-NB-

Hmm... I just gave up on a second book series this month and, as there seemed to be some similarities in why I did so, I feel I should try to figure out precisely why. In case I've failed to mention it, these notebook entries are me trying to learn from other peoples mistakes/successes in story writing.

Both were of a particular type of dark fantasy that I will refer to as bleak fantasy for clarity. The distinguishing carachteristic here is that the odds facing the protagonists are literally impossible as far as they are concerned. Often they are following scraps of prophecy that even they do not believe in, for lack of anything better to do. In other cases they don't even have that, and are just struggling on because to stop doing so would be suicide. Literally, in the case of one of series' I gave up on. The main character joined the events of the storyline because putting herself in such dangerous situations where she might die was the method she used to keep herself from taking more active steps to end her life.

Before anyone comments that maybe it's the "genre" itself that is the problem, consider that the Lord of the Rings probably fits into it. After all, there was never any suggestion of taking the fight to Sauron, only the hope that his armies could be held off long enough for the ring to be destroyed. And the prospects of the fellowship making it through were never particularly bright, either... I also like a number of horror stories where part of the point is that humanity is doomed, such as zombie flicks.

Another feature of this "genre" is that they tend to strongly point out the after affects of significant plot elements. Final Fantasy 6 is a good example here. At roughly the midpoint of the game, a madman/woman/don't know absorbs the power of the goddesses of magic and starts blasting those who annoy her. This obviously results in considerable loss of life, and significant reshaping of landscape. Then, when you defeat him/her in the end, this causes magic to be stripped from the world. Unless the monsters were weakened or destroyed by the loss of magic, I don't know if the remaining people could survive. And I've seen that "generations to rebuild, if we make it" theme in several other places.

While typing what I've written so far, I've come to the conclusion that what those two books did wrong was that I stopped caring about what happened to the characters. Part of that is a defense mechanism, you keep a little detachment from the characters of a horror story because you know bad things are going to happen to them, but I still need to figure out why I went from that to flat out not caring how the book ended. I have some theories regarding how flawed the characters were (i.e. very), or their ability to obtain assistance from those not already on their quest (i.e. almost nil), but nothing's coming together right now. I think I'll post it as is and either edit it when my thoughts gel, or make a new post, depending on how long it takes.

Right, delving into politics here.

Following a chain of links, I ended up here where bradhicks quotes an article and asks a question that I think need to be spread even further.

On page seven of this article in The New York Times, the writer included this section summarizing part of Mike Huckabee's own book, Character Makes a Difference, about how he became governor of Arkansas:

In 1993, Huckabee won a special election for lieutenant governor. Then, in 1996, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted on federal charges of fraud and conspiracy in events relating to the Whitewater scandal.

What happened next is related in the first 31 pages of ‘‘Character Makes a Difference.’’ This is Huckabee’s ‘‘Profiles in Courage’’ (if J.F.K. had been writing autobiography). He gives the book to reporters as a testament to his skill at crisis management. The crisis in question took place on July 15, 1996. Governor Tucker was supposed to resign, and Huckabee was scheduled to be sworn in at 2 p.m. But at 1:55, Tucker called to say that he had changed his mind. He wasn’t quitting.

This was ‘‘arguably the greatest constitutional crisis in Arkansas history,’’ Huckabee writes, as though his state never seceded from the Union or had its capital’s high school forcibly integrated by the 101st Airborne. Still, Tucker’s change of heart was a big moment. As Huckabee recalls it, the Arkansas State Legislature fell into chaos. ‘‘Many of the old-time Democrats all but fell on the floor and ripped their garments in twain. . . . Keeping your word is a sacred thing in Arkansas.’’ When it became clear that garment-rending wouldn’t get Tucker to go away quietly, Huckabee took direct action. He addressed the people in a statewide telecast, informing them that he was now in control; he threatened impeachment proceedings against Tucker; state troopers were mobilized to protect the capital. All this activity had the desired effect. Tucker re-resigned. In fact, the whole affair was wrapped up by the 6 o’clock news.

As bradhicks put it, isn't that a coup d'etat? If there was never anything more than a "gentleman's agreement" that Governor Tucker would resign in the first place, then Huckabees actions would be almost unquestionably illegal. Even if there were more binding promises in place, I doubt Huckabee had a legal leg to stand on. He may have been (and from other parts of the article it sounds like he was) a far better governor than the one he replaced, but this is not the sort of person we want in the Whitehouse. Especially now.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe Zev Chafets at the Times is miss-quoting Huckabee in the article. Maybe Huckabee exaggerated in his book. But unless someone proves to me that this is all a miss-understanding, Huckabee joins Ron Paul on my list of "must be voted against whenever possible." There are people I just don't the politics of (most of the field, it seems) and then there are those who I have very specific worries about...