Don't ask why I'm talking teen, I've no idea.
If you remember this, did you think it was too cheesy? I am finishing up the last couple of chapters in a novel, with a big confrontation between good and evil, and I have two ringers in the group - one a teenage boy who is a black belt, and the other the son of a witch who has shown no prior indication of magical talents. I am tempted to have one of these guys pull a totally unexpected trick out of their sleeves, but the cheese factor . . . would you be disappointed as a reader? They've both been likable and consistent characters throughout the book. interested in feedback. Inarticulate Babbler (IAB?) where are you when I need you?
Same goes for your world and your situation. As long as you are consistent with your magic, your characters can certainly think of tricky ways to unexpectedly win. But if you spend most of the novel establishing that, say, wizards are able to magically defend themselves from a sword with ease, and then have your character whip out a sword and simply kill the wizard with it, it strikes of inconsistency, and I would (if I didn't put the novel down that very moment) stray from any future works of yours, becasue, as a reader, now I know that you "cheat."
So it's all about being consistent. Your characters can be tricky. They can't break the rules of magic you've already established, though.
quote:
There was a gimmick at the very end, where one ancient wizard whips out a pistol at the very end and shoots the other wizard, saying "here's a trick mom taught me when you weren't around".
I wish I was old enough to remember that, because it's hilarious.
If one of your characters pulled out a magical trick that hadn't been even hinted at slightly in the entirety of the pages previous, I'd probably groan a little. When characters pull magic out of their sleeves without prior suggestion of it, just when they need it the most, it feels a little too much like deus ex machina to me.
Pulling out a pistol is different because it shatters the audience's assumptions, as you've noted.
If it was some trick other than magic, using accessible technology and/or ingenuity, I'd be much more pleased as a reader.
Now, seriously:
1) If you think it's cheese, everyone will. There's a pretty good chance your instincts are forewarning you. However, it could be fear...
2) Make cheese into cheesecake by adding the necessary ingredients. If you are torn between cheesy and brilliant, eliminate the aspects that make it cheesy and hint at its brilliance.
3) Ask yourself if it's off-the-wall or just unexpected?
4) Focus on why you like the idea. Ask yourself if it's just the easy way out, or if it has its own merrit/ Does this have to be the end? If so, make it work.
*These points may not be in order.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 03, 2007).]
Seems to me that most good books do some sort of foreshadowing of the final showdown scene. I don't generally have a problem with it, unless it comes off as "Deus ex machina" stuff - you know, where suddenly she remembers that she's able to teleport so she teleports herself to behind the bad guy and takes his gun while he's all surprised like. Dude, that kind of thing bugs me. Don't ask why I'm talking teen, I've no idea.
another thing is to show the weakness to modern technology, or at least really fast things. He might get hit by a kid firing a pebble with a sling, but is able to stop arrows which are slower. Then, one can believe that a bullet from a gun can kill a wizard.
Another would be to show how they are vulnerable to modern technology, by showing a magic user hurt by something modern when something primative would have no chance against them.
I think Astro has it right. If there are hints that mages are subject to mundane weapons, I'd go with it. The son of a witch coming into his power at the precise right moment would give me a groan.
After all, think of Indiana Jones. There is a huge build up to a sword fight with the appropriate level of showing off. Indy doesn't have his sword, so he oulls his pistol and shoots the guy. Why does he get away with it? Because we all knew he had the gun and, in his place, we would have shot the bad guy too.
It can work if the build up is right.
If you like Bakshi, try to find a copy of Fire & Ice, it's heavilly inspired by Frank Frazzetta and is very pretty. Do not confuse it with the awful mid 80's ice skating movie.
I love the movie and am inspired by Frank Frazetta's art. Wish I could afford some of the originals for sale on his site!
PS - The DVD version of it (new) is available at the Frank Frazetta Museum Store. (Which is the website) It's $37.95. For the movie AND the six prints it's $60.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 05, 2007).]
Ford is known for improving. His American Graffiti character was not supposed to wear a cowboy hat. He added it. Speilberg let him keep it.
Anyway, turning back to the issue - if you lay the ground work than it's not deus ex machina and probably will work
So it wasn't cheesy because we knew it could happen (although we didn't expect it) and because it worked so nicely to illustrate the theme.
If you can do that with a suprise, then you shouldn't have any problems, IMHO.
If I wasn't married and straight I might have to stalk you :-)
The gun at the end of wizards AND in Indiana Jones were both examples of using Anti-Climax effectively.
Both were situations where they audience expects a big lavish fight or exposition, since they are bigger than life, but instead a more realistic approach is used to create a very effective anti climax.
I find this refreshing since it seems FAR too often film and occasionally novels, insist on intricate involved puzzle wrapped in an enigma, solutions rather than choosing the obvious and expedient solution. Computer games are particularly notorious for this.
The idea I'm working on has several present day folks going up against a powerful spirit, who have several minions. I think the minions, at least (sorry about the minions thing. I've been spending a lot of time at the EE site), would be subject to the same rules as the present day folks. the kids black belt status is discussed early on when the kid is introduced, and there have been occasions in which the minions have been at a disadvantage because the have little acquaintance with any technology past the late fifties.
I'm on the last 2-3 chapters of the book, and I think I am just having trouble getting them out because - it's the last 2-3 chapters of the book! (sigh) King's Falcon and the mighty Inarticulate One, I think we must all be really dating ourselves to admit we know this movie. Much less Frank Frazetta. I haven't heard that name since I was in college and dating an aspiring comic book illustrator (sigh). I won't tell if you won't tell.
I own a copy of the movie.
He said that the more you explain to the reader how the magic works, the more you can use the magic as part of the plot -- to solve problems in a story. The less you explain (the fewer rules you give for the magic), the more you have to keep the magic as setting (or scene decoration).
So if you go by his "rule of thumb," if you want to use magic (or guns or anything else for that matter) to solve problems in your story, you have to make sure the magic (or whatever) follows the rules you've set up for it so that it can solve the story problems.
If you just want the magic to be unexplained (and therefore just part of the setting), you risk committing "deus ex machina" to have the magic do anything to solve story problems.