Getting It Right: What We Can Learn From STARZ Camelot and HBO Game of Thrones

I should warn you: this is going to be a long one. Stop reading now before your eyeballs roll back into your head. Still here? Great, read on but you were warned.

I never thought I'd be a fan of fantasy, but I'm outing myself as one today. Since my friend Michelle Gregory introduced some of the best elements of the genre to me in her Eldala, I've started to understand why it appeals so much. Fantasy and my first love, historical fiction, share some features. Both require the writers to flesh out details and bring to life a world that does not exist in the present day. The details must be enough to the story vivid and real, but not so much that a reader is distracted by them. While fantasy typically has supernatural or magical elements, historical fiction can legitimately include them, if they were a part of the belief system of the era the author has written about; e.g. dragons and fairies in the Dark Ages or medieval period.

So, I was thrilled when Starz and HBO announced their respective new series, Camelot and Game of Thrones. I didn’t watch Camelot right away; can’t remember why, but I did DVR all the episodes so far. GoT premiered this past Sunday and I caught that showing. After GoT reminded me of why I’ve enjoyed fantasy thus far, I decided to view all the episodes of Camelot.

What can writers learn from both series? There’s a right way to engage your audience and a really wrong way. That really wrong way won’t be saved by throwing in a bunch of sex or fight scenes. It will just suck until you fix it.

Tell a great story with compelling characters who want something.

In Camelot, we’re introduced at the outset to Uther Pendragon, his wife Igraine, Uther’s daughter Morgan, the sorcerer Merlin and young Arthur. Without giving anything away, at the outset, it’s very clear what Morgan wants: to rule the land in her father’s place and get rid of her stepmother Igraine (more on that later!) Merlin wants Arthur to inherit Uther’s throne. At least in the first few episodes, Arthur’s little head in his breeches seems to do the thinking for him more so than the big one where his brain sits. So he’s looking to get laid at least in the first few episodes, be that his brother’s love interest or someone else’s intended. More on that later, too. Merlin’s arrival waylays some of that but more importantly, reveals Arthur’s true identity. Arthur then learns he’s supposed to want something more.

In GoT, the audience is introduced to Eddard Stark and his family, including a bastard son Jon Snow that Lady Stark isn’t too fond of, and King Robert who would have been Eddard’s brother in-law except for the unfortunate death of the woman he loved. Instead he’s saddled with Queen Cersei Lannister who’s really, really close with her brother Jaime. Then there's that unfortunate little imp of another brother, Tyrion (who is one of my favorite actors!) who really understands what it's like to be an outsider. Also, there are the brother and sister Viserys and Daenerys Targaryen, who are the last remnants of a house than once subjugated King Robert’s land. As for wants, Eddard would love nothing more than to continue as he is, ruling his lands in the north but Robert needs him as the Hand of the King. Having seen what happened to the last Hand of the King, this can’t bode well. Queen Cersei and Jaime want power above all else, as does Viserys Targaryen. Daenerys is less certain, though I bet she probably wants her new husband Khal Drogo to say something she can understand other than “No.”

Both stories are compelling. I wanted to see how far Morgan would go to achieve her ambitions. No, I can’t rely on my foreknowledge of the Arthurian legends; this Camelot is a bit different from what I have heard. Like I said, more later. And, Merlin is enigmatic as all hell. He’s got a past that I wanted to delve into and powerful means for shaping the legend that (I hoped in this instance!) Arthur would become. By comparison in GoT, Eddard’s devotion to the king seems like it will cost him a lot and I want to see just how much. Queen Cersei and Jaime are too amoral not to expect their actions to lead to disaster for everyone. Viserys and Daenerys’ personalities contrast so well that I have to wonder if or when she’ll ever get out from under his thumb. So far, Starz and HBO’s writers have done their jobs: they’ve made me care about the characters.

While we’re on characters, do you really want your audience unsure of your lead?

The answer to that should always be no - Khal Drogo would agree with me! Both Camelot and GoT have an interesting ensemble of cast members. But here’s where Camelot fails and GoT does not.

In all the adaptations of the story from Geoffrey of Monmouth right down to Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Avalon series, Arthur has played a strong, if not prime role. There’s a reason the stories are called the Arthurian legends. I think Camelot’s writers forgot that. Their Arthur is boring! Pretty to look at, maybe, but boring! And stupid – when King Lot’s forces come to confront him, this Arthur actually asks Merlin, “So, you’ve foreseen my destiny that I’ll be king in the end, right?” Merlin deigns to answer, “Destinies must be won.” I’d have said, “Look you little shit, you actually want to be king? Then, act like one and stop asking dumb ass questions! And stop telling your sister can’t we all just get along! She’s obviously not interested. Now man up, grab a sword to defend your kingdom and stop acting like a bitch!” And, remember when I said Merlin tells Arthur he should want to be king? Well, I haven’t seen any evidence that Arthur really wants that. Instead, he really wants Guinevere, even though she’s his friend Leontes’ (Lancelot?) betrothed. What? Yeah, that was my reaction. That’s probably why Starz wouldn’t employ me as a screenwriter – I’d be in the script meeting, like, “Are you flipping kidding me? You want to me write what? Uh, no.”

Starz has told me I’m supposed to care about Arthur, but I can’t figure why I should. I spent most of the episodes folding my laundry or tweeting when he was on the screen. Ok, that's not really fair. I tweet anyway. A lot. Moving on. When I did look up at one point, it was to see Gawain holding a knife to Arthur’s throat as part of an important lesson. I found myself wishing there’s been a little accident with that knife. Hell, King Lot, Gawain, even Kay at least kept my attention on them whenever they appeared. Merlin and Morgan have essentially eclipsed Arthur for me as the leads of this show, when they never should have. If this is supposedly Arthur’s tale, why do I care more about the OTHER characters? About the only thing I care about with Arthur is an understanding of why he was fostered out if he was legitimate in this version. Uther had married his mother by then. Why did Merlin take him away from his parents? Why did they let him? Good storytelling does not distract the audience with the details; they should be seemlessly blended so the audiences accepts them as fact.

By contrast, can there be any doubt that the lead of GoT is Eddard Stark? Beyond the fact that he is played by the magnificent Sean Bean who can do no wrong (I forbid anyone to mention his role in Golden Eye – it was one of the weaker James Bond movies anyway!), in every scene, he is the embodiment of nobility and power. Every other cast member is just as interesting, but I get it – I’m supposed to root for Eddard Stark and by extension, his family. Even if you have an ensemble of characters, something about your lead must place him or her in prominence above all the rest. Your audience needs to know who they should care about and just as importantly, why.

If you’re going to use well-known source material, stick to it. If you’re departing from the sources, make it essential and convincing.

Speaking of the Arthurian legends, I’d say the source material is pretty well known from the twelfth-century Geoffrey of Monmouth. There have been so many incarnations of Arthur that most of us can tell the story. Camelot kept some of it, but turned the rest upside down. Morgan as the step-daughter (not child) of Igraine and child (not, non-relation) of Uther? Excalibur the sword named after a tragic girl? The sword was made rather than having sat in a stone for centuries waiting for Arthur’s hand to pull it from its rocky prison? The Guinevere-Arthur-Lancelot (in this case, Leontes) triangle with Arthur as the other man? Gawain as a mercenary? Huh? Sorry, but I’m one of those readers who gets in a real tizzy when you mess with what I think I know of history and legend.

If you’re going to depart from major sources, as director Antoine Fuqua did in his Arthur, at least make it convincing. The movie takes the audience away from the common medieval setting and placed it at a time that is just as logical; the Dark Ages when Rome abandoned Britain and Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded. Arthur as a Romano-Britain? Ok, I’m buying it so far. Guinevere as a blue-painted warrior maiden? Hmm, not so much but it fits the period just before the Saxon invasions. Arthur’s knights as hard-drinking, hard-loving warriors from the steppes? As long as Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Ray Winstone (Bors), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) are playing them, uh, hell yeah, I can dig it. Fuqua even kept the love triangle with Lancelot eyeing Guinevere every chance he got, even though it was obvious she and Arthur were going to end up together.

So far, I have heard GoT sticks very closely to George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire. I haven’t read the series, but will order it after the first season is completed. Hate to view something on TV only to read about it and learn that’s not the way it happened in the book. Obviously, HBO gets it with GoT by keeping the storyline faithful to Martin’s narrative, so far. I can only hope it will continue to honor the original work. If it does depart, let’s hope HBO creates a version whose re-telling is so compelling that it will satisfy even Martin’s true fans.

In the end, whether on film or in books, keeping an audience interested is essential to the art of good storytelling. You do that with world-building, crafting great characters, and an even better storyline. I’ll be sticking with GoT, which has impressed me from the outset. I hold out less hope for Camelot. Sorry, Starz. At least I'm still eagerly awaiting season 2 of Spartacus.

More on self publishing: perceived value + quality = credibility?

Hola from beautiful Spain. As I write, I'm traveling up to Avila and Segovia, willing the Internet and BlackBerry to cooperate.

I thought the comments on my last post about perceived value and credibility were great, because they are at the heart of the dilemma facing self published authors: how do we escape the collective stigma currently associated with our work?

In part, it requires good writing. Someone on Twitter who I'll paraphrase said, "Self publish but write like you're aiming for one of the big NY six." Great advice. Self publishing is commonly associated with unedited crap, poor covers and general unintelligible nonsense. That's not my sweeping generalization, by the way, it's a perception I've heard on discussion boards and within my own writing circle, and seen in some self published books. The crap doesn't do any self published author's cause any good. Can we all agree on that?

The question that arises is; what is the mark of good, self published writing that rises to the standard of the NY six? Used to be that an agent or editor would be the gatekeeper to spot this gold standard. Self publishing has circumvented that. Proponents of it are asking our potential readers to make that judgment with their minds and more importantly, wallets.

This in turn leads to perceived value. Since self publishing has gotten such a bad rap, the perceptions of its value are not overwhelmingly in favor. It often feels like those of us who do it have to pass a higher bar to gain approval. Say someone has a quality book, as judged by agents and editors who may have read it but declined to publish for reasons that have nothing to do with the writing, and makes the foray into self publishing. Without an aggressive marketing plan, including building word of mouth advertising, that author's efforts will flounder. How does word of mouth spread when an intended audience won't even consider it?

Again, if we feel a little persecuted and overwhelmed, can you blame us? I can't agree with an earlier comment that we are not targeted and picked on. I speak from personal experience. I know I'm breaking a cardinal rule about ignoring bad reviews but I have to, in order to bring home the point. One of my unfavorable reviews was followed up by the less flattering comment, "Another self publishing dud, huh?" Pissed me off more than the actual review. I've seen similar comments on other self published works. Can we deny the perception is out there? It makes me so angry that as hard as authors work, this collective perception is used to canvas self published works regardless of their quality. It implies that as hard as we work, the perceived value of that work will never rise. How can we change entrenched views when, at times, the very audience we are trying to reach has already dismissed our work without reading it? How do we gain credibilty?

I don't expect to change opinions on either side of these issues but it's useless to pretend they don't exist. I will continue to resent them, point them out where they exist and do my damn best to avoid being mired by them. Something tells me I've got a hard road ahead of me. Good thing for me, I don't mind hard work. Part of why I write historical fiction.

First vs. Third Person

Lately, I've had the pleasure of reading some great historical fiction in first person: Michelle Moran's Cleopatra's Daughter, Anita Davison's latest WIP, The Cherry Garden and now, Brandy Purdy's The Boleyn Wife.  With all this reading comes the inevitable question; what's with the great debate about first versus third person narratives?

Some people LOATHE first person, cannot appreciate it and will not touch it with the proverbial ten foot pole. But there are also others who swear it is the only viewpoint they love, especially when the main character is female. Having written in both third and first person, I understand the pros and cons of each, but I still like first person better.

First person can be stilted or awkward, with a tendency to catalogue every action; e.g. I woke up, I bathed, and I ate my cereal. Or, there are somewhat contrived scenes where the main character is always at the right moment and time whenever a major event happens. And, sometimes, the immediacy of the ever-present "I" is repetitive and a bit claustrophobic. Third person isn't without its perils too. It's easy to blur the line between the characters' thoughts and author exposition - I've always found Little Women difficult when Alcott intrudes into her characters' scenes. Third person is detached, requiring less emotional involvement for the reader than first person. Also, when working with multiple POVs in third person, if characters don't have distinct voices or there's no indication the character POV has changed, the reader quickly gets lost. 

Are there certain stories or genres where first person or third person is more appropriate?

What Rules?

In the critique groups I belong to, members constantly talk about the unwritten rules of writing. "Don't start a scene with dialogue." "No head-hopping." "Get rid of passive voice." "Lose the dialogue tags." "No back story in the first few chapters."

I've read at least six bestsellers this year, which break every one of these rules, from established authors and those just beginning their careers.

The latest book I'm reading has at least seven characters, so far, all narrating in first person. When I started submitting Sultana, which was originally four characters in first person, much of the advice I received from the crit group was that a first person story with four main characters was too confusing. Even though I identified each character at the opening of the chapter. So, I was very curious to see how a best-selling author would handle multiple characters in first person. I've found only one character in the novel distinct from the others. Yet, this is a best-selling book.

It seems clear if a writer is clever enough or well-known, he or she can get away with breaking the rules. What does it mean for those of us who are unpublished? Do the rules still apply?