Bond has, that not an unreasonable suggestion) and he eventually becomes M. himself (and absolutely despises the work).
But don’t worry, 007 purists. That’s not happening. I’m treating each of these six-issue arcs as a kind of film. Rapha and I are making Bond movies—without having to worry about the special effects budget or an actor’s salary or whether we can get a permit to shoot in this or that location.
I don’t know how long Dynamite will keep me on the series, but I can promise you that every issue of “Black Box” is wilder and cooler than the last—and I can promise you the same will be true of our story arcs. I’ll continue to raise the stakes in an effort to make an indelible mark on the franchise.
“James Bond: Black Box” #1 is in stores now.
The post INTERVIEW: Percy Sends on James Bond on a Cyberthriller Adventure appeared first on CBR.com.
http://ift.tt/2mKOGrh
0 notes