Recently, novelist and screenwriter Andrew Klavan got himself into some trouble. He was reviewing Netflix’s The Witcher, and he commented that he dislikes movies that show a woman who is able to go toe to toe with men in a medieval sword brawl, without the help of magic. It’s unrealistic, he says. Might as well have made that character a man.
Well. Many people did not like this. Some challenged Klavan to a sword fight (he’s almost 70 years old). He even got at least one actual death threat.
Let’s see if I can also get myself cancelled. Here is a list of some of my movie pet peeves. And because there are exceptions to everything, I will also list exceptions.
Two women in an extended, knock-down, drag-out fight. This just feels icky and porn-y. Exceptions: the brief catfight scene in Sense and Sensibility, and Mrs. Weasley taking out Bellatrix LeStrange. Note that neither of these exceptions is actually a brawl.
A woman in an extended brawl with a man. I don’t care which one of them is the villain. This can only go one of two ways: either the woman unrealistically wins, or we get to watch a man beat up a woman (yay!). Exception: Antonio Banderas and Katherine Zeta-Jones’s sword duel in the stables in Zorro. Again, not really a brawl.
When the chase scene or fight scene completely smashes a room or building full of breakable, priceless artifacts. I realize it would be unrealistic to have a chase scene in such a setting and have nothing get broken, but it often seems as if directors delight in destruction. They’re smashing our culture with their philosophy, and in scenes like this they’re symbolically smashing our culture, represented by art or cakes or whatever, just because they can. Exception: Jackie Chan makes amazing use of props in his chase and fight scenes.
When someone is trying to maintain some kind of deception for the duration of the entire movie. I’m not talking about spy movies where you don’t know who’s who and that’s the point. I mean usually comedies where the high jinks flow from the MC trying to hide something from his wife, or from his daughter, or from her parents, or from an entire town. This just stresses me out. Exception: Breaking Bad, where the point of the series is to show a good man’s moral disintegration.
Now, a pet peeve of everyone around me: the fact that I can’t watch a movie without having to analyze the damn thing!
What are your movie pet peeves? Do you hate any of the same things I hate? Share in the comments below.
By the way. The Seven Deadly Sins are easy to remember, in groups of two, three, and two. There’s The World (Envy, Greed); The Flesh (Lust, Gluttony, Sloth); and The Devil (Anger … and the granddaddy, Pride). The seven virtues are the flip side of these.
Once when I was at university, the theme of our homecoming week was the extremely creative “We’ve Got Pride.” I will always love my fellow English majors who named their contribution to the parade “Beyond pride: the seven deadly sins.” They wanted to show that “[our university] also gots Envy, Greed, Lust, Gluttony, Sloth, and Anger.” And of course it was true.
CHASTITY: Which author/book/series you wish you had never read?
Hmm. It’s rare that I go on wishing I had never read a book. Usually if it stuns me with some horror, I hate it at the time, but as my mind assimilates the idea, I’m glad to have encountered it in a book so that I can grapple with that aspect of the world.
A good example is Ken Follett’s Pillars of the Earth. A major part of the plot is a sexual assault. It’s described graphically. The creepy lead-up and the lengthy aftermath include scenes from the point of view of both the victim and rapist. When I read this, it was the first time I’d read a rape described in detail (or, at least, the first time I understood what I was reading). It was very traumatic, and it led to lots of crying and praying for women who were real-life victims. So, as you can see, it bore some good fruit almost immediately.
Later I read another book by Ken Follett in a completely different genre, and it also featured a serial stalker and rapist, with many scenes written from his point of view. At that point I decided that I would not read any more books by Ken Follett, nor would I ever get on an elevator with the man.
TEMPERANCE: Which book/series did you find so good, that you didn’t want to read it all at once, and you read it in doses just to make the pleasure last longer?
I don’t usually show temperance when it comes to serious, emotional reads. … OK, I actually don’t have much temperance at all. I once stayed up all night finishing Mary Doria Russell’s The Sparrow.
However, with comic series, I find that if you binge on them they can become wearing, whereas if you read one every once in a while, they are refreshing. For example, P.G. Wodehouse’e Bertie Wooster books and Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum series.
CHARITY: Which book/series/author do you tirelessly push to others, telling them about it or even giving away spare copies bought for that reason?
Well this question will contain no surprises to anyone who knows me or has followed my blog for any length of time.
The Emberverse series by S.M Stirling: I recommend this often because it encompasses a wide range of interests. The first few books are post-apocalyptic, and then it becomes more of a fantasy series. I’ve recommended it to people because it’s set in the Northwest (Idaho, eastern Washington and Oregon, northern California). Recently I recommended it to someone who is interested in retro martial arts such as sword fighting and archery, because there is a ton of that in these books, including descriptions of how the weapons are made and gripping battle scenes. The research on these books is both wide and deep, from ecology to botany to anthropology to martial arts to Celtic mythology.
‘Til We Have Faces: A searing, emotional novel about friendship, identity, divided loyalty, and religion. One of C.S. Lewis’s less famous works.
The Everlasting Man (non-fiction): G.K. Chesterton discusses paganism and why it expresses important things about being human … with the cheery paradoxes that only he can bring.
The Divine Conspiracy(non-fiction): With wit and wisdom, Dallas Willard applies the Gospels in a fresh way (which we all need frequently). This is so well-written that it’s a pleasure to read, and you just sail through it even though it’s quite thick.
Now, go forth and read these!
DILIGENCE: Which series/author you follow no matter what happens and how long you have to wait?
Agatha Christie. She has such a large corpus of work that even though I think I’ve read all her novels, I’m never sure.
Also, the Brother Cadfael series by Ellis Peters.
Also anything by Tony Hillerman or Dick Francis.
It looks like formula mysteries are my genre for this.
PATIENCE: Is there an author/book/series you’ve read that improved with time the most, starting out unpromising, but ultimately proving rewarding?
Watership Down. It is gripping from the first, don’t get me wrong, but it is so long. Then when you get to the end, you discover that the author is doing things with it that only a really long book can do.
KINDNESS: Which fictitious character would you consider your role-model in the hassle of everyday life?
Any strong, quiet, capable character who consistently takes care of others. Durnik in the Belgariad; Precious Ramotswe in The No. 1 Ladies series; Bardia in ‘Til We Have Faces; Sam Gamgee, Aragorn, Gandalf, Aslan. And, of course, Zillah from my own books.
Unfortunately my gifts and personality are almost opposite from all these characters. But I’ve always wanted to be strong, quiet, calm, and capable.
HUMILITY: Which book/series/author do you find most under-rated?
This is a hard one to answer because I don’t always have a real great idea of what other people are reading. How can I know that the gem I’ve “discovered” hasn’t also been discovered by a bunch of others?
Apparently Thomas Sowell has a bunch of great books about economics and society that have helped the people who’ve read them greatly … but I have not read them, only watched videos of him speaking. There are many such examples.
I hesitate to tag people because it seems to freak them out. But if you get inspired by any of the questions in this tag, please answer them either at your own blog or in the comments.
It had three stories in it. The Three Billy Goats Gruff (which everyone has heard before), The Stone Cheese (less well-known but still a fairy tale with familiar tropes), and The Trolls and the Pussycat.
A hunter is bringing a polar bear to the king of Denmark for a Christmas present. He gets caught in a blizzard and stops at an isolated farmhouse. But when the door opens, he finds the farmer and his family just getting ready to leave.
“Ah! You would not want to stay in this house,” said the farmer. “Every Christmas Eve a pack of trolls come down from the mountain to plague us. They eat our food, they sleep in our beds. We are lucky if they don’t break all our dishes and tables and chairs in the bargain.”
The hunter suggests that he and his bear might be a deterrent to the trolls, and he is right. The trolls surround the house …
Then one of them decides to poke the bear, which he thinks is a “pussy cat” …
With predictable results.
“And from that day forward no more trolls came to eat dinner at the farmhouse, for the news about Farmer Neils and his enormous pussycat soon spread far and wide in troll land.”
Oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time … The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling. They startle him because he is normal. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world.
When Hillary Clinton says this, it means your children actually belong to the State, and the State has a right to intervene if they don’t think you’re doing it right (which, trust me, you’re not). When normal people say it, it means only that in order to grow into healthy, functional adults, kids need more than just a mom and a dad. They need a whole community around them.
In the past, I’ve blogged about how living in a small, isolated community consisting mostly of extended family limits the options when a family must deal with abuse. That is still true. But it’s also true that living in a close-knit community can provide some benefits for children whose own parents are lacking in some way. They can receive re-parenting, or supplemental parenting, from aunts, uncles, grandparents, older cousins, and others.
Re-parenting in Harry Potter
Re-parenting occurs in Harry
Potter. Harry, as we all know, does not
have a proper family and lives as the unloved stepchild of his aunt and
uncle. When he meets his best friend,
Ron Weasley, he is introduced to Ron’s family.
From Ron’s point of view, the
Weasley family is not all that great a place to be. It’s a large family, Ron is the youngest of
many brothers, and he often feels overlooked.
Also, the Weasleys are poor, not in the sense of starving but in the
sense of wearing hand-me-downs and being subject to taunting from snobbier
From Harry’s point of view, Ron’s
family is paradise. It’s an intact
family with a loving father and mother.
Mrs. Weasley is a great cook, and Harry’s wizarding gifts are accepted
as a normal part of life instead of being hated, feared, and suppressed. Even the large number of siblings makes the
household a fun place to be. Harry stays
with Weasleys many times and eventually ends up marrying into their family.
Imperfect Parenting and Re-parenting
Over the course of the series,
Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, also provides a father figure to
Harry. However, it takes Harry some time
to realize that this is happening because he has been conditioned to mistrust
Harry is also re-parented by his father’s childhood friend Sirius Black. This brings out the point that all of us need re-parenting from a variety of people, not just one person or one family. Neither Dumbledore nor Black is perfect (Mr. Weasley might be perfect though!), but between the three of them they give Harry a decent composite father figure. That’s why we say “it takes a village,” not “it takes one perfect person other than your parents.”
Ironically, sometimes someone who is a flawed parent themselves can be an ideal supplemental parent. This is true of Dumbledore, who is a wonderful mentor to Harry even though he let his own family down in significant ways. We also see it in how Ron experiences his family as a place of being second-best, whereas Harry has a great experience in the same family. In some ways it’s easier to be a good parent to your child’s friends than to your own child. Thus, the need for re-parenting is not necessarily proof that our own parents failed us completely or were more than usually flawed. It takes a village is an expression that, properly understood, simply takes into account the fact that everyone is badly flawed. It’s like the interpersonal version of the need for checks and balances in government.
Re-parenting in Voyage of theDawn Treader
In C.S. Lewis’s classic sea story, Eustace Clarence Scrubb has parents who are neither neglectful nor directly abusive, but they have raised him with an inadequate set of values that is rapidly forming him into a sluggard, a coward, and a snob. Eustace, when he is whisked into Narnia, is re-parented not by any one adult per se but by the total experience of being in Narnia. And ultimately, of course, by Aslan Himself.
In Eustace’s case, getting re-parented is painful. At every turn, he is asked to work harder, put up with more hardship, and complain less than ever in his life before. Then things get really intense when he turns into a dragon and, to cure him, Aslan literally rips away his dragon skin. Eustace’s experience shows that re-parenting is not just about lots of love, hugs, and healing emotional wounds (though of course it can include that). It’s also a process of re-training, being challenged and held to higher standards. We see this in Dumbledore’s relationship with Harry in the later Harry Potter books, where Dumbledore starts giving Harry difficult assignments and holding him accountable whenever he doesn’t get on them.
Re-parenting in The Strange Land
Ikash, the teenaged protagonist of
my novel The Strange Land, has an
abusive father and a mother who because of her circumstances is barely
functional. Early in the book, before Ikash ever notices
his crush, he “falls in love” with her parents, who have an imperfect but warm
and loving home. They demonstrate to him
that there is another way to have a marriage besides the one his mother and
father have. It takes a village.
His crush’s father doesn’t
immediately accept Ikash, seeing him for the at-risk teen that he is and a
potential danger to his daughters. Ikash
is re-trained and challenged when he sees that Hur does not trust him, and is
motivated to become worthy of that trust.
The relationship grows through a series of tragedies and setbacks, and
by the end of the book, the way those two re-parent him is really a sight to
Ikash also finds father figures in
his paternal uncle and in his older cousin Ki-Ki. In both cases, it takes him some time to
trust them because of his previous bad experiences with authority. I didn’t consciously copy this dynamic from Harry Potter. It’s just a natural dynamic that often
repeats itself because of human psychology being what it is.
“Found Families” versus Re-parenting
Once or twice while reading book blogs, I have seen the term “found families.” I take this to mean stories where a character is orphaned or rejected for whatever reason and goes on to find or create a “family” for themselves from friends they meet along the way.
Clearly this is related to what I’ve been saying about re-parenting. I am not sure that it’s exactly the same thing because I don’t know the details of what people mean when they say a “found family.” My sense is that found families might more often consist of peers, whereas when I say re-parenting I am thinking more of a character being brought under the wing of a mentor (or, ideally, a couple) who are older and wiser. Also, re-parenting can happen without the characters really being considered a family, as in the case of Eustace.
In the comments, please tell me
what you know about the term “found families” and also what you love and/or
hate about found families and re-parenting in fiction.
Today is a special day for me and my husband. (Happy Anniversary, Honey!)
It’s not 25 years, but it is an anniversary that I would have thought would make us old, back when I was nineteen.
We don’t look old. Our kids are still school-aged, for crying out loud.
In honor of this day, I am posting what I believe is the sweetest love song in theater.
Tevye and Golde, in this song, are about the same age as my husband and me. Possibly a little younger. But they seem older because they married and began having children very young, and their hard life has aged them. Neither of them is a prince or princess. Instead, they are a peasant couple. After having made a life together, prompted by the newfangled habit of marrying for love they are just now raising the question of whether they love each other.
Reader response is a wonderful
style of literary criticism which allows the reviewer to just note down their
personal reactions, even if those reactions occurred while watching the show at
midnight, when we get sleepy and our inner five-year-old emerges.
This post doesn’t explain the plot step by step, but it does contain all the spoilers and all the sarcasm.
So, my reactions to the movie version of Angels and Demons, in order …
1. Oooh, these Catholics are so
mysterious and sinister!
2. Science-y stuff is happening
inside the big collider. The people are
speaking French. They think the collider
might blow everything up, but they press on anyway because it’s Science.
3. Now they have made
4. The messenger from the Vatican speaks
English with a cool, ominous accent. He
seems to be perfectly fluent, but he can’t remember the word formídable. The closest he can get is for-mi-dá-blay. The professor has to translate for him.
5. The professor is really smart.
He knows more about Catholic history than the Catholics themselves. Seems legit.
6. The Illuminati were a bunch of
honest truth seekers who were absolutely, positively not into the occult. They were just rationalists and scientists
who were persecuted by the Catholic Church.
Now they want to use the antimatter to blow up a small country (Vatican City), but that
is totally justified because the Catholics branded a cross on the chests of
five Illuminati back in the 1500s.
7. The Illuminati have kidnapped
the four preferiti, a.k.a. Cardinals who are being considered to become the
next Pope. The other Cardinals are in
conclave. The Great Elector, the leader
of these, is obviously the bad guy. He
doesn’t want to evacuate St. Peter’s Square, even though it clearly might be a
good idea. He has “I WANT TO BE POPE”
written on his forehead, and it’s possible he is behind this whole scheme. He either works for the Illuminati, or is
more likely using them.
8. The Illuminati assassin is
torturing the preferiti one by one and leaving them around Vatican City for the Professor to find.
9. VATICAN CITY SCAVENGER HUNT!!!
10. Wow, I am just learning so much from this movie. I had NO IDEA that the church adopted the symbols and holidays of previous pagan religions, or that Dec. 25 was originally … oh, wait. Yes I did. I wrote an article about it here.
11. Also, English was the language of rebels and mavericks, like Shakespeare and Chaucer. (Chaucer????)
Honestly. There are no admirable characters in this
movie. Not the Great Elector, not the
Komandant of the Swiss guard, not the Illuminati assassin because torture, not
the Professor because he always looks like everyone is getting on his last
nerve with all this religion stuff … The only admirable character is a young
priest who was the Pope’s protégé and who confusingly still loves the church as
a place of simple people full of compassion even though he admits the church
has “always sought to impede progress.”
I’ll bet he apostatizes before the end.
Either that or he becomes the next Pope.
13. The Pope was murdered, by the way. Turns out he didn’t really have a stroke. I think we are supposed to feel sorry for him (or for the protégé), but the scene when they open his coffin displays a black, swollen tongue protruding from his mouth and spreading a stain over the rest of his face. Clearly super symbolic.
Speaking of symbolism, in one scene the Professor gets trapped in the
Vatican Archives. To preserve the
ancient books there, oxygen is kept to a low level and the walls are lined with
lead. When the power goes off, the
electronic doors lock. The professor has
to break out of this hall of old books where he cannot breathe or communicate
with the outside world, or he will literally die from being stifled. The only
way he can break out is to push a heavy bookcase full of priceless artifacts
into the re-enforced glass, destroying these precious objects.
Hmm, what ever could all of this
symbolize? Let me think …
15. OK, they have saved the one
remaining preferitus. And they have
found the antimatter. But – oh no! – they can’t replace the battery
that will prevent an explosion, without possibly causing an explosion.
The protégé is taking the antimatter up in a helicopter so the explosion
doesn’t kill anyone! He’s going to be
martyred and made a saint!
17. Oh wait, he parachuted out!
18. But the explosion high over St.
Peter’s Square is blowing his parachute all around! He’s going to die after
19. He survived! Now the cardinals are finding an obscure bylaw
that allows them to make him Pope.
But the Professor has just found a hidden video that shows the protégé was the one who hired the
assassin! He just made it look like an Illuminati plot! It was him all along!
I did not see that coming.
But the reasons he did it were the same old tired reasons we have been
told all along. He killed the Pope
because the Pope was OK with the scientists making antimatter and the protégé
thought it was blasphemous.
22. In other words, he did all this
in order to impede progress because he thought it might diminish the power of
The lady scientist feels guilty about having made antimatter because it
was stolen by the assassin and almost used to kill thousands of people. She wonders if they should go on making
The professor encourages her to make some more. That’s good advice. After all, what are the odds of something like this happening again?
The Great Elector is now allowing the remaining preferitus to become
Pope and is acting all nice & humble towards the Professor. “Religion is flawed, but that’s because
people are flawed.”
OK, I was wrong about the Great Elector. Still, this feels like Dan Brown is trying to have it both ways. He’s just spent an entire movie showing us that religious zeal is really really bad and destructive, but now he wants to say that it’s also not, with no reasons given.
Verdict: I ended up really enjoying this movie because it was so twisty. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was a hatchet job. Even the twists serve its purpose, because the person behind the evil plot turned out to be the character who seemed the most saintly and was certainly the most zealous. He ends up setting himself on fire, murmuring, “Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit” and then screaming and writhing like a demon as he burns. If that’s not blasphemous I don’t know what is.