How to Write Strong Women Characters Pt. 2

The Magnificat

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty. He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever. —Luke 1:47-55

In my last post, I gave a recent positive example of strong women characters; however, these women were playing roles normally filled by men — professional wrestlers. I do not want to take anything away from women who want to excel in those types of rolls; however, it is indicative of our current culture that the best positive example of strong women I could find is were women are exhibiting masculine strength. As a consequence, I am inclined to go back to the greatest story of all time to find the archetype of feminine strength: the Virgin Mary and the Mother of our God. I lift her up not only because of her prophecy from the Gospel of St. Luke — every generation will call me blessed — but because Orthodox Christianity sees her as the best of humanity. In our churches, she sits at the right hand of Christ on the iconostasis and we sing of her almost every day:

Greater in honor than the Cherubim, and in glory greater beyond compare than the Seraphim; you without corruption gave birth to God the Word, and are truly Theotokos. You do we magnify.

No other saint has more hymns sung in their honor than the Virgin Mary, who has been given the title Theotokos — the Mother of God.

Of course, from the perspective of modern feminism, we run into a problem with the virtues that this archetype champions — Chastity and Motherhood. I mention feminism specifically because phrases such as "because it's time" and "young white men have been pandered to" find their source in that philosophy. In addition, our current cultural landscape celebrates, in the name of feminism, the antithesis of Chastity and Motherhood — Promiscuity and Abortion — as virtues.

Couched in the language of empowerment, we have been told that women armed with birth control can stand on equal footing with men in their ability to have sex without consequence and with that most extreme form of birth control options, abortion, can pursue careers over families. This is shouted to the rooftops despite growing evidence that women are less and less happy the further away from the Archetype of the Virgin Mary and Mother of God we get.

Allow me a moment to critically examine what our modern culture calls "empowerment." Promiscuity is never risk-free. There is no type of birth-control that is 100% effective outside of abstinence. Additionally, multiple partners increases the chance of disease. Regardless of all the medical advances we have made, women are still taking the greater risk when engaged in promiscuous behavior.

This risk becomes even greater when coupled with the denigration of men. We have an entire generation of young men that have been told that they are the source of evil in the world, that their natural behavior towards women is hateful, and have been accused of rape for engaging in consensual sex. In other words, we have a culture that expects women to have a lot of sex and for men to behave badly. We live in an upside down world where men are interested in long-term monogamous relationships and women are interested in multiple partners. Given this reality, the type of man who would willingly participate in the promiscuity of women is not the type of man a women is safe to be promiscuous with.

As much as conservatives balk at the existence of rape culture, the #metoo movement has clearly demonstrated that a rape culture does exist in the very institutions that promote the idea: Hollywood, the Media, and other forms of Entertainment. For decades, men who see women as mere objects to use for their own desires have been able to maintain their positions of power by selling us the feminist ideal of female empowerment.

In contrast, Chastity actually empowers women to manipulate the behavior of men. It is quite simple: you want a piece of this? then live up to what I want in a man and commit to being that man for the rest of your life.

Our current culture celebrates abortion as a positive experience. All of the troubles and sacrifices necessary to see a pregnancy through are gone in an instant. What the brochure and abortion clinics across the country fail to mention is that there are consequences. Killing your own child in the womb can and does have long term physical and mental repercussions. Once done, it can never be taken back.

While Motherhood does, in fact, require sacrifice and a radical shift in life priorities, it also is a source of feminine power. Nothing motivates like trying to do your best for your children. Everyone knows not to mess with a mother bear, the same can be said of a mother trying to protect her children. In addition, throughout the ages, women have had access to political power through their children. The term Queen Mother exists for a reason. Let me give an example from Church history:

In the Orthodox Church, we celebrate Sts. Irene and Theodora as critical players in the defeat of Iconoclasm. Both acted as regents for their sons. Both sons were children when they were crowned Emperor. Both women were married to Iconoclasts. Both lovingly bided their time knowing that they would be able to effect change through their children.

While it is true that women can (and even should) excel in professions normally dominated by men (as can men excel in professions normally dominated by women), these are exceptions. While female characters that succeed through masculine characteristics can and do work, the number of good stories that can be told are limited. This can be seen in the failures of modern cinema to shoehorn women into normally masculine roles.

If we are truly interested in strong women and if we are truly interested in telling stories about strong women, I would propose that we embrace the archetype personified by the Virgin Mary. Tell stories where Chastity and Motherhood are not only embraced, but celebrated.

How to Write Strong Women Characters

Following my last post, I wanted to give a positive example of good storytelling using female characters, since the comment section included a long discussion about turning Dr. Who into a woman. I wanted my example to be current, since my attempts at pointing out extremely well written women in sci-fi/fantasy that can be found prior to our current cultural malaise doesn’t seem to matter. Unfortunately, that meant going to a genre outside my bailiwick: professional wrestling.

There are several things in my life that I personally do not necessarily like and do not go out of my way to watch or participate in, but I do enjoy watching others who do love these things. For example, I love watching baseball fanatics geek out over baseball. I enjoy watching Trekkies being Trekkies. Ever since I became aware of professional wresting (I believe it was Cyndi Lauper’s music video for “The Goonies ‘r’ Good Enough”) I have enjoyed listening to people who wax poetic about the stories professional wrestlers portray inside and outside the ring.

Last month, the wrestling promotion AEW televised a non-sanctioned, lights-out match between the wrestlers Britt Baker D.M.D and Thunder Rosa. For those unfamiliar, that is a match where pretty much anything is allowed: chairs, tables, ladders, weapons, tacks, etc. It was a brutal affair that ended a rivalry that had gone on for several months.

Britt Baker is a home-grown wrestler for AEW. She has been the face of the women’s division since AEW started its Dynamite TV show on TNT. This has not always been a good thing. Initially, she was a bouncy, bubbly character that nobody really liked. So, she changed course and made a heel turn. This means she became one of the bad guys. It transformed her character and her career. Fans loved it.

At the same time, fans were also critical of the women’s division as a whole because it wasn’t producing the kind of stories and matches that the men’s division was (which are some of the best in pro wrestling today). In order to address this situation, AEW brought in Thunder Rosa, who came into the promotion with the express purpose of elevating the quality of women’s wrestling in AEW.

At the time, Thunder Rosa was the NWA Women’s Champion. In other words, she was not only an outsider, but an outsider who was under contract with another promotion. Her presence was a direct challenge to the entire women’s division of AEW and to Britt Baker in particular. Thus, these two were on a collision course.

The two clashed in several matches, interfered with each other when they weren’t wrestling each other and cost each other championships. The rivalry was white hot and when non-champion stories like this are told, the best ones culminate in extreme matches like the one televised last month.

One of the key things to understand about this match is that as a non-sanctioned, lights-out match it had to be the last match of the night. All of the “real” matches that counted for purposes of wins and losses were done. Due to this fact, it was the Main Event of the show. AEW promoted this. It promoted the extreme nature of the scheduled match. It heightened expectation due to its extreme nature and its position on the show. Not only did this match meet and exceed these expectations, but fans immediately started making the claim that this was one of the best matches in AEW history, let alone the best ever women’s match.

Incidentally, this was the first time a women's match had ever been the Main Event in AEW; however, this was not part of the story. Indeed, it was very important that it was not part of the story. Had this been promoted as the first women’s Main Event in AEW history, it would have irreparably damaged everything these two women had been doing over the months they were working together.

Britt Baker and Thunder Rosa pushed each other and themselves to their limits. They earned this spot through their wrestling, through their character work, and through their storytelling. Had they been just the first women’s Main Event in AEW history all of that hard work would have been rendered meaningless. They wouldn’t have earned the match because their work, their characters, and their storytelling, they would have been given the match because of an immutable characteristic they had no real control over: the fact that they are women.

When we, as a culture, promote anyone simply because of an immutable characteristic, we diminish and dehumanize them. Nothing that they personally accomplish means anything because we are promoting the idea that the only reason that have what they have is due to something they didn’t do or choose.

Had AEW screamed to the rafters that Britt Baker D.M.D vs Thunder Rosa was the first women’s Main Event, no one would have had the expectations that they had for this match. Necessarily, expectations would have been lowered because these women would not have earned the position they had due to their hard work. They would have been given the position simply because they are women. As a consequence, the fact that Britt Baker and Thunder Rosa exceeded these lowered exceptions wouldn’t have meant nearly as much. In fact, I don’t think the match would have been as great as it was because the pressure these two would have had to perform under would also have been much less.

Instead, AEW chose to let these two women be wrestlers instead of just women. They let these two characters shine rather than being just women. They expected these two women to excel at their art rather than settling on being just women. As a consequence, both are superstars beloved by wrestling fans and images from this match will be remembered in wrestling lore for generations to come.

In other words, if you want to make Dr. Who a woman “because it’s time” or “because young white men have been pandered to” you will fail. If, however, you write a story where a female Dr. Who or a female lead in the Dr. Who series makes sense in context of the show and its history and is given an opportunity to earn their spot in Dr. Who lore, you have a chance of telling one of the greatest Dr. Who stories in the series history.

So, stop writing stories “because it’s time” and start writing stories where characters earn everything that they have, like Britt Baker D.M.D and Thunder Rosa.

Why Star Wars, etc. Now S*cks

I was one of those kids who saw Star Wars (before it was dubbed A New Hope) in the theater. I was doomed to be a sci-fi/fantasy fan for the rest of my life. I began to buy comic books. I found Dr. Who on my local PBS. My mom brought home the Holmes Basic Box set. I tried reading the Lord of the Rings and found I could scratch my fantasy itch elsewhere. I even tolerated watching Star Trek with my Trekkie friends. Though for many years my entertainment dollar has rarely gone towards anything beyond RPGs and war games, I am still a fan at heart and hope that some day there is a franchise out there that I will find worthy of my time and my dollar.

Unfortunately, companies like WotC, Disney, WB, Paramount, etc. have all decided that I am toxic and whatever is the most recent flavor of -ist this week. I want Star Wars, Marvel, DC, and even Star Trek to be good; however, I don’t just think they won’t be anytime soon, I know they won’t be.

In the past, I have critiqued various movies and shows for abandoning the Divine in their story telling. God is the first storyteller. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament quoted by the writers of the New Testament and the oldest version of the OT we have today, the verb in the first sentence in Scripture (In the beginning God created) has the same root as poetry. This version of to create is only used when in association with God, and he creates (makes poetry) through speaking, “Let there be light.” Thus, just as all creation was doomed to decay and death by humanity turning its back on God, stories are doomed to meaningless drivel when the storyteller turns their back on the source of all stories.

While I still stand by this critique, there is another level of horrid storytelling that has been cropping up recently that I think needs to be addressed because it goes beyond turning its back on God and turns its back on the human person. Let me explain.

Reality can be broken up into two categories: the general and the particular. For example, I am using a computer in order to write this post. Some portion of those who are reading this post will also be using a computer to do so. While the term “computer” helpfully describes all of these devices, I am using a particular computer and the reader is using another particular computer. All computers = the general; my computer = the particular.

The crux of my critique depends on the fact the human beings always experience the particular and never experience the general. Whenever I encounter “computer” in my life, it is always a particular computer. The general “computer” is an immaterial concept that, although outside the particular experience of human beings, is nonetheless very real. The general allow us to make sense of the particular. Without the general, our empirical experience of the world would be a chaotic string of ever-changing data with no basis for interpretation or understanding.

From a Christian POV, this is how we experience and understand the Trinity. The general is God and the particular is the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is why Christ became a human being — so that we can intimately know God in the particular.

The reason story telling in the present is so awful is that the characters that occupy our stories are the general instead of the particular. Let me illustrate this my favorite literary inspiration for the Thief class — Bilbo Baggins. In JRR Tolkien’s works, Bilbo Baggins is important because he is a particular hobbit with individual quirks, strengths, weaknesses, and interests that qualify him to be the burglar that Gandalf chooses for the purpose of recovering what was lost to the dragon Smaug. If The Hobbit were written by today’s crop of storytellers, Gandalf would have chosen Bilbo because he is a hobbit and no other reason.

Characters today are largely just a collection of general categories based on immutable characteristics. While I acknowledge the reality of bigotry in the world — there is no question that bigotry exists and affects people on a regular basis — none of us have ever experienced “white,” “black,” or whatever category is fashionable in the present moment. We have, however, experienced particular human persons that have these immutable characteristics.

Herein is the insidious nature of the kind of storytelling we see in today’s popular culture, and why it is so awful. Characters are no longer human persons. They are no longer unique, irreplaceable, and valuable individuals. Characters are merely categories. As individual persons, they have no value because they can be replaced by another character from the same general category.

This type of storytelling can only produce uninteresting and valueless stories because the individual characters that occupy these stories have no intrinsic value in their particularity. As consumers, it becomes increasingly difficult to care about these stories because there is no particular to encounter — these stories deny us the very basic human experience of the particular that is our reality.

This also explains why it is so easy to label fans who demand the particular as toxic and -ists of various flavors. We are denying and criticizing the immutable characteristic — the general category — of the character. Since there is no particular and only the general, we must therefore be toxic and -ist.

All of this dehumanizes everybody. History has shown again and again that when we dehumanize the other, nothing good follows.

Gosnell as Horror

Today, I am going to take a break from my series on the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus to write about one of the better American movies I have seen in a long time. Recently, I went to see Gosnell. The movie follows the detectives and prosecutors involved in the arrest and trial of one of America’s most prolific serial killers; however, let’s be upfront. Despite the protestations of several of its characters and the movie’s focus on the trial and its proceedings, Gosnell is a about abortion.

This is subtly made clear by the movie’s main character, detective James Wood. In the opening scenes he is shown three times telling people in his life, “As I see it, you have two choices…” We are never told what those two choices are; however, in context of the movie the two choices are meant to be: do you side with Gosnell or not? do you side with a legal system the enables Gosnell or not? do you side with the institutions that made Gosnell possible or not?

The purpose of this post, however, is not to go on some political screed about how awful abortion is (although, I will admit that seeing my eldest daughter dance inside the womb at 11 weeks in response to the laughter of my wife has had a major impact on my opinion on the matter). Rather, it is to meditate on how Gosnell is one of the best horror experiences I have ever had in the movie theater and how that repeated statement by detective James Wood is instrumental in making Gosnell into the masterful, if unconventional, horror movie that it is.

As I have stated in the past, I am not a huge horror movie fan. I find most of it to be excruciatingly boring. For the purposes of this post, I will focus on the following reasons:

1. I am rarely actually horrified by what I see on screen.
2. The graphic violence shoved down my throat always pales in comparison to what my own imagination had been envisioning up until the point that the fake blood and guts started flowing.

Gosnell, on the other hand, not only succeeds in horrifying its audience, but it also trusts in the audience’s own imagination.

By framing the movie with the implied moral choice that results in Gosnell, the movie effectively implicates its audience in what is happening on screen. The audience, in part, is responsible for what happened inside Gosnell’s house of horrors. Thus, the movie effectively holds up a mirror to its audience and makes it squirm with horror at what it sees.

Gosnell also staunchly refuses to show virtually anything. Gosnell collected the feet of his victims in bottles of formaldehyde, but this is as graphic as anything shown on screen. When detective Wood finds these bottles while investigating the inside of Gosnell’s “clinic,” an abortion takes place — off screen. All we see is the blood on Gosnell’s surgical gloves. Left alone to our own imagination, the horror of what went on inside that building is amplified well beyond anything that special effects artists or CGI could ever accomplish.

This is how I run horror in my campaigns. I allow my players to have the freedom to make moral choices, to see the consequences of those choices and to leave most of the graphic stuff up to their own imaginations.

As I have said on more than one occasion, if you want to see a monster look in the mirror. Gosnell is an experience that makes you do exactly that.

A Rogue One Rant

Recently, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story appeared on Netflix. To be honest, after enduring Star Wars VII, I was not particularly interested in this movie despite all the rave reviews. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get to sleep the other day and decided to see if Disney’s take on what has already been covered in Star Wars: The Original Radio Drama was boring enough to put me to sleep. I made it to about the 40-minute mark.

Here is the thing: all of us already know this story. We all knew going into the movie that rebel agents would steal the Death Star plans and get killed delivering this vital information to Princess Leia. If this last bit came as a surprise, evidently the pitched battle at the beginning of A New Hope was not a big enough clue, or, as I mentioned above, you haven’t listened to the Radio Drama (and you really should).

Therefore, plot was not a tool the writers had when writing this script. There was no plot twist, turn or surprise that was going to change the outcome of this movie. The only real option in stories like these is character development. In the case of the story supposedly covered in Rogue One there are three basic characters:

1. The Empire
2. The Rebellion
3. The Agent who gets killed

Thus, the job of the writer is to ask a couple of questions:

• What motivates The Agent to be willing to die?
• Is The Rebellion/The Empire worth dying for?

Answering these questions can make for a gripping story despite the fact that we know the plot. For example: The Patriot has a basic plot that we all know: the American Revolution. The movie, however, was not about the American Revolution. It was about how Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, went from being a guilt-ridden combat veteran who wanted nothing to do with the war to becoming a Patriot.

As a post-Christian movie, Rogue One failed miserably on this front. While they did provide us with a bunch of cool characters, not one of them had any real depth and the movie never really bothered to give us an arc to understand why these people were willing to die for the Rebellion. Further, the portrayal of the other two main characters (The Rebellion and The Empire) was fraught through with relativism.

The Rebellion was portrayed as a fractured, schizophrenic movement that really didn’t know what it wanted to be, all the while doing whatever it took to survive including murdering its own and committing acts of terrorism. The assumption here is that simply taking on the mantel “The Rebellion” automatically makes these people the good guys; however, being rebels does not a good character make. For example, the Bolshevik Revolution executed around 1000 political prisoners a month into the early 1920s.

The Empire was portrayed as an entity that wanted to bring peace to the galaxy at all cost, up to and including the use of a super weapon; however, having and using a super weapon does not an evil character make. The U.S. is the only country to ever actually use a nuclear weapon in war. The U.S. did so to end WWII and it is arguable that not only did its use save lives, but that the cause for which they used that weapon is one of the greatest countries ever to exist (warts and all).

So, 40 minutes into the movie I didn’t understand why the Rebellion was so important to save because they were portrayed as not being much better than the Empire and I certainly didn’t understand why all these cool characters were so willing to run off and die to save it.

Back when Disney bought Star Wars from George Lucas I was hopeful that new life would be pumped into the franchise after the bitter disappointment of Episodes I-III. Unfortunately, Disney has proven once again why I trust Hollywood about as far as I can throw a bantha. All they have done is produce movies that make Episodes I-III look good in comparison. After all, no matter how badly they were done, at least George Lucas attempted to answer the question as to why Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.

Captain America: Civil War is a Christian Movie!?

Please note: I have been meaning to write this post for awhile but never seem to get around to it, but JB’s comment to my meditations on Dune has finally got the ball rolling.

Let me be brutally honest: I have never really liked Marvel in any of its incarnations. Back when I collected comic books, most of the titles I bought came from the independent scene or were from some of the more experimental titles from DC (e.g. their Vertigo line). I enjoy the genre and the fact that we now have the ability to put these characters on film in all their glory, but the MCU has never been something that I ever got excited about. I have enjoyed watching the odd MCU film, but the only one that I had seen more than once was the first Iron Man movie and that was because it allowed me the rare opportunity to watch a movie with my wife, not because I went out of my way to see it again.

Therefore, when Captain America: Civil War came out, I was wholly uninterested. When people began to impose upon it a political message of Libertarianism (embodied by Cap) vs. Authoritarianism (embodied by Iron Man) I was even less interested. Not only do I find that politics in movies get too preachy and harm the artistry of the film, but I believed they had got the politics all wrong. Iron Man should have been the libertarian, having stood up to the government in Iron Man 2 to defend his property rights. Cap should have been more amenable to authoritarianism because the government he fought for not only had authoritarian leanings (FDR was all about government control) but was the very source of his power. If you disagree with my assessment of FDR, compare his policies to those of Hitler (minus all the racist/superior race crap) and you will find a shocking amount of similarity.

Thus, I didn’t see the movie for a long time. When I finally did, I realized just how wrong I was about the movie. Not only is it really good, not only have I watched it multiple times, not only is it not really about politics, but it is the most Christian movie to come out of Hollywood in a long time.

Let me explain:

This movie has three main characters:

• Captain America who represents Christianity (remember his line from Avengers, “There is only one God, ma’am, and I am pretty sure He doesn’t dress like that.”)
• Iron Man who represents the man of science who has successfully replaced God with man-made miracles and is in full control of his life and his environment.
• Black Panther who represents the non-Western man for whom age-old tradition is still important.

In the first act of the movie, each man must face tragedy. Each reacts in a different way:

• Iron Man is confronted by the fact that despite all his miraculous technology and all of his scientific genius, he is not in control. Out of desperation he tries to seize that control through government power.
• Black Panther falls back on one of humankind’s most primal reactions to tragedy, one that we have turned to since the beginning of time: revenge.
• Captain America insists on liberty and forgiveness. Thus, he insists that every human being is made according to the image and likeness of God and therefore has value. He is also willing to die to prove that point, even for those who are accused of heinous crimes.

As the movie progresses and lines are drawn and sides are taken, each of these men’s approaches to tragedy begins to play out:

• Iron man begins to lose his freedom and his people begin to lose their value. Superheroes are treated as a faceless category of people rather than unique individuals.
• Black Panther becomes more and more isolated and ends up fighting with everybody.
• Captain America and those who choose his path become martyrs. Their sacrifices begin to affect those around them to the point where people begin to see that Cap may very well have a point.

In the end it is Captain America’s Christian approach that allows these men to not only move through and past tragedy, but become stronger for it.

• Black Panther understands that his revenge will only beget more revenge in an unending cycle. As a result, he ends up saving the life of the man who killed his father.
• Those that followed Captain America are freed from their imprisonment.
• Despite being trapped in the dehumanizing government machine he created, Iron Man knows that Captain America will always be there for him, personifying Christ’s words to His disciples in Matthew 28:20, “and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

So, this really took me by surprise because I am not used to having such big blockbuster movies being so open to Christian themes and ideas. I was doubly shocked when those ideas prevailed. So, I invite you to watch Captain America: Civil War again and see it through the lens of Christ.

Saintly Saturday: St. Alexis the Metropolitan of Moscow and Wonderworker of All Russia

I must admit, this is not the Feast of St. Alexis the Metropolitan of Moscow and Wonderworker of All Russia. HIs main feast is on February 12th and the Uncovering of his Relics is celebrated on May 20th (aka two weeks ago). I had been thinking of getting back into writing Saintly Saturdays because of St. Alexis, but life happened. So, today I will pretend I was on top of things and write a little about St. Alexis.

By a little, I really mean a little because there are tons of stories I could tell but don’t have the time or space for so I want to actually tell the story of how I met St. Alexis because not only is the experience ripe for inspiration with RPGs but it is an experience that you can have yourself.

I have spent a lot of time in hospitals the last several years having nothing to do but wait. So I searched far and wide for things that would not only pass the time, but do so in a way that would not sicken or depress me. One of the movies I found was call The Horde.



This is a Russian-made film based on an event that actually happened to St. Alexis when he personally went to placate The Horde, aka the Mongolian Empire. The film is gorgeous, haunting and fascinating. I particularly love two aspects of it:

• Unlike so much of the stuff being made for American screens both big and small it is sympathetic to a Christian world view.
• The narrative is written primarily from the perspective of the Mongolians. The crisis is theirs, not St. Alexis’. Their solution to the problem involves summoning the Sorcerer of Moscow.

While watching the movie, I didn’t realize it was a movie about an actual saint. It wasn’t until the movie was over that I went scrambling across the interwebs to find the life of St. Alexis and realized that this movie pulled a moment of his life to put on film. A rare thing and well worth your time.

From an RPG perspective, it paints the cleric as a sorcerer and presents an alien and frightening world that St. Alexis must enter. I might add, that despite the weirdness of the world presented, the fundamental humanity of it all is never lost. There a ton of ideas and images to be lifted from this movie that can translate wonderfully into an RPG world. For example, just the image of the painted faces of some of the Mongols. How cool would it be to integrate that kind of face painting into a fantasy culture?

So, see the movie. Encounter St. Alexis. Be inspired.

Why I Don't Like Most Modern Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Or, Why D&D Rocks

So, my last post generated quite a bit of dialogue, all of which I found really interesting and it got me thinking. I don’t watch a lot of American-made TV shows and I have been to see a movie in a movie theater maybe three times in the last decade and barley remember the last time I either wasn’t disappointed or wanted to go back and see the movie I had just seen again. Part of it is that much of the entertainment business in the U.S. (and the English-speaking world) holds me in contempt for my religious views and that contempt is shoved in my face frequently enough that I don’t readily commit a lot of my entertainment dollar or time to their product.

However, I also think that the entire industry suffers from the very same problem that the show The Magicians does: at its core is a postmodern, post-Christian and post-religious world-view. As long as our story-tellers are dedicated to this view of life, the universe and everything then they are incapable of telling good stories.

Let me explain: as did the ancient Greeks, I categorize every story as either a comedy or a tragedy. In other words, the hero succeeds or the hero fails. Comedy or tragedy alone, however, do not make a good, compelling story because comedy and tragedy are simply about how the hero succeeds or fails, not why. The best heroes and villains are broken. Their journey towards success or failure depends upon why they are able to transcend that brokenness or why they cannot.

For example, one of the best movie trilogies to come out in the last decade or so, as far as I am concerned, is the Kung-fu Panda series. In each movie we are presented with a flawed hero (Po) who is a clumsy, nerdy, out-of-shape orphan who does not know who he is. The trilogy is his journey of overcoming his flaws, his preconceptions and his circumstance to become the Dragon Warrior. The why in all of this has to do with love, sacrifice, humility and the ability to understand that each of us does, in fact, have a role larger than ourselves.

The trilogy also presents us with three flawed villains who are the hero of their own story. Each of them has a reason for their villainy, a reason that is relatable and understandable. Should the audience find themselves in the villain’s shoes, they could easily make the same choices.

At the climax of each movie, Po tells each villain how to win. In each case, their own ego and burning desire for revenge prevent them from seeing the truth about who they are and the victory that is within reach.

At the heart of all of this is a world-view where the divine exists. Po overcomes his shortcomings because there is something greater in the world that he can tap into and be transformed by. The villains all fail because they do not have the humility to see the divine in themselves to be transformed. It is their very insistence on doing everything on their own without the divine that spells their doom.

In a world without the divine, Po cannot transcend his flaws. He is doomed to be a clumsy, nerdy, out-of-shape orphan that has no chance of defeating the villains. Without the transformative force of the divine, Po makes a completely unbelievable hero. If Po is to succeed in a world without the divine, he must simply be bigger, badder and better than the villains he faces. There is no transformation. There is no real why. The hero simply succeeds because that is what heroes do.

For an example of this, look no further than Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens. Rey has no flaws. She does not grow. She has no need to transform in order to overcome the challenges and villainy that are placed before her. Before anyone starts complaining that the Force is a type of divinity and she uses the Force in the movie, compare the hero’s journey of Luke Skywalker to Rey. Skywalker was a loser at the beginning of the movie who had to learn about the Force and how to trust in it and allow the Force to flow through him. When he tries to do things on his own, he fails. When he finally internalizes his trust in the Force, he succeeds. Rey never has to do any of that. No one teaches her anything. She just knows. The Force is reduced to being part of why she is bigger, badder and better than the villains she gets to overpower.

There are various ways that post-modern story tellers try to overcome this inherent flaw. They construct these massive mysteries as distractions (who are Rey’s parents? why did Luke run away? what happened to the republic and the empire? who are the First Order? etc.) or make use of cliffhangers or surprises (which character won’t survive this week/this movie?). I won’t deny that these devices can be entertaining; however, once the surprise wears off and the mystery becomes less mysterious there really is no meat or heart to the story.

The timeless stories we tell are timeless because they are transformative. They show us that we can be the hero of our story and that we can be transformed and overcome our own flaws. As a kid who was a loser and a nerd I can totally identify with Po and Luke. I can be like them. I can trust in the divine and through learning about myself and my place in the larger world I can be transformed into something beyond my own expectations and hopes. In contrast, I can’t identify with Rey at all, nor can I ever be like her. She’s a superwoman who can do no wrong. There is no mechanism by which I can be like her.

This is why I love RPGs, especially D&D in all its various iterations. By its very nature, D&D defies a postmodern, post-Christian and post-religious world-view. Not only is the divine assumed because of divine magic and clerics, but every character begins as a loser who must learn to cooperate with others using their own special skills and abilities in order to find out their place in the larger story of the world. The better they get at this, the more they are transformed. They get to go from being 1st level nobodies who are one goblin hit away from being worm food to being 9th level Lords who cleanse the Wilderness of monsters and now protect the land from a stronghold they built.

This is also why I think D&D became so popular and has survived so long. It taps into the transformative, timeless tales human beings have told since the beginning of time. It allows us to be that hero and to find out why we succeed or fail.

I am either an Optimist, a Fool or Both

One of the most influential moments of my life was sitting next to my dad in a theater (that is now a parking lot) watching Star Wars for the very first time. When Lucas re-released Star Wars, I had a very intense flash back, and almost asked my friend sitting next to me, "Dad, is that guy dead?" after the first rebel was shot down by a storm trooper in the first minutes of the film just as I did the first time I saw the movie.

As a result, I am a "Han shot first!" kinda guy; however, I have never been a partisan. I acknowledge that Star Wars was George Lucas's creation and that he has the right to do whatever he wants to with it.  However, no matter how much George Lucas mucks with it, he can never take away that moment of magic when I sat next to my dad and watched Star Wars for the first time.

Thus, I am not as shocked or disgusted as some are at the news that Lucas has sold Lucasfilm to Disney and that they plan on making a new movie. Rather (once again) I acknowledge that Lucas can do whatever he pleases with his creation and am even a tad bit hopeful.

Before anyone calls me a fool, let me put this into context. The vast majority of fans agree that the prequels were, if not horrible, then disappointing. Further, I would argue that many of us think that Empire is the best movie of the bunch.

It is here that I would draw a parallel to the trajectory of Lucas and Star Wars with TSR and D&D. OD&D/Holmes are akin to the original Star Wars. Moldvay's Basic Edition is akin to Empire. The originals are awesome, but their sequels improve on that awesomeness. However, everything that follows is increasingly disappointing.

Yes, I enjoyed both Return of the Jedi and AD&D, but they weren't as good as what came before (I know AD&D came out at about the same time or, in the case of the MMI, before Moldvay, but the analogy still works in the trajectory of Basic comes before Advanced).

By the time TSR went under, the product being produced was a far cry from the original and, in a lot of cases, not worth the paper it was printed on — similar to how many of us feel about the Star Wars prequels. When TSR went under, WotC bought the rights to D&D, produced the OGL and ushered in the beginnings of the golden age that we are currently living in.

This is why I am a bit hopeful for the Star Wars brand. It took another company with a brand-new perspective to re-invigorate D&D. The same might very well be true of Star Wars. By the time the prequels came out, Lucas was too powerful for anyone to say no, and the story got lost in all the new toys that he had at his disposal, in the same way TSR was more interested in putting out product than in actually playing the game.

Maybe, just maybe, Disney will do for Star Wars what WotC did for D&D. Now I will grant that the best thing WotC did was to give the game to us via the OGL and Disney is not likely to follow suit with Star Wars so there is plenty of room for this whole endeavor to go disasterously wrong; however, I choose to hope.

Previewing Solomon Kane

Please note that I have yet to see the movie, though I hope to fit it into my schedule at some point in the near future. Please also note that I am not an REH connoisseur, nor have I ever read any of his tales about Solomon Kane. Therefore, I do not approach the recent release of the 2009 movie here in the U.S. from the perspective of whether or not it is representative of the source material. (Though, Maliszewski noted some relatively positive reaction from REH partisans back when the film was originally finished).

I do want to point out, however, that it is a huge departure from a majority of recent film making, particularly from the fantasy genre (the Narnia movies aside), where the good guy is ostensibly a Christian and that one of the key quotes from the trailer is “There is evil walking this earth and I will hunt it down and send it burning back to hell” — where that evil seems to be the devil and his minions.

Beyond that, I am struck by both the trailer for Solomon Kane and the 10 minute preview available via You Tube. I have never really seen a movie that evokes the kind of spiritual warfare and the feel that I strive for in my FRPG campaigns. Though these don’t necessarily look exactly as one of my campaigns might, this is the closest thing I have to point to when it comes to “this is what it is like to play in one of my campaigns.” Enjoy:

Meditating on the new Conan Movie

As I have mentioned before, I am not a huge fan of Hollywood. It takes a great deal for me to be interested in actually bothering to go see a movie in the theater. In fact, I tend to place my money with companies and ideas that threaten the current system in Hollywood.

I say all of this as a prelude to explain why it is that only now have I attempted to watch the newest Conan movie — a subject that was discussed in some detail leading up to and right after its release, especially by those in the OSR who are REH fans. This discussion did nothing to convince me to see the movie then and it was only until a few days ago that the movie showed up on Netflix.

Something else I must admit: my time is valuable, therefore I have no qualms about turning a movie off or putting down a book without ever finishing either if I feel as if they are wasting my time. Unfortunately, the new Conan movie falls into this category. I wanted to like it. I watched it longer than I normally would have. In the end, though, it was unwatchable dreck and I turned it off somewhere around the 45 minute mark.

It was enough, however, for me to formulate a theory as to why the new Conan movie failed on just about every level, but most especially as a Conan movie. Hollywood has a history of getting caught up in fads — similarly themed scripts that different studios pick up and produce in order to compete with each other. A recent example is the two Snow White movies that came out this summer.

The new Conan movie is a victim of this slavish adherence to The Fad. I say this because after I turned off Conan, I watched the first 30-45 mins of The Immortals (slightly higher quality dreck) and realized I was watching the same movie:

• Both start with a narrative about an ancient war in which a powerful magical item was lost/hidden.
• Both have a vile villain at the head of a huge army in which kills the parent of the hero.
• Both villains attack a monastery that guards a virgin.
• Both virgins are necessary for the grand plan of the villain to conquer the world.
• Both heroes encounter these virgins at the beginning of the movie to set up one of the central conflicts of the movie.

The reason the new Conan movie suffered so much was because Hollywood has far more faith in the current fad than it does in the brilliance of any source material it happens to exploit to push forward the most recent fad.

One of the reasons I got into RPGs in the first place and why I have consistently come back is the DIY element of the hobby. I am completely free to do what I want with a story/campaign/character and never have to be disappointed by some exec in Hollywood who could care less for the material their movie is supposedly based upon.

Geeking Out on Avengers

As someone who grew up reading and collecting comic books, I ask that you indulge me for a moment while a geek out a bit over the Avengers movie. Remarkably, I actually found the time and the motivation to plan to see a movie in the movie theater for the first time in years this weekend. I must say, I was really impressed and (save for the extra dough forked over to see it 3D, which rather than further immerse me into the movie always managed to take me out of the movie, calling attention to the special 3D effect rather than the story), I was entirely satisfied with the time and money I spent.

Indeed, an argument can be made that Avengers is the best superhero movie ever made. Certainly, it is the best ensemble superhero movie by several orders of magnitude. As Kurt Loder accurately observes, the real hero in all of this is Joss Whedon whose masterful skill at ensemble story telling is on full display.

By the way, my favorite one-liner in the movie is from Cap, who responds to being told that Loki and Thor are basically gods with, “There’s only one God, ma’am, and He doesn’t dress like that.”

Personally, though, Avengers is not my favorite of all time. In the end, I have always been more of a DC kinda guy and Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman takes the cake for me. Ironically, the reason for this comes down to a superhero I want to despise, but can never bring myself to actually spurn — Superman.

If I were to boil down the difference between Marvel and DC into one statement, it would be this:

Marvel superheroes are all about the struggle to protect humanity, DC superheroes are all about the struggle of becoming human.

It is not that Marvel is bad — see my comments about Avengers above — it is that I find the archetypal struggle found in DC to be more compelling.

Superman is one of the most powerful superheroes in all of the comic book world. He is an alien from another planet. He ought to be a character we cannot really relate to and the stories one can tell about him should be tiny in number. Yet, he is one of the most beloved and longstanding superheroes of all time. The reason being that the real hero isn’t the guy who wears the ’S’ on his chest — the real hero is Clark Kent.

Superman is as endearing as he is because he struggles to be human. This struggle permeates the DC universe. Even Batman — who has no superpowers — struggles with his own humanity because he is so broken. These stories really speak to me as a Christian because this struggle — to become human — is at the core of my faith. Humanity is born broken. Ours is a struggle to repair that damage by following in the footsteps of Christ and uniting ourselves to Him.

Don’t get me wrong, Marvel does deal with very real issues that affect us as human beings — the mutants being an analog for racism being a big one; however, even at their best (and the Avengers movie is one of the best things Marvel has ever produced), they don’t reach to the depth of the DC universe, especially when DC is done right.

Robin Hood: Un-American?

While I was watching TV this evening with my family, we were bombarded with images from the most recent version of the tale of Robin Hood. In turn, this reminded me of a tasty little historical tidbit that puts me at odds with the famous bandit from Sherwood Forest.

Robin Hood fought against King John. In several renditions of the story, the bandit remains loyal to King Richard, John's Brother. A quick look at history reveals that King John became king anyway, after Richard died. He then got into a political battle of wills with Rome over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. When John was forced to back down, his barons gathered together and forced their king to sign a little piece of paper that stated no man is above the law and became the foundation upon which the United States is built. It was the Magna Carta.

Eventually I will see the newest version of Robin Hood, but I will always be grateful to King John and part of me will root for the villain. Without him wearing the crown, I don't get to be who I am today.