Concerning the Old South...

If you are offended by the picture above, I suggest you stop reading this post. For I am about to embark on a journey of revelation - revelation of the truth. I shall not go into great depth, but I am about to merely myth-bust about our poor old heritage, in particular, the Old South. Lovely, old, antebellum culture, so oft tainted with the sin of slavery, against the pure and courageous Northerners, who, by the way, were totally against slavery and deplored any such horrendous trade... let us explore those notions a little by way of quotes from the people themselves and some informative pictures (for the title of "meme" doesn't quite suit) courtesy of Pinterest...

Hmm. Now there's a strange thing. There is a different in the matter of slavery between a Union and Confederate, and the Confederate's is to the effect of approving the freeing of slaves. Aren't we told that the Union is the party unanimously in favor of abolishing slavery, without the slightest reserve or ulterior motives...? And if leaders on the two sides seem to have differing views from what is common knowledge, how does history work out...? Why would they fight a war for slavery if they didn't necessarily even have strong convictions on it (or even had the opposite convictions of their side!)?

The fact is, friends, that the Civil War was just not about slavery. Holler all you like, or bring up a million contemporary authors, but slavery was simply not the cause of the War.

In fact, as you can see by this quote comparison, both Lincoln (the president residing over the Union) and Davis (the president residing over the Confederacy) said very blatantly that slavery was not only an unessential element in the war, but, rather irrelevant to its motivations and cause as a whole. 

In fact, guess what else? If we are to believe yet another quote (below), the Old South did not even allow the shipping-in of slaves at all (see the Confederate Constitution on that one - you'll find that it's the truth). And the two best-known leaders of the Confederate cause were both against slavery (and Robert E. Lee was also against cessation - I am not positive as to Davis' opinion on the matter). 

Would it surprise you to know that the Union, in fact, attacked the South? Or that the South planned peaceful, diplomatic cessation (a right guaranteed by American law), and that was only in the case that they were not given the representative rights that they were being denied by the Northern States at that time (the real reason for the Civil War)? The reason the Civil War was fought was because, due to trade inequality, population inequality, and prejudice in the military and government, the Southern States were not being diplomatically represented according to the ratio that would have been fair for their influence, people, and part in the Union. Their influence had sunk within ten years from having almost half the representation of the Union to having less than a third (see Chapters One and Two of The Lost Cause, an historic overview on the subject of the Civil War). And, this, may I remind you, was not due to land ratios in North and South, but due to politics begin conducted mostly in and by the North, as well as because of the city condensations there.

Even beyond the fact that the War was not about slavery, many Southerners were staunchly against slavery. Many Southerners favored the unanimous freeing of slaves, in fact, which was more than could be said even for the leaders of the Union (as seen by the fact and quotes below and the Lincoln and Lee quotes above).

So slavery was a "moral and political evil in any country," mmm? At least, that's what Robert E. Lee says. And Lincoln says that our American republic was "meant for homogenous people," and, even more, that "[a]s long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life.... may... challenge the supremacy of the white man." So which is the racist one, may I ask...?

Once more, to disregard even that above fact, the difference in moral character between the North and the South was phenomenal. The Northerners were often secular by comparison, and often reputedly worshippers of the Constitution and American democracy, leading many Europeans to comment that Americans thought themselves the cleverest and best people in the world (see once more The Lost Cause, as well as G.K. Chesterton's Heretics). While there were Northerners who disapproved of slavery, and for and with good reason, those Northerners who owned slaves and those Southerners who owned slaves differed greatly in their treatment of them, even to the point of many African-Americans fighting for the Southern cause (without force many times, I might add). 

Even if I were to pay no heed to that fact as well, the cold, hard truth of the matter is that the Southerners did what they believed was right. And according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, as well as many, many other philosophers, ethicists, and moralists of all types, one must always act according to one's conscience, or else risk doing what one believes wrong; if one believes a thing to be wrong and does it, then, regardless of the actually material morality of the action, one has indeed done wrongly. So, the Southern leaders, in acting according to their consciences (trying to break from the Union, and then defending Southern ground), they were merely avoiding what they firmly believed to be wrong (permitting the underrepresentation of their people and then letting their lands be possibly taken, burnt, and raided). 

The Northerners seemed as invaders to the Southerners. The South had only wished for the peaceable leaving of the Union if they were not given their rights (this was, in fact, what they had requested from the start). And the North declared military attack on them, as if they had rebelled in arms, even earning them the historically incorrect title of "rebels." The Southerners merely saw themselves as acting in self-defense due to this fact.

In the end, what the Civil War comes down to is a cultural fight, between the different sensibilities and politics of the North and South, and a fight over Constitutional rights and the administration of them. Every Southern leader firmly believed this as surely as every Northern leader knew it to be true. Slavery is merely a subplot in this large story arc, I'm afraid, and, wrong or right in their association with it, the South was not ever disillusioned that slavery was what it was fighting for.

There were good things and bad things about both sides of the Civil War, and about the War in general - my focus on defense of the South is only to uproot old rumors. There were bad people in the South, as in the North, and there was slavery in the South, as in the North. But next times you think about the Civil War, do not be so quick to condemn our boys in gray - they are as much a part of our history and our heritage as the blue boys are, and they were not villains, but only human beings fighting for a cause that they believed it... a cause surely not wholly condemnable. 

What did you think? I daresay I have likely bored with three rather politically incorrect posts in a row, but I hope that this one was enlightening. Tell me your thoughts in the comments!

10 Terrific Tropes (That Are In Serious Need Of Revival!)

A while ago, I posted another list of ten tropes, but that one listing tropes that were either commonplace, cliche, unrealistic, or just plain bad writing in general (a phrase which here means 'all of the above,' to paraphrase Lemony Snicket). But, of course, nobody likes a dark cloud. Not in writing advice, and not anywhere else! Especially with how easy it is to despair nowadays with how many things, even culturally, and in writing specifically, are at a low. So I'm going to offer a constructive opinion as well on the matter - I'm going to share some of my favorite tropes that I haven't seen in a while as my afore-promised part the second. Some of them are related to the clichés, and some are quite their own matter, but hopefully you'll see some that you recognize. (There is one thing I must note first, though: with the first post, I had a factual guide as to which of the tropes to put on there - I simply put those that were undeniably, technically bad writing - but with these, there are far too many tropes that are technically good writing out there, so most of these are chosen by my own opinion; just tropes that I personally enjoy that do not have serious writing flaws and are unfortunately uncommon now. Just so no one feels bossed around by my - well-meant, I assure you - writing advice.)

Terrific Trope #10 - The Brothers

My goodness, but this has to be one of my favorite things to see in a book or movie - brothers (or brother-figures) that are just friends, amazing friends, but go through tough times and have to - despite this original friendship - pit against one another, ending back in friendship. Even if they don't start out friends, too, that's also pretty interesting. It makes for a brilliant conflict, I can tell you, and it serves for character development, and a creative twist on a story (as well as solving the age-old 'how to involve siblings of the MC' problem in novels). I put it at the bottom of the list merely because it's slightly less uncommon, though still far too uncommon. I'm not saying that everybody should do it (after all, that's what makes a trope commonplace), but if it's useful to the story, go ahead and use it, because there are plenty of readers who like it! I've talked to plenty of other readers (and writers) who feel quite the same about the trope, and want to see it get bigger. Some good examples are some of the Thor movies, the movie, In Old Chicago, and the book Enemy Brothers (which... I have long wanted to read due to this, but haven't been able to get my hands on for more than an hour).

Terrific Trope #9 - The Hidden Thorn

Everybody loves a character who suffers. But what about one who doesn't rub it in people's faces, doesn't go crazy/evil/outwardly damaged because of, and doesn't even mention it themselves? When all the suffering of a character is kept from you until a time when nobody can do anything about it, readers' hearts bleed all the more for the character. The character who suffers and still stays steady (at least on the outside) is something rarely seen now! A character who suffers silently is not only a good role model, but an instant favorite for readers who like conflict. Good examples of this are Percy Blakeny from The Scarlet Pimpernel, and Rogue from the old X-Men cartoon.

Terrific Trope #8 - Pa and Ma

Parents who not only have character, but have likable character are invaluable in fiction nowadays. Parents and parent-figures so often get jipped nowadays, being only reserved for the sentimental and the sappiest films wherein those character still at least start out in the wrong. How many parents do you know who are actually as stupid, malicious, or just strange as the ones commonly depicted on television? Some good examples of this trope are (as much I personally don't like him for other reasons) Mo Folchart from Inkheart (the books), Ma and Pa Ingalls from the Little House on the Prairie series (for whom this post is named), and King Gris from Medallion.

Terrific Trope #7 - Symbolism

I only didn't put this one as #1 because this is not a particular trope, per se, but rather a general aspect of writing. It seems like symbolism, allegory, and metaphor are so neglected in fiction nowadays, being reserved only to tell the shallow-most political and ideological messages. The last mainstream mention of symbolism in a story I heard of was the homosexual agenda thinly veiled within Frozen and Zootopia. Is that what symbolism's come to? Good symbolic books are The Lord of the Rings (obviously) and just about anything else by Tolkien, mostly, The Scarlet Pimpernel, and John C. Wright's sci-fi short stories.

Terrific Trope #6 - The Villain From Below

Again, this has to do a lot with allegory and metaphor. So few villains nowadays are actually respectable or scary - mostly they're sympathetic or rather pathetic now. If they're scary at all, it's only because of creepy makeup in their screen representation, their creepy hideout, or their gory habits. What about villains that actually scare the heck out of you? Villains that represent (or even are) something deeper than some creep in a costume or a robo-suit... Those are the villains that scare you the most, because those are the ones that are real. Some very good examples are Dracula, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, and, of course, the Silmarillion (actually, I hesitate to say it merely because of some other personal bones I have to pick with the villain, but Davy Jones from the PotC movies has some of these qualities, for sure).

Terrific Trope #5 - The Friends

Unfortunately, I must confess, I too am guilty of neglecting this trope. When a guy and girl are best friends in a story and don't end up together, it's so refreshing from the constant romance bombardment of today's culture (and I am by no means anti-romance!). It's not only refreshing, but realistic. Opposite genders can be friends, after all, without being in an erotic relationship. And writing should, at least to a certain extent, reflect reality. To simply end all male-female character relationships in some sort-of awkward romance is just a tad laughable. It's true, however, that, just because such friendships do realistically go both ways, this trope should be exercised with moderation, and friend-to-romance character relationships shouldn't be discouraged either. Some good examples are Beorn the Proud, Nya and Cole (after the sixth season!) in Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu, and Dracula.

Terrific Trope #4 - Traditional Gender Roles

I'm quite positive that all of you have heard me rant about traditional gender roles at some point or other. They're the foundation of inter-gender relations! Enough said. Some good examples are Pride and Prejudice (and most Jane Austen novels, for that matter), and most old movies before the 1950's.

Terrific Trope #3 - The Artsy One

Imagine some of the most famous and long-beloved characters in fiction. Most of them have some sort-of quirks, right? And the ones who all seem to have the most distinction of character are the ones who have some sort-of art or task that they devote themselves to passionately. Think of Sherlock Holmes with both his logic and his violin. Think of Zorro with his fencing. Or think of Jo March and her writing. Having your characters care about something deeply that isn't necessarily a part of the plot gives them more personality and makes them more of a relatable person than just words on a page or an actor in a movie. Besides the ones I already mentioned, some good examples are Hercule Poirot from his self-titled mysteries, Bilbo Baggins from The Hobbit and LotR, and Flambeaux from the Father Brown Mysteries.

Terrific Trope #2 - The Wit

Don't you just love it when you read a book and there's one character who always has something to say for every situation? The one who makes you look up from the book and laugh out loud when you realize what they just said? I don't know about you, but I always love those characters whenever they're around. They're not only entertaining, but they're intelligent, and often are as much help to the main characters as they are comic relief. Two birds with one stone - that's good writing. Some good examples are Gambit from the old X-Men cartoon and Pyle's Robin Hood.

Terrific Trope #1 - The Conversion

I just love it when characters reform and redeem themselves, don't you? But isn't it even more satisfying when they convert right to the top? There are so few stories now that center around religious conversion, but it's such a beautiful and touching thing! So many people who are converts have told me how amazing the process was, and how much it took to make the decision. If those doesn't sound like qualities that make up a story, I don't know what does! It really is such a wonderful and real topic, I don't know why it's so neglected. Honestly, it's so rare now, I can't even think of a good example.

Well, that's all for now, folks. What did you think? How do you like these tropes? Can you forgive me for taking so long with this post? Have you any more tropes to add to the list?

Fear and Fiction

A couple weeks ago, a friend asked a philosophical question for fun, so another friend and I could try to answer it. The question was "What is fear?" I attempted to answer the question, but my answer was rather pathetic and I was pretty clueless and dissatisfied with it. My other friend took a crack at it, but was also stumped. The event stuck in my mind. For one thing, it was a humbling question because, being philosophically-minded, one of my greatest flaws is a sort-of intellectual pride in being able to answer many such questions. But it was more than that. It was an interesting question - one that I've gotten close to in thought many times, but never actually broached anywhere. It took forever thinking about it to finally find an answer, but my thoughts were of a sort that I wished to share here, as eventually - like in so many topics - they came to writing.

Fear is perhaps an honesty with oneself - a morally neutral sort-of humility. By itself, it means nothing, but, as with many human emotions, the action taken for it gives it meaning.


Fear branches into two paths - cowardice and courage. Courage? Yes, courage; to quote that repetitive old favorite line from Newsies, "courage does not erase our fears; courage is when we face our fears," and it is not courage to have to fear in the first place. You are probably not afraid of PB&Js, but this does not mean that eating one is having courage. You are probably not afraid of swimming, either, which is certainly more dangerous than PB&Js, but this does not mean you are being courageous every time you swim. Courage is only present where fear is.


On the other hand, cowardice is taking one's fears and refusing to have courage; it is allowing one's fear to overpower one's higher motive or goal. This is the contortion of fear, while courage is the completion of it. To be fearful is no wrong; to let those fears go above one's reason is. Courage is keeping one's mind even whilst one's knees quake.


At this point, I have to stop. If these are true, and fear can be completed or contorted - because I am no authority, not marvelously intelligent, and may be completely wrong, no matter what my own mind wishes to think, this is debatable - then fear exists. What does this mean? Well, it means fear must be good. Nothing that exists is evil; evil is always merely a contortion of lack of good things. And if fear is good, this leads me to the writing part after a terribly lengthy introduction...

Why Do We Make Fear Our Enemy?

Think about them - all the stories, particularly recent ones, where fear is the enemy of the tale. Frozen; Rise of the Guardians; the Hotel Transylvania movies, and Harry Potter to a certain extent - all of them make fear the enemy of humankind (or... modified humankind in a few of those characters). Why should fear be the enemy? Why is it so unequivocally condemned in society nowadays?

Well, think about what's boosted in its place. Confidence, acceptance of everything (usually masquerading as 'love,' despite the unloving treatment of characters who are not accepting), and belief in oneself. Overall, the opposites of humility. Why? Because that's what fear is a part of in its truest sense: humility. And society has long hated humility; we all know this.

People hate humility now because it shows them to be what they are: weak, stubborn, sinful, worthless beings. And it makes them admit that, to have worth, they have to rely on something or Someone else. Fear does the same thing. It tells us that we cannot do everything ourselves, we cannot face anything, we cannot be invincible or omnipotent, etc. And because the only alternatives are fearlessness and cowardice, the latter a universally despised flaw even in these days, they promote fearlessness.

But fearlessness is not only unnatural, it is impossible. If you are a human being, then you will have fears (perhaps this is why so many people in these anti-fear movies are not plainly human...?).

It is also arrogant. If one takes away fear of any kind, then one becomes sure that one is the all-powerful center of the universe, capable of anything with enough effort and motivation and belief in oneself, and dependent upon no one, not even God, which is exactly what fear admits; "Without God, we're helpless," fear admits to us.

Modern society dislikes fear because they dislike God. Fear forces them to admit their reliance on God, so they shun it. Not only this, but fear can be an element of conscience, making one reluctant to do what one knows is wrong, and that's strike two for fear in their book. It also disrupts those lovely little 'happy vibes' that they worship as an idol in social media. It can also be a virtue, in fear of the Lord, which is the chief factor in our admittance that Someone is more powerful than us.

So... What Do We Do?

Well, stop making fear the universal enemy in stories, for one thing. For another, write characters who are afraid. Sure, make them face their fears, but don't make it seem like they have none, or that they reject it. Yes, every human being would like to reject fear, no doubt, but truly mature characters will realize that it is not about what they like or don't like in saving themselves, their loved ones, the world, or whatever they're doing. What might even be a good idea is to start making fear's opposite the enemy - arrogance. Just to shoot an idea out there, you know. I know that many of you probably already have neatly-planned little novels and everything, and adding something like this just doesn't fit. Okay, fine. But don't write against it. Please. Fear is not your enemy; it's not anyone's enemy. So stop making it the enemy.

What do you think? Have you seen any movies or read any books like this? Have you ever thought about fear's representation in fiction? Do you have anything to add? Any comments? Arguments? Perhaps better definitions? I want to hear all your thoughts!

10 Terribly Tiresome Tropes

I hate modern culture. I make no pretense of enjoying modern music, modern movies, or modern books. For the most part, I cannot stand any of those three. And so usually I don't give a dime to those things, and let them be, so long as they're away from me. But sometimes, there're a few screwy things that I have to notice. Because - and I'll try to be fair about this despite my distaste for modernity - there are a few elements in a story that have gotten old and nobody has said anything. At this point, they are commonplace, and bad writing, but few people say anything about them because they've become custom. So I will say a few things about  them.

Tiresome Trope #10 - The Copycat

This trope certainly isn't the worst out there, but it's still too common. It consists of a character whose background and setting is taken from another character's, and then said first character's history being conveniently taken as well, subtly, of course, under a different being. This is fan fiction for you. Not all fan fiction is like this, mind you, but most fan fiction I have read takes the setting and background of a popular published character and then takes all their conflict and history and transposes it onto a just conveniently different, new character. For instance, there may be a character who was trained to be an assassin in HYDRA, succeeded for a time in Russian undercover groups, and is eventually reformed, but this character is now a man rather than a woman, or African rather than Russian, or an extrovert rather than an introvert or whatever. But it's basically like taking the backdrop of a portrait and just painting a different face over the original. It's an oft overlooked form of plagiarism, unfortunately. And worse, oftentimes, if the names are changed, this stuff can get published. Ugh.

Tiresome Trope #9 - Fight, Fight, Fight!

This is the trope that we see in most action and sci-fi movies. This is the loooooooong battle scene where most of the characters die, and meanwhile, many character show off their splendid fighting abilities. There is nothing wrong with battles in stories, nor climax battles, so don't get me wrong. It just that when you invent this cataclysmic, do-or-die battle scene and most of what the characters do during it is just fight and kick butt and maybe one or two die just at a moment when all the characters can see and have a dramatic moment shouting "Noooooooooo!," then something's wrong. (This is like every Avengers climax, btw.)

Tiresome Trope #8 - Civil War

Perhaps a very similar trope to #9, but it is different in that all the fighting goes on within the circle of main characters. When the characters just start pettily bickering for no reason, that's about when I put the book down for a while. Why? Firstly, because it's done too much without good cause other than lack of good conflict ideas, and it's bad writing, and secondly, because it drives me nuts when otherwise likable characters behave like spoiled brats. And usually it's just to provide silly conflict in the story or even just among the readers! To quote the immortal HISHE's (How It Should Have Ended) perfect summary of it, "You could have some kind of a civil war for conflict - you know, like a 'pick a side' type thing?"

Tiresome Trope #7 - The Silver Tongue

I get it. Nobody's perfect, even in real life, and so character shouldn't be either. But you know one sure way to make me - and a lot of other more valuable readers - despise a supposedly good main character? Make them lie. Constantly. To everyone. Whenever they're in a scrape. And even when they're not, if you really wanna throw down the gauntlet. Just make them lie, lie, lie. That'll make your readers love them. And it will totally reinforce your depiction of them as a good guy. There are characters who get away with it, maybe, but generally those characters are neither main, nor supposed to be good. Plus, they're usually such well put-together characters that a common trope like that barely dents their lovely, well-polished writing. So... unless you have the next Loki, Dustfinger, or Yank in the R.A.F., then it's a trope better left alone.

Tiresome Trope #6 - Tough and Tiny

These are the characters, usually small, and usually animals, that are all bark and bite and no brawn. Of course, these characters somehow magically conquer everyone they face, despite their usual size disadvantage and the skill disadvantage that realistically they would have. Good examples of this are, I'm sad to say, in many a movie and book I love. It wasn't always cleche writing. Narnia did it, and that's one thing. Chronicles of Prydain did it, and that's one thing. It wasn't old the first few times, maybe. But then, when everybody started doing it, and every kid's movie had one of those characters necessarily, it got old.

Tiresome Trope #5 - That Brat Upstairs

I'm sure all you have seen some movie or read some book with that older sibling - usually a sister - who just stays upstairs, never coming out to the light of day, constantly on her phone/headphones/computer/pad/whatever technology, who hates her younger siblings and is always rude to her parents. She is a teenager who has no respect for most people, bullies and bosses her siblings behind her parents' back, is always put in charge as the tyrant of the house, is usually stupid and easily outsmarted by her rival little siblings, and generally cares nothing for things that are not dating, driving, napping, or partying-related.


I cannot even stress how harmful a trope this is, especially in kid's fiction. Ramona and Beezus; Spiderwick Chronicles; Zathura - there are too many. But the common nature of the trope is not what makes it bad writing, per se, in this case. It hurts.

Do you know how many impressionable young whippersnappers watch or read stuff like this and then forever imagine their older sibling as stupider, meaner, bossier, and overall less pleasant than a decent person? It works the same way with this figure as a parent. Little kids will read stuff with unintelligent parents, guardians, older siblings, or babysitters, and they will think that this means adults must just not be worth much. Trust me - as an oldest sibling, I can speak from experience on the impression it makes on younger siblings, and as a once-impressionable child, I can speak from experience on how much of and impression it makes on daughters and sons. It really is not cool to trash older siblings, writers. It's not cool to trash parents. And it's definitely not cool to write something everybody else is writing without even thinking about what it will impress upon your readers.




Tiresome Trope #4 - I Know What I'm Doing!

Imagine this scenario. A main character who is usually rather strong-willed develops this bizarre, radical idea that nobody else believes. Most people doubt said character and eventually, even their friends think they're just being silly, lying, hallucinating, etc.

And then... poof! This main character, though their idea was unusual, and founded on mostly nothing but prejudice, instinct, or jumping to quick conclusions, turns out to be right. Perhaps even more right than they originally thought. And of course, everybody else pays for not acting on the main character's original gut feeling, because now it's too late (everybody believes them now, of course). And then the main character saves everyone, and they grovel on their knees for not yielding to the main character's every all-knowing whim. Yep. Sound like good writing to you? No? I think I've said enough.

Tiresome Trope #3 - Macho... But Not So Macho

How many male characters are there in fiction at this point who seem masculine and tough and then end up being sentimental or insecure? Really, writers. There's a reason men are called 'men,' for goodness's sake. It's because they are men, and not sops or women with guns or effeminate wimps.

Please. Just recognize that not all men out there are pathetic! This is a particularly harmful trope, too, because it has established the now all too common humor of stupid men and intelligent women, which, really, is incredibly sexist, guys. And don't think I'm just criticizing the muscle men with secrets - male characters who never even start out masculine (for no particular reason, too) are even worse, and also unrealistic writing.

Tiresome Trope #2 - Lil Sassy Feminist

I had a very hard time choosing between this and #1 as to which one was worse. Eventually, I chose this to be second place because it went more with #3 in its content. But, while #1 won out, this one is still one of the most ridiculous cleche tropes out there. There are so many women in fiction who fight (and do as well or better than the poor, pathetic men), are cleverer than all their surrounding people (usually comically egotistic or stupid men), and are generally more skilled and insightful than the other characters (need I even say it again?).

Every single girl. In every single book. Everywhere.They also coincidentally wear tight or showy clothing, dislike dresses, are uncomfortable in feminine society, scorn womanly practices, and are generally rebellious, sassy, and unintentionally egotistic. They think the best of themselves because they are the best. They fight because they are better at it than the men. They read, invent, and design not, despite appearances and claims, because it is a hobby they enjoy, or because they with to educate themselves, but merely because the brutish, Neanderthal males would deny them the privilege of it. I would supply examples, but I am quite confident that you shall be able to easily think of many without my help. And if I hadn't already complained enough, I would elaborate further upon my disgust with this quite thoroughly tiresome trope.



Tiresome Trope #1 - Father Fallacious, Sister Sinister, and Brother Boorish

This is perhaps the most tiresome trope of all.  Because it's another harmful trope. A very harmful trope. Because the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, is so oft maligned, most people have a mental image of religious life, religious people, or even religion in general as stupid, outdated, or simply sinister. And, as opposed to the other harmful tropes mentioned above, this targets something that is not quite so easily off-key.

When you malign older siblings and parents in fiction, you are merely maligning an imperfect, human group. There are mean parents and bad siblings out there. When you malign masculinity, you are still maligning a mostly human thing. There are pathetic men out there. But when you malign Christ, Christianity, and His Church, you're maligning the very wellspring of Truth.

Yes, there are surely bad priests, bad nuns, bad monks, etc., etc. out there - there's no doubt of that. But the thing is, when you have only a single, or a couple representations of the Church or its members, and you choose to make them negative for no particular reason, then you choose to imagine that Church, that religion, and that Divine Savior as in general false, fearful, greedy, evil, outdated, and overall unintelligent. Fiction may be meant to imitate real life, but it is not real life. We write novels because we have ideas of what the world could be, not by necessity exactly, molecule for molecule, what it is. Because who would want to read an exact account of their daily life, word for word, nothing spared?

The thing is, we want novels to be like our life, but not just like our life. We would like a little bit of fancy. We would like a little bit of hope. We would like a little bit of Truth, and Beauty, and Goodness. So to pointlessly malign something, even in fiction, is not only oftentimes libel, but also incredibly bad writing.

All of these are pretty bad writing. But they're not the only options. To clear up the gray cloud, I hope to follow up soon with 10 more tropes, but these will instead be good ones that are in need of revival. Because I know that no one wants to just hear a post that is completely negative and critical without any practical suggestions - I certainly don't - I'll try and get that follow-up post ready as soon as possible. Thanks for reading! Tell what you think in the comments, whether it be (civil) debate, additions, critique, or suggestions for part two - chat with me! (As a last word, I must needs apologize - methinks I went a little crazy with the gifs.) 





Praise For Fictional Mothers

Happy Mother's Day (and Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, coincidentally) to all! :D I thought it might be fun for Mother's Day to explore some of my favorite moms fiction has to offer - care to join me? :)Because mother character so rarely get applauded, I would love for anyone and everyone to add any they can think of in the comments, even their own story's mother characters! Because we need mom characters - they are the ignored heroes of the stories. Without them, would we even have the heroes?

Queen Frigga from Thor

M'dear friend Megan has already pointed out each and every one of this amazing mom's qualities, both as a character, and as a mother here, and I couldn't agree more! Frigga is strong in the midst of weakness, and is the glue to a broken vase, so to speak. No family in fiction that I can think of is quite so broken up as Frigga's at that start, and yet no mother in fiction that I can think strikes me a stronger in the situation.

Mrs. March from Little Women

Ya know, I'd always felt, even as a little girl reading the story, that there was something special about Marmee. She was every bit as caring as a real life mother, and had a character all her own, which is an attribute sadly lacking in many fictional mothers. She seemed almost the definition of a mother - caring, but fierce in her own way as well. And I must say that a good few words of Marmee's advice have stuck with me quite determinedly through all these years. After all, Mother knows best - and Mrs. March is no exception!

Galadriel from Lord of the Rings

Perhaps for most people, mother is not the first thing that comes to mind when they think Galadriel. They might think 'Ring-bearer,' 'Forest-queen,' or even, perhaps, if their mind is inclined to agree with the stupid movie Gimli's ramblings, 'Elf-witch.' Putting aside that last one, she is all of these things. But also a mother. And a mother primarily. You know, without her, there would be none of Arwen and Aragorn. Because there wouldn't be Arwen. While the movies ignore it quite blatantly, Arwen is the granddaughter of Galadriel, child to Galadriel's daughter, Celebrian. And, you know, once I found out, I was never really able to think of Galadriel in any other way. She just seems like a mother, though her role as one is quite hidden in LotR. But the truth is, motherhood isn't glory. But it's goodness. And that I am sure even those who at the start of this thought like Gimli would agree Galadriel has. Because, believe it or not, she was a mother before she was ever an 'Elf-witch.' ;)

 Resa Folchart from Inkheart

Okay. I'll admit it. I was never a big fan of Resa, even having watched the movie basically since it came out. But, honestly, she deserved my fandom. She was a mother whose motherhood was torn from her, and what did she do? She didn't just move on. She didn't make a new life. She didn't try to get glory for herself. She spent her every last ounce of effort - even unto slavery, imprisonment, and almost death - to be a mother again. She used every power within her just to get back to her child. Now that's a determined mother. I think she deserved my fandom.

Eudora from The Princess and the Frog

There's unfortunately not a whole lot about Eudora in the movie. She's Tiana's down to earth, hard-working, wise-woman Mama, and that's most of what you get. But that's enough. Even just the little bit you get of her, you can tell a lot. She worked herself to pieces just to raise Tiana. She's been poor, widowed, and been through quite some trouble. And, even though Tiana was a good worker like her mother, Eudora always had to try and convince Tiana of what she really needed. And though it seemed never to work, she kept on trying. And finally, it worked. Finally, throughout a chaotic sequence of events, Tiana remembered her mother's words and finally found what she needed.

We Need More

Sure, there are good mother characters out there. But they're few and far between. Most of them are from old or obscure books, and are not commonly known. I've tried my hand at making some - and sometimes met with some measure of success. Queen Gianna from The Clarion Call (previously, Alagna) is a mother who actually has a good relationship with her children, Anwynne's mother in The Pain of a Memory, though little-mentioned, actually cares about her daughter, despite Anwynne's own rather uncaring character, and Felicia from Clarion Call actually has a relevant role in the story. But these are not enough. So I'm calling all of you *cue Uncle Sam picture* to write mother characters. Good ones. Intimate ones. Real mothers. Will you answer?

What do you think? Can you add any other good mothers in fiction who need praise? Have you written any mother characters? Are you willing to answer the need for more?

A Writers' Call To Arms - Bring Back Real Men!

Today, I'm here to protest. No wishy-washy protesting today, no sir. However, I will nonetheless try to be as fair as possible. I have a problem - so do you - so does everyone in this world! The US especially has partaken in this horrid trend. What is it? Making men into monsters. The only reason so many horrific immoralities take place nowadays is because men aren't men. Women can do a lot, yes, but what about when we too have become debased? And even if we weren't, we're still only half the battle.
When jokingly speaking with my friend, Lucy Agnes, we got into a kind-of agreeing debate. She remarked that women had no high standards, but really ought to. And I said in agreement this: if Juliet has no balcony for Romeo to climb, then how does she know he loves her enough to climb it if she did? And at the time, I didn't think much about it. But now, as I ponder the subject more, I think how terribly true it is. We don't have any balconies. We don't even have any garden steps. Some of us have even sunk so low as to not even have a door in the way. And it's so sad. See, really, my protest here is about men, but I have to begin with someone else. The ones allowing it to happen - women. Everywhere I look in the world, women are debasing themselves for no reason. What happened to the days where a romance wen like this:
Lady is high above gentleman. He loves her and wants to make her know. So he tries. And fails. And tries again. And again. And again. And again. He does everything in his power to make her come down to him. But then he realizes that he must not let her stoop down - he must come up. So he climbs, and climbs, and climbs - up to her. And finally, he is admitted.

Now, some may think this sounds stuffy, but it's a whole lot better than this:

Lady is high above gentleman. He just says "Hey, get down here, I don't deserve having to climb all that way, and you don't deserve being up there". She comes down to him... only for him to then run away to a different girl's balcony.  
It's very sad. I hope in this comparison I have made my case concerning the part of women. Now to tackle the main subject.
Writers, ask yourself this: have I ever described men in a debasing way in my stories? Made a supposed to be sympathetic male character with no backbone, or who is effeminate? Made my leading man whiny, unintelligent, angry, or unsteady, while my villain was masculine and clever? Have I ever made my leading lady throw herself away in the hope of getting said leading man without ever regretting it? Have I viewed or described a childish leading man in my story as a good or ideal man?
If you answer yes to any of these questions without good reason, then I'm afraid you too may have fallen to the trend. What is it with us writers, then? Why is it that in the movies and books we get heroes like Harry Potter, Captain Jack Sparrow, and Iron Man? People who could care less about anyone other than themselves, even though they (with the exception of Captain Sparrow) make pretense of being heroic? They care about nothing  but their own acclaimed heroism, glory, and good name (and sometimes not even that). If somebody despises them, they don't just get over it. They despise the person back; insulting them and tricking them in whatever way possible (examples: Harry Potter always making fun of his unpleasant cousin Dudley; Captain Jack trying to double-cross Barbossa, Will, and Elizabeth constantly; Iron Man making crude jokes about whatever villain he's facing, not to mention Cap as well).

And not only that, but if they ever 'reform', it's only half way. And the writer sticks with them. Rowling often supports Harry in his poking fun at Dudley by agreeing that Dudley is fat, not so good-looking, and not incredibly clever. And what do we see in Jack's friends but people who not only deserve to be tricked, but also would backstab Jack as well on the turn of a dime? And how many Marvel fans and even Marvel makers out there are saying that Cap just needs to 'loosen up' about Iron Man? Loosen up on what? Loosen up on being a hero, on being a real man? The type that would give his life for even the random, villainous henchman who most heroes would say doesn't deserve to live? The type that would put his all into even the smallest acts, and never let go of what he believed if he knew it was good, true, or beautiful? The type that never disrespected boundaries that other people set unless said boundaries endangered someone? The type that could possibly want to remain true to the same girl for 70 years, and even afterwards, when she's dead, take her over anyone else were she still there?
And then there's Iron Man. The only heroism in him is the instinct to take glory and save lives because it makes him look like a hero. The only manhood in him is the cold definition of manhood - simply being an adult male. Iron Man doesn't even make pretense of giving up his life for people who have hurt him. He would be the one saying that the villain doesn't deserve to live. Iron Man even fights to save the world haphazardly, without plan and on whatever impulse or clever notion he thinks he has. And Iron Man only sticks to his beliefs (what beliefs he has) when they involve his oh-so precious ego. Not even to mention his habits of being a terribly unfaithful jerk.

So what is it with writers then? Why do we write these things? Well, it's a simple answer. It's because that's how things really are in real life. So we write what we see. It's another symptom of modern times - that realisticism in writing that is obsessed with making things out right down to the speck of dust realistic. No goodness, no beauty, just the singled-out dirtiest and most horrific facts. No art to writing anymore is there because of this. However, while I do have quite the bone to pick with realisticist writers (and I know 'realisticist' is not a real word, ironically enough), I shall deal with them another day. But they have helped cause this problem. The problem in society is caused by the fact that we don't want it to change. Obviously we don't, because we just write about what we see and think that's totally okay. We write these anti-heroes who never really change, these playboys who never really reform, and these male feminist wimps we would like to call men. We need to write not as things are - for that is a terrible, mottled thing in these days - but as things should be. A problem will never be solved if we are willing to just live with it.

So today, I have a challenge - a call to arms for all courageous writers out there. Today, just write one hero - a real hero. A man who knows himself, and - even despite struggles - can win over his dark side. A man who is true, good, and beautiful in the truest sense of those words. A man who is willing to climb those balconies and mount those obstacles. A man who is willing to stand strong like a mountain in the midst of a raging blizzard. A man who protects those he loves, and even those who don't love him, without credit or reward or glory. A man who does not give way to women in strength. A man who doesn't speak words of poison. A man who doesn't pitch temper-tantrums or whine or brood. A man who is not some macho braggart either. A man who takes full responsibility, uncomplaining, for all his actions, even when he knows he was wrong. A man who is just doing the right thing. Don't write the Duke of Mantua. Don't write Iron Man. Write instead Nemerino, or Captain America. A hero. Today, writers, write a man who is really a man.
What do you think? Will you respond to my call to arms? Please, take up your pen and respond to this call, much needed in these times! Every hero, no matter how small, will help in this quest. Just remember that, in artfully writing virtue - though the world is against you - you are never alone. Stand with me, writers.

Why Not To Be Obsessed With Harry Potter

Most of you, my audience, are probably feeling skeptical at this title. Probably something along the lines of "What? 'Why Not To Be Obsessed With Harry Potter'? But it's soooo good!". Well, before you go away, I'll tell you that this is not an anti-Harry Potter post. It's just an urge for moderation. I myself enjoy a bit of Harry Potter here or there. But not everywhere, all the time, every single second, like it so often is in the fan world. And it's not just personal preference, but reasoning behind it too. Still unsure about the post? Let me show you what I mean...

There's A General Obsession With Harry Potter
Everywhere you see it. EVERYWHERE. In bookshops anywhere you'll find the books, in movie shops anywhere you'll find the movies, in shops of miscellaneous types anywhere you'll find its various merchandise. Online, everywhere you go, memes and products of this fantastical craze. And it's gotten a new resurgence with the eighth book and the Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them movie. Rare is it that on any list of great modern writers compiled that you don't find J. K. Rowling, this series' authoress. Rarer still is it that any actor or actress associated with the Harry Potters is ever forgotten as such. And rarest of all is it to find somebody who hasn't at least heard of Harry Potter. Why is this exactly? Let me lay out the values of Harry Potter:
1. It is even on first glance very unusual, and there is no literature preceding it that was along the same ideas. In other words, it seems incredibly creative.
2. The characters are in large quantities, thus making it easy for just about any reader to find at least one character that they love.
3. The sub-plots are numerous and complex enough to satisfy the most picky readers.
4. It's extremely popular, and if you've read it then you will not have a hard time finding at least one other person who has.
5. The main moral virtue displayed in the book is courage, which is a very pleasing virtue to read about, of course.
6. The world-building in it is very assuming, seeming to be of incredible loftiness in genius.
7. The writing set a new era in fiction and fantasy particularly, making way for many new concepts and types of writing.
These, I believe, are the main values of Harry Potter. And now that I have laid them out, showing I do see value in this series, I shall proceed with my argument concerning it. In light of these values, why shouldn't we be obsessed with Harry Potter? Here are a few reasons.

The Writing
This may seem like a contradiction to #7 in the list of values, but the writing is very sketchy. (Please, before you jump down my throat for this, because I do the things I am listing of Harry Potter in my own writing, remember that I am writing this post as a reader more than a writer, and that these are published books, expected to be better in writing, whereas mine are not.) The writing is just messy at times. Many people reviewing the books have trouble even figuring out what POV they are written in. The writing often goes into lapses of the exact same phrases, sayings, and thoughts. For instance, if I had a dollar for every time somebody said/thought 'such a git', or 'some bloke', I would have enough money to buy myself a formal evening dress. The language in it is very unrefined, though actual swearing isn't in it for the most part. The language patterns of everyone are almost the same, with only a few exceptions.  And many times you see a scene's POV being led by someone who is not the MC, and has no personal relation to him, and only appears once in the entire series (this isn't as much a technical problem as the others, as some of these random POVs had a point, but it still bothered me personally). And sometimes the world or the characters can be rather inconsistent. Inconsistency in world, particularly the magic factor, can be found especially in the movies, but also in the books occasionally. This is not to even mention the factor of small-scale writing, such as creativity or consistency in what is stated to have happened (things like 'he said', or 'she picked it up'). I can thank the book for setting a new era of writing, from which came many a good development and enjoyable book, but I can also be frustrated with it because many not so favorable (or tasteful) books came from this era as well. Overall, the writing is extremely modern in this factor, and I'm not too terribly impressed with it. However, it's not technical perfection that makes a book perfect, and I am all for reading books that are not technically perfect, it's just that their other values must outbalance this.

The Characters
Again, you may think I'm contradicting myself when I say that many of the characters are not their own person, but merely a wind-chime for whatever bit of plot or comic relief to blow through. There were many characters that had almost the exact same speech pattern/opinions/phrases/reactions very frequently. I sense that this is perhaps just a channeling of Rowling's 'character style', a.k.a. her tendency to make a certain kind of character when no other ideas for it were to be had. For instance, many of the so-called 'quirks' of smaller characters (such as Dean Thomas or Lavender Brown) are often stated once, maybe twice at the very most, and then left out of the character completely, making that character rather disappointingly a 'blank slate' once more. Truly, for many characters, I felt as though the name, gender, and Hogwarts House was all I had to go on for their character. I can say the same for some of the teachers even (in particular, Professor Sinistra). I am rather ashamed to say it, but I can actually see very well why certain characters were not shown in the movie. That is to say, they merely did not have enough character in them to make it to the chopped-up movie screen. Now, there were a good many lively, creative, wonderful characters to. Professor Snape (particularly movie man) was an amazingly well thought-out character, and I can well say that the only part in any of the movies which caused me to cry was the climax revealing his past. And no Harry Potter quote makes me more sappy than that lovely little "Always" of Snape's. And then characters like Hermione were also fairly thorough, though not quite so likeable or pitiable as Snape. I think my problem with the characters mainly is that Rowling put too much of the same elements in all of them, elements that were not to the effect of showing her style, but merely making the characters rough mirrors of each other. All the good guys liked to wittily insult/disrespect the bad guys. All the bad guys had greasy hair or were huge. It's only these stereotypes of Rowling's that bother me. Other than these, I enjoyed the characters very much, and they were in great quantity to be enjoyed to be sure.

The World
I'm going to make this very short, because my only complaint is perhaps a slightly unfair one (as I willingly admit), but still worth mentioning as a note. I see in many aspects of the creatures and places of Rowling's thing perhaps too similar to other fictional worlds. There are many creatures/places/concepts of the Harry Potter world that are rather copied (whether intentional or not) off of the original great fantasies, like J. R. R. Tolkien's work, and also that of C. S. Lewis. Now, like I said, this a bit of an unfair complaint, because you really just can't write a fantasy that doesn't copy one of the greats in some way. They just formed the genre fantasy, especially Tolkien's Middle Earth-related books. There is about a 90% chance that if you write a fantasy, it will have something in common with Lord Of The Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, or The Chronicles Of Narnia. However, I have mentioned this scruple merely because it is worth noting, lest another person note it and think more critically of it.

The Attitude Behind It
I'm just going to say it, and hope that no one jumps down my throat. I'm sorry, but many of the attitudes Rowling has taken concerning Harry Potter are very highly disturbing. For instance, how many here know that she was herself interested in real witchcraft and demonic arts before she wrote Harry Potter? Obviously you wouldn't guess that much reading the book, but just hearing about it kind-of shook me for the book. And then there's her constant publicity-netting. Anything to get publicity. Write an eighth book with a bajillion contradictions and absolutely no point? Sure, that should get some publicity! Let the whole thing practically be written by somebody else and just put Rowling's name on it for that publicity? Why not? Make a movie, and somehow eventually another saga off of a single book Rowling wrote that didn't even tell a story but was for Harry Potter world research? Somehow glean a whole tale that wasn't there from it? What a brilliant idea! Change anything at all about Harry Potter in interviews and everything previously said on the spur of the moment, just to keep it out as hot stuff? Of course! And then there's Rowling's support of LGBT stuff, also - I believe - for publicity. In fact, she has even proposed the idea that in the prologue to Harry Potter (which is what has been named Fantastic Beast And Where To Find Them) she will make Professor/Headmaster Dumbledore LGBT. In fact, she now claims that he was the entire time, even though there is absolutely no proof of this in the original books, which - surprisingly - are mostly innocent of Rowling's disturbing viewpoints. While one can look past all this, it is still a bit unsettling. For me, I just don't particularly relish reading books with an authoress who takes these attitudes towards them.

The Magic And The Morals
To those who G. K. Chesterton would describe as 'bigots' (in other words, someone who disapproves of certain sets of morals but has none of their own), I would suggest they don't read this one. Because morals is one of my biggest problems with Harry Potter, and I don't intend to skim over the subject. If this post has become too critical for anybody, then I merely suggest that they stop reading.
My problem with the magic is not, as I've mentioned it, so much that it's inconsistent, but merely that it is too suspiciously close to real witchcraft. Surely to the ordinary reader it is innocent and quite fine. However, ever so often you reach certain tiny little details about the world that are suspicious. Like the use of terms such as 'astrology', 'divination', and 'transfiguration' at random spasms in the books. Things that smell of real witchcraft's odds and ends. This disturbs me, especially for someone who knows books like those of Montague Summers (one of the most renowned authorities and historians on the subject). And, even reading only bits of Summers' books, I can see perhaps too clearly the resemblance to Harry Potter. Now, because the Harry Potters themselves are mostly innocent of real, evil witchcraft, I would pass this by. But then, because of those details, it opens the mind of the reader up to the real thing. Bit by bit, the reader find themselves less and less closed-up to the idea of magic. Now this wouldn't be a problem for a mature, well-taught reader. But it is those readers who have no idea that it is a problem for. Most of my audience members are probably right about now very skeptical. But, this is not my only problem moral-wise with Harry Potter. In fact, the far more obvious problem with its morals, and perhaps the one to be worried about, is the attitudes of the characters. They are unforgiving, often disrespectful, and sometimes even deceitful. Often they cheat, lie, break rules, or steal to get their objectives, and have very little scruple about it. Now, think of how that looks to the very young reader of Harry Potter. It looks as though they're saying that stealing/lying/cheating/breaking rules is okay if it gets you what you need. That's not a very comforting moral message, is it? And none of the main characters in Harry Potter seem to have much respect for their fellow being. They frequently insult, wish to hurt, or otherwise disrespect people who don't agree with them or are mean to them. And it's not just the people they're against, even. I cannot count the times when Harry himself got angry at his friends and just started rolling out insults or rants because some childish complex of his is being hurt. And I have never seen a book where more anger is portrayed. I don't read them often, and I make intervals in between reading them, because I find sometimes it can make me angry if I read them too often and too close together. It just makes a book less enjoyable for me when all the characters are constantly angry at their enemies, at one another, and at just about everything that happens. It just makes me feel on edge and guilty, as though I were the one being so unforgiving and angry. And rare is it, unless it was his friends he was yelling at, that Harry Potter ever apologizes for his tantrums or fights. And his best friend, Ron, is - if possible - a worse case, as he often doesn't even apologize when it is his friends he fought with. I just find it unusual that someone should be obsessed with an anger-fest book, or rather an anger-fest series of books.

The Hype
This is a more personal, rather than logical or philosophical reason for disliking Harry Potter. But I feel that, when something has as many slightly out-of-place details as Harry Potter does, and is already as hyped and famous as Harry Potter is, then you don't need to fangirl over it or spread it on the world like butter on bread. And seeing as those books are about as well-known as PB&Js, they really don't need any help getting into the world.

Totally how it is.

Conclusion
So they're not the most flawless books. But they are still very enjoyable! I would only caution that strictly mature readers alone should read them, and definitely only mature watchers should see the movies. In fact, I would not recommend them to anyone under the age of fourteen unless they are particularly mature, and even then not unless maturity, awareness, and readiness are present in said reader. While there are many a reason why Harry Potter isn't perfect, there are still many good things to it. And it's always a good thing to have reader it, even if you don't approve, because you can  - as I have done here - analyze it for others and help them to realize accurately its flaws and values balanced. Not to mention, at least for writers, reading them helps you to understand the beginnings of the modern writing style, which is vital for a writer whether you want to write in that style or mean to avoid it (I personally avoid it like the plague).
So, I'm not trying to tell anyone they shouldn't like Harry Potter or shouldn't know Harry Potter, only why not to be completely obsessed with it. Trust me, there is many a good fandom out there just waiting to be loved madly. Harry Potter can afford to be a much lesser one on your list. :)
What did you think? Will I now get a blast of comments for insulting the nigh-untouched Harry Potter? Or perhaps there are readers who can agree with a point or two of the discussion...? I am eager to hear any thoughts on it - agreeing or not - so long as they're kept logical and polite.