Jennifer Swartwood-Walker's Blog: Plot Twist
July 28, 2023
Perpetual Resurrections
As everyone knows, comic book deaths, specifically superhero comics, are never taken seriously anymore. Characters like Superman, Captain America, and Loki have all experienced their fair share of resurrections. It's a cycle that can leave fans wondering if death holds any true weight in these stories. Nevertheless, the perpetual resurrections serve a purpose, allowing fan favorite characters to be explored in new and exciting ways, and granting them a chance to evolve over time blah, blah, blah...I get it. Why have your character "die" at all then? I find it quite insulting to the reader.
There's a reason the Joker wasn't killed off in the original run: they thought they might do more with him in the future. Makes sense. Loki, is constantly being brought back and that tracks for his character. But in the end, when he definitively dies in the MCU he was still brought back by other means. When I watched his death scene in Endgame, it was sad and seemed final. But you knew he would be back somehow and of course we now have the TV show Loki. (Not to bash Loki, he's a great character and it's a great show - watch it.)
DC Comics has a nice plot device for bringing back characters: The Lazarus Pit. I do like that it's not just a "well she's alive again, back to business" type of resurrection. There are consequences to using the pit, but a lot of times the person just becomes the same character they always were. There are exceptions to this like Jason Todd but there should be more. Using the pit should change them and keep them changed.
The one saving grace for this problem is Spiderman. Uncle Ben always stays dead. Gwen Stacy always stays dead (not including any multiverse or spider-verse). I do think that the finality of the deaths in Spiderman make his character more relatable and hit harder; because in his life, death means death. The events of the comics and movies are taken seriously by the viewers and readers. So when something happens you don't think "no that's not the end, they're gonna come back" you think "NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!" and you feel the appropriate emotions.
So from one graphic novelist and comics super fan to all superhero writers out there: If you insult the reader too many times, you'll lose your reader. So quit resurrecting characters. It's lazy.
There's a reason the Joker wasn't killed off in the original run: they thought they might do more with him in the future. Makes sense. Loki, is constantly being brought back and that tracks for his character. But in the end, when he definitively dies in the MCU he was still brought back by other means. When I watched his death scene in Endgame, it was sad and seemed final. But you knew he would be back somehow and of course we now have the TV show Loki. (Not to bash Loki, he's a great character and it's a great show - watch it.)
DC Comics has a nice plot device for bringing back characters: The Lazarus Pit. I do like that it's not just a "well she's alive again, back to business" type of resurrection. There are consequences to using the pit, but a lot of times the person just becomes the same character they always were. There are exceptions to this like Jason Todd but there should be more. Using the pit should change them and keep them changed.
The one saving grace for this problem is Spiderman. Uncle Ben always stays dead. Gwen Stacy always stays dead (not including any multiverse or spider-verse). I do think that the finality of the deaths in Spiderman make his character more relatable and hit harder; because in his life, death means death. The events of the comics and movies are taken seriously by the viewers and readers. So when something happens you don't think "no that's not the end, they're gonna come back" you think "NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!" and you feel the appropriate emotions.
So from one graphic novelist and comics super fan to all superhero writers out there: If you insult the reader too many times, you'll lose your reader. So quit resurrecting characters. It's lazy.
Book vs Movie: Jurassic Park
Today, I get to talk about my favorite book and greatest movie from my young childhood: Jurassic Park! To this day the movie Jurassic Park holds up as a classic, and I finally decided to read the original book by Michael Crichton. I can't put into words how much I loved the book but I'll say this: I've read many books that I liked and even loved, but I've never claimed to have a favorite, until now.
So, I'll go over some basics first:
Book
Michael Crichton, crafted Jurassic Park as a remarkable literary achievement. The book captivated readers with its meticulous scientific explanations, multifaceted characters, and contemplation of profound themes. Crichton's exploration of the ethical implications surrounding genetic engineering and humanity's inclination towards hubris prompts introspection, inviting readers to ponder their own role in scientific progress.
Movie
Directed by Steven Spielberg, the Jurassic Park movie made a mark on pop culture. Spielberg's artistry, showcased through groundbreaking visual effects, including a life-size statue of a T-rex, relentless suspense, and exhilarating action sequences, breathed life into the prehistoric creatures, leaving audiences on the edge of their seats,—or on the floor right next to the screen like me. The film succeeded in capturing the grandeur and wonder of these ancient beings, forever securing its place in the annals of cinema.
Book Pros
You always get more from the book than the movie. In the movie, Dr. Grant just knows that they can't see you if you don't move...which doesn't make much sense as it's not a theory in paleontology. In the book, after encountering many different dinosaurs Dr. Grant deduces that the animals act differently when he's still. It becomes established as something specific to the genetically engineered creatures.
The book is more of a horror-science fiction-thriller, the movie is more thriller-action adventure. As I am a horror and science fiction lover, you may understand why I gravitate more towards the book. The book starts with the rediscovered dinosaur and then quickly turns into horror. Which includes adults, small children, and babies being attacked on and off the island.
Movie Pros
The best part of the movie is the T-rex. They straight up sculpted a life-sized animatronic for the movie. That scene when it walks through the enclosure in the rain, will forever be one of the best cinematic moments of all time.
The casting of Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler. I only see Laura Dern as that character. She was strong, smart, and conveyed all of the things that made her character great. Perfect casting that absolutely reflected the character in the book.
Things that should have been in the movie
The set up. In the books first chapters, an extinct dinosaur was rediscovered on the nearby islands indicating that the parks inhabitants were escaping. It would've been a darker tone BUT it would've given more credence to the breeding problem. Which was only really discussed once in the movie. It was more of an oh, no, we got something wrong instead of a we have a serious problem and are all about to die.
Whether you're watching the movie or reading the book, you're a winner. They're both classics and you can't go wrong. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read the next Jurassic Park book.
So, I'll go over some basics first:
Book
Michael Crichton, crafted Jurassic Park as a remarkable literary achievement. The book captivated readers with its meticulous scientific explanations, multifaceted characters, and contemplation of profound themes. Crichton's exploration of the ethical implications surrounding genetic engineering and humanity's inclination towards hubris prompts introspection, inviting readers to ponder their own role in scientific progress.
Movie
Directed by Steven Spielberg, the Jurassic Park movie made a mark on pop culture. Spielberg's artistry, showcased through groundbreaking visual effects, including a life-size statue of a T-rex, relentless suspense, and exhilarating action sequences, breathed life into the prehistoric creatures, leaving audiences on the edge of their seats,—or on the floor right next to the screen like me. The film succeeded in capturing the grandeur and wonder of these ancient beings, forever securing its place in the annals of cinema.
Book Pros
You always get more from the book than the movie. In the movie, Dr. Grant just knows that they can't see you if you don't move...which doesn't make much sense as it's not a theory in paleontology. In the book, after encountering many different dinosaurs Dr. Grant deduces that the animals act differently when he's still. It becomes established as something specific to the genetically engineered creatures.
The book is more of a horror-science fiction-thriller, the movie is more thriller-action adventure. As I am a horror and science fiction lover, you may understand why I gravitate more towards the book. The book starts with the rediscovered dinosaur and then quickly turns into horror. Which includes adults, small children, and babies being attacked on and off the island.
Movie Pros
The best part of the movie is the T-rex. They straight up sculpted a life-sized animatronic for the movie. That scene when it walks through the enclosure in the rain, will forever be one of the best cinematic moments of all time.
The casting of Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler. I only see Laura Dern as that character. She was strong, smart, and conveyed all of the things that made her character great. Perfect casting that absolutely reflected the character in the book.
Things that should have been in the movie
The set up. In the books first chapters, an extinct dinosaur was rediscovered on the nearby islands indicating that the parks inhabitants were escaping. It would've been a darker tone BUT it would've given more credence to the breeding problem. Which was only really discussed once in the movie. It was more of an oh, no, we got something wrong instead of a we have a serious problem and are all about to die.
Whether you're watching the movie or reading the book, you're a winner. They're both classics and you can't go wrong. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read the next Jurassic Park book.
June 15, 2023
Unraveling the Unseen: The Silent Patient's Killer Plot Twist
Have you ever read the incredibly popular best-selling book "The Silent Patient" by Alex Michaelides? If your answer is "No" then SPOILER ALERT and DANGER WILL ROBINSON!
(I'll try to keep the movie references to a minimum for the blog. If you don't understand them, I'm sorry. But if you do, you are my people.) Let's get to it...
So, we have Alicia Berenson, a renowned artist who remains eerily silent after being convicted of her husband's murder. Enter Theo Faber, a psychotherapist who becomes obsessed with unraveling the truth behind Alicia's silence. It takes quite a while for Faber to make progress with Alicia and seemingly has a troubled personal life. But little do you know how much the personal life is affecting the plot.
From seemingly insignificant conversations to fleeting memories and even references to artwork, the observant reader among us can start piecing together the puzzle long before the big reveal. I even found myself thinking "he's doing exactly what Alicia described." It's the misdirection that makes the reveal to impactful. With plausible alternative explanations and red herrings to divert our attention, it keeps us guessing and preventing the true nature of the twist from being uncovered too early.
The big plot twist hits and you realize that the timelines of events are not chronological and Faber was a direct facilitator of the events in Alicia's story. The execution was top-notch. Those signs were there through the entire narrative, and looking back, I can appreciate the meticulous planning and storytelling prowess that went into crafting such a twist.
Now, there was one thing that I wasn't exactly a fan of—the direct involvement of the narrator. Obviously this big twist wouldn't have been as big of an impact without it and this book is amazing and I hope you've read it (cause I just ruined it for you if you haven't). But the main reason I wasn't 100% for it is because this type of twist is done often and I was hoping for something a bit different. Regardless, the novel maintained an air of suspense that had me up way later than I should've been to finish the book.
"The Silent Patient" is a book that showcases the power of a well-executed plot twist. If you're a fan of psychological thrillers that keep you on the edge of your seat, I wholeheartedly recommend it.
I give it a 4/5 stars!
(I'll try to keep the movie references to a minimum for the blog. If you don't understand them, I'm sorry. But if you do, you are my people.) Let's get to it...
So, we have Alicia Berenson, a renowned artist who remains eerily silent after being convicted of her husband's murder. Enter Theo Faber, a psychotherapist who becomes obsessed with unraveling the truth behind Alicia's silence. It takes quite a while for Faber to make progress with Alicia and seemingly has a troubled personal life. But little do you know how much the personal life is affecting the plot.
From seemingly insignificant conversations to fleeting memories and even references to artwork, the observant reader among us can start piecing together the puzzle long before the big reveal. I even found myself thinking "he's doing exactly what Alicia described." It's the misdirection that makes the reveal to impactful. With plausible alternative explanations and red herrings to divert our attention, it keeps us guessing and preventing the true nature of the twist from being uncovered too early.
The big plot twist hits and you realize that the timelines of events are not chronological and Faber was a direct facilitator of the events in Alicia's story. The execution was top-notch. Those signs were there through the entire narrative, and looking back, I can appreciate the meticulous planning and storytelling prowess that went into crafting such a twist.
Now, there was one thing that I wasn't exactly a fan of—the direct involvement of the narrator. Obviously this big twist wouldn't have been as big of an impact without it and this book is amazing and I hope you've read it (cause I just ruined it for you if you haven't). But the main reason I wasn't 100% for it is because this type of twist is done often and I was hoping for something a bit different. Regardless, the novel maintained an air of suspense that had me up way later than I should've been to finish the book.
"The Silent Patient" is a book that showcases the power of a well-executed plot twist. If you're a fan of psychological thrillers that keep you on the edge of your seat, I wholeheartedly recommend it.
I give it a 4/5 stars!
August 16, 2021
Character Breakdown - Cassandra Cain Batgirl
I've been a fan of comics since middle school. And the one character I had a hard time with was Batgirl. There are many versions of her, but there was only one that I actually liked: Cassandra Cain.
The other versions of Batgirl were more of a side character just there for support of Batman. It makes sense, she's a sidekick, but her actions were inconsequential to the story more often than not. To me, she was only memorable because she held the name association with Batman until the Barbra Gordon version became Oracle. But then, Kelley Puckett and Damion Scott created Cassandra Cain.
She first appeared in Batman (1940-2011) #567 in 1999, and the thing that made me look at this character was her design. Batman is supposed to strike fear into people that see him, and this new character made that true for Batgirl for the first time.
She flew under my radar for quite a while due to my aversion to Batgirl. But I had come across an image of her while looking for Batman comics. My love of her design was there, so I had to see her character. I started with Batgirl, Vol. 1: Silent Knight and she didn't disappoint. The thing that completely pulled me in was that she didn't know verbal languages or ASL. From there, I knew she was a unique version of Batgirl and not the cookie-cutter sidekick like the others.
Not only did her being non-verbal make her unique, but it adds to the suspense of the story. Cassandra saying a single word shocks the reader, and her learning a verbal language as the series goes, makes this even more poignant. I won't ruin the story for those who haven't read it. All I'm going to do is recommend it and compliment the creators! Well done!
The other versions of Batgirl were more of a side character just there for support of Batman. It makes sense, she's a sidekick, but her actions were inconsequential to the story more often than not. To me, she was only memorable because she held the name association with Batman until the Barbra Gordon version became Oracle. But then, Kelley Puckett and Damion Scott created Cassandra Cain.
She first appeared in Batman (1940-2011) #567 in 1999, and the thing that made me look at this character was her design. Batman is supposed to strike fear into people that see him, and this new character made that true for Batgirl for the first time.
She flew under my radar for quite a while due to my aversion to Batgirl. But I had come across an image of her while looking for Batman comics. My love of her design was there, so I had to see her character. I started with Batgirl, Vol. 1: Silent Knight and she didn't disappoint. The thing that completely pulled me in was that she didn't know verbal languages or ASL. From there, I knew she was a unique version of Batgirl and not the cookie-cutter sidekick like the others.
Not only did her being non-verbal make her unique, but it adds to the suspense of the story. Cassandra saying a single word shocks the reader, and her learning a verbal language as the series goes, makes this even more poignant. I won't ruin the story for those who haven't read it. All I'm going to do is recommend it and compliment the creators! Well done!
Plot Twist
From comics to movies and everything in-between! I talk about the best parts of movies and literature.
- Jennifer Swartwood-Walker's profile
- 11 followers
