The Good & the Bad: Teen Movies

In an effort to share a little more about myself (I'm an introvert in real life), I've decided to start a series called The Good & the Bad. The idea is to let my readers know the kind of things I like and the kind of things I don't. And why. The why is important, for the reasons we do things matter far more than the things themselves. And I'll probably focus more on the good, because that's where the fun is.

So we're going to start with some movies, and this time I'm looking at teen movies. What makes a good teen movie and what ruins one.

The Good

One of my favorite movies in the past several years is Brick. There's a good chance that most of you haven't even heard or it. It got some nice critical praise, but never released why or saw much commercial success. It's a shame, because it puts a lot of the recent YA fair to shame.

Brick is about a high school kid (played so well by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, pre-Inception and Dark Knight) who investigates the disappearance of his semi-girlfriend. It's film noir, a hard-boiled detective story with modern day teenagers. That could fail big time, but what makes it work is that it hold to the genre tropes - plot twists, strong silent MC, dangerous dames, and a satisfying dreary but honest ending - but it does it with real kids. It doesn't have kids trying to act like film noir characters, but using modern archetypes (social loner, girl craving attention, meat-head jock, drug-dealing scum) to fill in the roles. It has an authenticity and individuality that's just plain fun to watch. (Joseph Gordon-Levitt's The Lookout almost made this list, but it's more properly New Adult aged than teen).

Heathers. It's a little old in some ways, but I think it still holds up. For those too young to remember it, it's Mean Girls with more mean (and more snark). What works about it is that it's satire - it gets crazier and crazier to the point that it's ridiculous (especially Christian Slater channeling Jack Nicholson), but the underlying truth is so real. The social hierarchy in high school is brutal, and people do crazy, despicable things to get ahead. But once you're in you're still not safe. Nobody is safe and no-one has it easy.

Another cult hit that seems to live on and even grow in renown is Donnie Darko. It's a hard movie to describe, and even harder to defend, but it worked for me. Once again, it was the real-ness of the characters instead of the storyline that sold me. Donnie's sense of loneliness, the nature of outsiders in high school, the youth understanding the hypocrisy of the adults, all felt real. I've watched the director's cut which focuses more on the time travel elements and felt it took away the heart of the movie. Sometimes the studio folks know better.

A few other teen movies worth mentioning. Easy A, Juno, Rushmore . Classics like My Bodyguard, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Say Anything. Silly fun like Bring It On, American Pie, Valley Girl.

The Bad

There are an endless number of bad teen films, most of them guilty of nothing more than trying to be cheap entertainment. I don't fault mindless entertainment for being just that, so I'm going to stick to movies that should have been good - or at least had the budget and players to be good.

I'm sure I'll get some flack here, but I thought Twilight was a bad movie. (Thought the same of the book). While it's a vivid world, and I think the movie does a good job highlighting the scenery and giving a sense of the connection between characters, the fundamental principle is too flawed for me. A dreamy girl who thinks of herself as plain but is adored by everyone somehow wins the heart (instantly) of a hundred year old man. Pedophilia anyone? Insulting gender roles and stereotypes much? I know it kicked off a craze; I know umpteen millions loved it. It's still not a good story on many levels and the movie-making was very trite and formulaic. Teens (and everyone who was once a teen) deserve better.

A movie that I wanted to like, and thought I would, was Swimfan. It had a dark angle to it and I know a number of people that really enjoyed it. But somehow it fell flat for me. I thought it tried too hard - it wanted to be realistic and scary, but I didn't quite buy into the obsession enough. It felt more like the characters were acting in a way to move the plot instead of a natural way that lead to a story. But if you bought into it, I can see how it would work, and I certainly won't fault anyone for liking it.

Sometimes movies are bad but I still enjoy them. Jennifer's Body would fall into that category. What's good about it is the relationship between the two girls. Amanda Seyfried somehow pulls off the awkward friend who still has her own personality. And while Megan Fox won't win any acting awards from me, she worked in this role. The crazier parts of this story actually had the same self-aware satire nature of Heathers, but I think that was missed by lots of people - especially those who marketed it. It's problem was that it tried too hard to be a real movie about a possessed teen, but it's strengths lay in the context underneath. It just got too buried under the gore and slow-mo shots of Megan's hips swaying. But if you don't mind a little camp, check it out and look at it from that angle and see if it doesn't shine a little.

How about you? Agree or disagree with my choices? Have any favorites that you recommend? Any hit movies that you hated? Feel free to share in the comments.

Story Notes: World Building

Every story lives within its own world. That world doesn't just exist - it needs to be built. The term worldbuilding normally gets applied to science fiction and fantasy writing, but the truth is all stories involves some level of worldbuilding. So what does it take to build a world? What is important for the reader to know. The answer depends a lot on your type of story, but the idea to start with is limitations. We always need to know the limitations of reality to understand the difficulties that face our heroes. Without limitations there is no conflict, and without conflict there is no story.

The Physics

The universe operates on some fairly simple rules. Time moves forward, left and right are equivalent, nothing moves faster than the speed of light. You don't need to spell these things out (you don't even need to understand them) because that's the world everyone lives in so we all know the result - it's our world. But if your world contains magic or technology that allows travelling between worlds or time periods, you need to explain how that works, even if the explanation is a non-explanation.

What that means is that you need to give the reader the sense that there is some logic behind what can physically happen in the world. Not because we crave logic, but we need to get a sense of what CAN happen in order to understand what DOES happen. If your hero is setting out on a quest to fulfill an ancient prophecy, we need to know that your average magician can't just wave his hands and make the entire evil empire disappear. We need to know if magic can affect everyone, if it takes studying to learn, if it's powered by concentration or by life force. 

The same is true for technologically advanced novels. We need to be told if it's now easy to get into space; if virtual reality is at a level indistinguishable from real reality; if aliens breathe the same air as us. We all know that future technology basically makes past magic real (flying, talking over long distances, visiting the moon). So if we're in your future, we need to know what level of technological achievement we're at.

The level of detail of the rules only needs to match the detail of the story. If you don't have a lot of magic happening, you don't need to spell out that much (Tolkien is a good example). But if the practice of it is essential and your characters are using it, or suffering from it, regularly, you need to give us enough to figure out the consequences (the Star Trek universe). Think of it like explaining baseball to a foreigner who's never seen the game. If you want them to know who won, all you have to say is that teams score runs and the most runs win. If you want them to play right field, you're going to need a lot more details if you want them to do a good job.

The Feeling

Aside from the physical nature of the world, we also need a sense of what kind of place it is. Are people friendly or scared? How many of them are there? Is life brutal for all or only some? What kind of government do we have here? This goes beyond magic and technology but into the basic nature of society. Thus, it's applicable to all stories, not just speculative ones. Once again, it affects how the characters go about solving their problems, how they interact with each other, so it's fundamental to the story.

Once again, if your character is trying to fulfill that prophecy, are there a lot of people who will help her? If she has to travel to the far side of the kingdom, does that take ten days by horse or three months by steam engine? If instead she's repelling an alien horde, how many ships are in their armada? Is the government full of worthless bickering politicians or can the nations of the earth unite for a common cause? Share enough to let us know what options your hero has and why it makes sense for them to do what they do.

Even if your story is a contemporary novel that takes place in the normal world, it still lives in a world of its own. Is it set in a hospital? People act differently in hospitals: visitors speak quietly, workers have their own language, rules structure physical interactions and locations, even the lighting and smells are unique. You want the reader to feel they're part of that world and you have to explain how things work there.

Consistency

The physics and feelings of a setting are completely up to you, the writer, to design as you wish. But the rules need to be consistent or the reader will feel cheated. Once we've learned the rules to baseball, we'll get upset if the losing team all of a sudden gets double the runs for every score just because their behind in the ninth inning. So your magician shouldn't suddenly perform a spell that would have saved everyone a lot of trouble earlier on. Your computer gadget shouldn't suddenly be able to decrypt the enemy's communication. Rules are about setting limits and you can't adjust them because they limit the writer as much as the characters.

I've found that breaking my own rules often happens on the first draft. You get to a point in the story and you want to do something cool that will solve a problem. That's fine. You just need to go back and evaluate how that capability would affect all the earlier elements of the story. You may want to change the earlier parts, you may want to change the later part, but you NEED to make the rules consistent in both parts.

This principle is probably most important when it comes to characterization. It's not about keeping one character consistent (that's important, but it's not really worldbuilding). It's about keeping the characters in general consistent. If most people in your world are challenges to be overcome, then suddenly having a helpful bystander is inconsistent (it may be plausible and even realistic, but it weakens the story). If everyone in that hospital is a stickler for the rules, don't let them become lax to make your solution possible. If you need that laxness, then make sure you include some earlier, so exception becomes consistent. That's what revising is for.

Plausibility

So how realistic does your world need to be? Not at all. Realistic isn't the measure. Magic is not realistic. Hyperspace is not realistic. The hero never missing a shot while an army of trained soldiers never hits him once - not realistic. But possible? Plausible? Yes, because books have their own rules of plausibility.

Readers want to suspend disbelief. That's a major reason people read - to escape this drab world and lose themselves in a new one that has slightly different rules. They like that giant insects could develop intelligence and don't really care that mass scales differently than strength and a human sized insect would collapse under its own weight. They don't care that time travel is impossible because it violates causality and no amount of logically justification makes it work. 

The genre of your story also affects how much you can get away with. The truth is, most science fiction fans demand more plausibility than the casual reader. They need more justification and expect a consistent level of technology and some explanation for why your universe is the way it is. Fantasy readers will be a little more lenient, but they expect magic to be well limited, because they know that without limits the conflict loses its tension. 

On the other hand, I've found most YA novels to be much looser with their worldbuilding, often to the point of highly improbably and completely implausible future worlds (yes, I'm looking at you Divergent Chicago). I believe many of the readers of YA speculative fiction judge worldbuilding on a easier scale than more traditional fans, focusing more of the other elements of the story. Take that and use it as you will.

There are certain conventions in writing, from using magic to having lucky heroes, that people want to accept and so they do. Read the other books in your genre, the ones creating world at the same level as you, and see what works and what doesn't. Let the readers' reactions be your guide and you'll see that they forgive a lot if you tell them what the rules are and have some consistency. Be thankful but don't abuse it - readers have their limits and punish harshly those who fail them.

Execution

All this is well and good, but it's also very important to understand how you present this world you've built. The worst thing you can do is to start a story by explaining your rules, taking the time to lay our all the information that will be necessary at some point in the story. That's called info-dumping and it bores the reader. Yes, they want to know the rules, but only as the need them. They want story first, and only the world as it's necessary for the story.This means that you slip in the worldbuilding as it comes up. You don't need to discuss the limits of magic until someone is using it. 

And even then you don't need to stop and explain things. It works much better to show your world than to tell about it. Show the spell-caster losing consciousness with the effort. Have your laser gun auto-aim for the character. Don't point out the security necessary on a contagious disease floor - have the security guard turn away the wandering Alzheimer patient. 

This is another time when revising is your friend. I find it works well not to spend time trying to explain things and then let my poor beta readers be a little confused. When the first readers point out what confuses them about your world, then you know you need to work in some explaining information. But if they get it, then you already have enough. The common error is over-explaining, so try working from the other direction and you're more likely to come up with a better balance.

Summary

Worldbuilding is a large subject and volumes have been written on how to do it. Some authors hate it and some get lost in it. The truth is that all authors do it, whether they realize it or not. There are lots of ways to get it done, and I think it's perfectly fine if you aren't aware of doing it, but you do need to recognize the result. That's what I tried to focus on here - what makes a world successful. But if you want the nuts and bolts of how to get it done, here a a few sites that I think have good advice:

Chuck Wending's 25 Things you should know about Worldbuilding

Patricia C. Wrede's Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions

Writer's Digest Tips on WorldBuilding

A whole book on the topic: World-building by Stephen Gillet

Worldbuilding doesn't have to be a encyclopedic exercise. For me it's part of the fun of creating any story. Sometimes it's a completely different world that requires lots of thought and careful tracking to maintain consistency. Sometimes it happens of its own accord as my character drives the story. But it's a part of all writing, and every writer should find the level and method of developing their world that works for them.

Timeless Art: Elfquest

I don't read a lot of graphic novels. I probably should, because I've found them to include some great works of art, both visually and creatively. There are some great stories to be found in the format and great art is great art, whatever the form.

When I was young, my older brother was into comics. He still collects to this day. I used to read his when I had nothing better around, but didn't really have any of my own. Except for ElfQuest. I loved ElfQuest. The artwork was so bold and the stories deep and rich. But as a young child I mostly loved the little elves that rode wolves and fought fiercely. That became my vision of elves, an image in my mind that even Tolkien's slender and aristocratic fae couldn't replace.

Well, my brother recently sent me a copy of the newly released ElfQuest Collection, Volume 1. It's just as good now as it ever was, and holds up next to anything that's being done in the medium today. Great stories, great art, hold up in a way that transcends form. And I'm very happy to be spending some time with Cutter, Skywise, and the rest of the Wolfriders.

Booking Through Thursday - Reading YA

It's been a while since I've participated in Booking Through Thursday, but this question got my interest:

Do you read books written for children or teens? Or do you stick to books for adults?

The quick answer is yes, I read Young Adult books. Not only do I read them, but I write them. But I think there's a little more to this question.

First, there's the implied suggestion that some books are written for children and some for adults. I don't believe books are necessarily written for a specific age audience. Young Adult is not a genre, it's not even a particularly accurate description of a market category. Most 'Young Adult' books are read by adults. Most of us who write Young Adult are fully aware of the adult audience and write stories that will appeal to them.

There definitely are stories that will appeal more to teens than adults. YA tends to feature teen protagonists and quite often deal with issues that are more immediate and important to teen readers. But most adults once were teens, so teen issues, and what adults went through in the past, are still relevant and of interest to adults.

Second, there's a hint that adults should stick to books for adults. I'm not sure exactly what is trying to be classified as 'adult' here, but I've seen plenty of pieces that find some standard to say what's 'appropriate' for adults to read - literary fiction, non-genre stories, stuff with SERIOUS THEMES. That's all crap. Lots (if not most) adult books have little philosophical merit to them and those serious themes tend to be lots of silly literary angst. And the most popular category of 'adult' books is Romance.

People should read what they want. There's lots of great quality stories in every genre and age category out there. And there's lots of crap, and it's perfectly OK to read that too (look at the bestseller lists and you'll find plenty of it). Any good writer will write a book that's for readers, and while some topics are not suitable for young children, many teens are more familiar with the dark aspects of life than your average adult. Can't we move past the judgment and labeling already?

Diversity as a Buzzword

There's been a lot of talk lately in the writing world about diversity. This is a good thing. I wholeheartedly approve of the WeNeedDiverseBooks campaign and I think discussions of difficult or controversial topics are necessary for progress. But I've seen a trend in the marketing of books that has turned diversity into a buzzword, and I'm not as happy about that.

For me, it's all about story. Story is what makes a book good. Story should be what sells a book. Stories can include diversity, and I think that more stories with diversity as a part of them are a good thing for everyone. But sometimes it feels like diversity is seen as a replacement for story. Maybe not in the work itself, but often in the selling of it. It comes from authors trying to 'sell' their book to an agent. It comes from agents trying to sell books to publishers, from publishers trying to sell books to readers, and readers trying to sell books to themselves.

During some recent twitter pitch sessions - where aspiring authors try to attract an agent by describing their book in twenty words - I've seen good and bad examples of including diversity.

A good pitch should sell the story. It generally involves the main character, the main conflict, and the stakes. It takes a framework, like: thief needs to steal diamond to pay off mob; and turns it into something more specific and compelling:

Bisexual jewel thief must pull off the heist of his lifetime to save his estranged girlfriend from a psychotic mafia boss ex-lover.

But I saw a few pitches that went something like this: LGBT thief must steal diamond to save lover from mafia. Diverse cast.

Now, to be fair, the story might be the same in both examples. It could be a great story that represents many diverse characters in a realistic way that adds to the complexity and believability of the storyline. But there's a difference in saying that my story is worthwhile and includes diversity, and saying my story is worthwhile because it includes diversity.

I recently saw an agent touting a successful query for a diverse book, and my honest thought was that the query was entirely generic and bland, with lots of 'save the world', 'must figure things out' catch phrases that mean nothing. But it stated that the MC was queer and that it involved a M/M relationship. I haven't read the book, but the reviews are very positive and digging deeper it sounds like a great story. I just don't like that fact that it's considered a good query because it says 'queer', whereas I'm confident it would be considered an average pitch without that word.

I'm fine with the fact that the gatekeepers in this industry need to be looking for diverse stories, and the only way that minority stories will get represented is if there's a conscious effort to find them and hold them up for attention. But I feel that there must be enough great stories out there with these elements that we don't need to start our bartering with simplistic phrases. I want agents (and everyone) to hold diversity to the same standard as the rest of the ideas that populate books. I'm confident that diversity can handle it, that writers of diversity exist with the same skills and qualities as any other writing group. Maybe the fact that it's buzzing is a step in the right direction. But buzzwords are always a shortcut, and I think we deserve better than that in the end.