Lisa Batya Feld's Blog, page 10
February 12, 2015
They also serve
Posting this here, since I have a feeling Facebook buried this update and I think it's important for my friends to see it:
For those of you who are teachers or working at non-profits, a friend of mine just sent me this: you may be eligible for student loan forgiveness. The two things you want to be aware of, if you qualify: you'll want to switch to the longest, lowest payment plan possible, so you have loans left to forgive, and when you do get the loans forgiven, you'll be taxed on them that year. But in all, totally worth it!
For those of you who are teachers or working at non-profits, a friend of mine just sent me this: you may be eligible for student loan forgiveness. The two things you want to be aware of, if you qualify: you'll want to switch to the longest, lowest payment plan possible, so you have loans left to forgive, and when you do get the loans forgiven, you'll be taxed on them that year. But in all, totally worth it!
January 28, 2015
A cold day in hell
Yesterday, during the blizzard, the furnace started dying again--the second time this winter. I talked to the landlord and he promised to send a repair guy as soon as the travel ban was lifted.
I really like my landlord, but the super, his nephew, is the reason we have the word nepotism: he likes getting his salary, but he never responds to phone or texts, forgets to make promised repairs for months, etc. And of course, the super is the one who comes to meet the repair guy the next day. Luckily, I'm working from home and hear them come in and head to the basement. The super then calls me up and asks me to describe what happened.
"The heat dies and the vents start blasting cold air, sometimes for hours, and because the temperature isn't rising, it doesn't shut off. Eventually, the heat kicks back in for a few minutes, which is enough to get the vents to shut off for a bit."
"Sounds like the way it's supposed to work," he tells me, and I hear the relief in his voice. He wants this not to be a problem that needs fixing, so he's ignoring the first sentence and focusing on the second, which, yes, is the way a furnace is supposed to work. No messy, expensive repair job needed, just a crazy, high-maintenance tenant. The fact that there's no heat for hours at a time is beside the point.
"Look, I can hear you guys downstairs. Why don't I come down and talk to you?" I go down and repeat myself to the repair guy.
"Oh, I know what that is," says the repair guy, and immediately starts hauling out the guts of the furnace while the super looks on unhappily.
A few minutes later, I see the super walking outside, and ask him what it was. Apparently the furnace has two motors, one died, and the other was on the verge of burning out from trying to do the work of both. "So we need a new motor," he says.
As mildly as possible, I say, "Good to know I'm not crazy."
I really like my landlord, but the super, his nephew, is the reason we have the word nepotism: he likes getting his salary, but he never responds to phone or texts, forgets to make promised repairs for months, etc. And of course, the super is the one who comes to meet the repair guy the next day. Luckily, I'm working from home and hear them come in and head to the basement. The super then calls me up and asks me to describe what happened.
"The heat dies and the vents start blasting cold air, sometimes for hours, and because the temperature isn't rising, it doesn't shut off. Eventually, the heat kicks back in for a few minutes, which is enough to get the vents to shut off for a bit."
"Sounds like the way it's supposed to work," he tells me, and I hear the relief in his voice. He wants this not to be a problem that needs fixing, so he's ignoring the first sentence and focusing on the second, which, yes, is the way a furnace is supposed to work. No messy, expensive repair job needed, just a crazy, high-maintenance tenant. The fact that there's no heat for hours at a time is beside the point.
"Look, I can hear you guys downstairs. Why don't I come down and talk to you?" I go down and repeat myself to the repair guy.
"Oh, I know what that is," says the repair guy, and immediately starts hauling out the guts of the furnace while the super looks on unhappily.
A few minutes later, I see the super walking outside, and ask him what it was. Apparently the furnace has two motors, one died, and the other was on the verge of burning out from trying to do the work of both. "So we need a new motor," he says.
As mildly as possible, I say, "Good to know I'm not crazy."
January 2, 2015
Year to Date 2014
And the latest in the ongoing saga of my writing life...
2014 Stats:
Stories Circulating: 5
Rejections: 15
Sales: 0
Nano 1: Within These Walls - Second draft in progress
Nano 2: Cuckoo - Second draft in progress
Much less of everything this year: less writing, less revising, less submitting, even less reading (103 books, as opposed to last year's staggering 127). There's very good reasons for a lot of that, the main one being that I started a new job about a year ago which involves writing a lot of mini biographies, roughly 200 words per person. And I've written close to 1,000 of them in the past year, which is not just 1,000 flash pieces, it's 200,000 words. That's the length of two epic novels, and it means that several times every day I have to consider how to craft a new piece from scratch. There's just not a lot of creative energy left after that for novel writing. And this coming year is going to be very similar, lots of mini-stories at work, not a lot of time or energy for writing in my off hours. But after this coming year, I should be done with the bulk of the project and be ready to shift to more of my own work in 2016.
On the other hand, I've started working with a writing group, some fabulous people I know from my MFA program in Colorado. So the aim is to rework my two novel first drafts in 2015, get them as good as they can be, and then move on to new novels in 2016 while submitting the first two.
2014 Stats:
Stories Circulating: 5
Rejections: 15
Sales: 0
Nano 1: Within These Walls - Second draft in progress
Nano 2: Cuckoo - Second draft in progress
Much less of everything this year: less writing, less revising, less submitting, even less reading (103 books, as opposed to last year's staggering 127). There's very good reasons for a lot of that, the main one being that I started a new job about a year ago which involves writing a lot of mini biographies, roughly 200 words per person. And I've written close to 1,000 of them in the past year, which is not just 1,000 flash pieces, it's 200,000 words. That's the length of two epic novels, and it means that several times every day I have to consider how to craft a new piece from scratch. There's just not a lot of creative energy left after that for novel writing. And this coming year is going to be very similar, lots of mini-stories at work, not a lot of time or energy for writing in my off hours. But after this coming year, I should be done with the bulk of the project and be ready to shift to more of my own work in 2016.
On the other hand, I've started working with a writing group, some fabulous people I know from my MFA program in Colorado. So the aim is to rework my two novel first drafts in 2015, get them as good as they can be, and then move on to new novels in 2016 while submitting the first two.
December 30, 2014
On Lazarus Long and doing well.
Over the past week, I've had a number of different conversations with friends and family that made me realize how lucky I was that my parents taught me certain life skills, and how few people get that kind of grounding in basic competency.
I remember reading a quote by Robert Heinlein in college and checking off which of his list of essential skills I did or didn't have, and wondering what that said about me as a person (It didn't occur to me at the time to question what the list said about him as a person): "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Let's face it, I'm probably never going to butcher a hog.
But I still believe that there are certain areas where everyone needs some basic knowledge, the areas that used to be covered by home ec. and wood shop. I'm not talking about being able to design your own clothes, bake croissants, or craft a piece of furniture from scratch, although kudos to you if you can do any of those. But if you can't sew on a button or mend a tear, you don't get to choose when you're done with your favorite clothes. If you can't use a hammer and screwdriver to tighten something that's coming apart, you have to replace a whole bookshelf when all you need is a ten-cent screw. If you can't follow a simple recipe, you're at the mercy of takeout and microwave meals, with all the harm to budget and waistline that entails.
And the thing is, it's really easy to learn all of this when you're nine. But when you're an adult, it's hard to find the time and the teachers to learn these things, and it's embarrassing to admit you don't have some basic skill, if you even realize this is a skill that can be taught. So why aren't we teaching these things to kids, regardless of gender? Why isn't this a priority anymore?
I remember reading a quote by Robert Heinlein in college and checking off which of his list of essential skills I did or didn't have, and wondering what that said about me as a person (It didn't occur to me at the time to question what the list said about him as a person): "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Let's face it, I'm probably never going to butcher a hog.
But I still believe that there are certain areas where everyone needs some basic knowledge, the areas that used to be covered by home ec. and wood shop. I'm not talking about being able to design your own clothes, bake croissants, or craft a piece of furniture from scratch, although kudos to you if you can do any of those. But if you can't sew on a button or mend a tear, you don't get to choose when you're done with your favorite clothes. If you can't use a hammer and screwdriver to tighten something that's coming apart, you have to replace a whole bookshelf when all you need is a ten-cent screw. If you can't follow a simple recipe, you're at the mercy of takeout and microwave meals, with all the harm to budget and waistline that entails.
And the thing is, it's really easy to learn all of this when you're nine. But when you're an adult, it's hard to find the time and the teachers to learn these things, and it's embarrassing to admit you don't have some basic skill, if you even realize this is a skill that can be taught. So why aren't we teaching these things to kids, regardless of gender? Why isn't this a priority anymore?
November 10, 2014
The (not so) universal holiday
This morning, it occurred to me for the first time to wonder: why is it that every show feels compelled to do Christmas specials? Every year, we get inundated with scenes of our favorite characters angsting over gifts, gearing up for fraught family reunions, and learning the true meaning of Christmas.
Which, if you think about it, is really, really weird on every level. First, most of the characters don't think about their faith at any other point in the season: it's not central to who they are or what drives the plot of the show.
Second, you can find these episodes even on shows created and run by Jews. So it's not like management has a deep, emotional need for these episodes either.
And third, a decent chunk of the population watching the shows isn't Christian, so 15% or so of us get inundated with episodes that are putting forth this holiday we don't celebrate as a universal event. If you really want those elements of fraught family reunions and ambivalent feelings about a universal holiday, why not have a Thanksgiving episode instead? (Which I think only Buffy has done.)
Look at the standard plot arc for these episodes: Some of the characters are really excited for the holiday. Some are stressed by the demands of buying presents, party planning, etc. And some have negative associations with the holiday and don't want to participate at all. Discord ensues. But in the end, the characters bridge the gap: the excited ones show empathy for the ones who feel stressed or disconnected, and everyone comes together for the happy ending, singing carols, working in a soup kitchen, or opening presents at the big party. The real message is that no matter how stressed or unhappy Christmas makes you, if you buy in, you'll reap happiness and connection in the end.
Which is why it's always Christmas and not Thanksgiving: it's not about writing an episode that resonates with either the characters or the audience, it's writing for the sake of the commercial vendors. People exchange presents on Christmas, often more than they can afford. The Christmas episodes maintain a culture that encourages that spending, making it seem universal, something you can't opt out of, something that--despite the stress and unhappiness--will be worth it in the end. It's a particularly skeezy piece of manipulation, using much-loved characters to try and warp people's choices.
Which, if you think about it, is really, really weird on every level. First, most of the characters don't think about their faith at any other point in the season: it's not central to who they are or what drives the plot of the show.
Second, you can find these episodes even on shows created and run by Jews. So it's not like management has a deep, emotional need for these episodes either.
And third, a decent chunk of the population watching the shows isn't Christian, so 15% or so of us get inundated with episodes that are putting forth this holiday we don't celebrate as a universal event. If you really want those elements of fraught family reunions and ambivalent feelings about a universal holiday, why not have a Thanksgiving episode instead? (Which I think only Buffy has done.)
Look at the standard plot arc for these episodes: Some of the characters are really excited for the holiday. Some are stressed by the demands of buying presents, party planning, etc. And some have negative associations with the holiday and don't want to participate at all. Discord ensues. But in the end, the characters bridge the gap: the excited ones show empathy for the ones who feel stressed or disconnected, and everyone comes together for the happy ending, singing carols, working in a soup kitchen, or opening presents at the big party. The real message is that no matter how stressed or unhappy Christmas makes you, if you buy in, you'll reap happiness and connection in the end.
Which is why it's always Christmas and not Thanksgiving: it's not about writing an episode that resonates with either the characters or the audience, it's writing for the sake of the commercial vendors. People exchange presents on Christmas, often more than they can afford. The Christmas episodes maintain a culture that encourages that spending, making it seem universal, something you can't opt out of, something that--despite the stress and unhappiness--will be worth it in the end. It's a particularly skeezy piece of manipulation, using much-loved characters to try and warp people's choices.
November 1, 2014
Hell-fizzle
Okay, I'm giving Constantine one more week to hit its stride and then I'm throwing in the towel. So far, my three complaints are:
1. I still don't care about any of the characters. For most people, that's kind of a biggie, but I generally give a show a bit more time before deciding on that.
2. Constantine's "spells" are all Latin, basically prayers asking God to smite whatever demon he's facing. Granted, demons are fallen angels, and in the comics, Constantine's been known to offer them a swig of holy water if it's handy. But Constantine's supposed to be both anti-establishment and a wizard--he'll draw on whatever works, and a lot of that is from traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity one way or the other. I'm getting the feeling that Fox wanted to do a show about a battle between Good and Evil but was uncomfortable with the anti-establishment trickster aspects that make Constantine interesting and left those on the cutting-room floor.
3. The Boobs of the Week. All the main characters, the ones who know what's going on, are grown-up men. Into this sausage party, we throw one female a week who is pretty, very young, and a complete noob. Her job is to be impressed with Constantine so he looks cooler, and then get disposed of before she can level up. I seriously doubt we are going to see anyone like Zatanna--a confident magician with her own way of doing things--although we might get Gemma, Constantine's niece and protege, as long as she's old enough to be "blessed in the chest."
1. I still don't care about any of the characters. For most people, that's kind of a biggie, but I generally give a show a bit more time before deciding on that.
2. Constantine's "spells" are all Latin, basically prayers asking God to smite whatever demon he's facing. Granted, demons are fallen angels, and in the comics, Constantine's been known to offer them a swig of holy water if it's handy. But Constantine's supposed to be both anti-establishment and a wizard--he'll draw on whatever works, and a lot of that is from traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity one way or the other. I'm getting the feeling that Fox wanted to do a show about a battle between Good and Evil but was uncomfortable with the anti-establishment trickster aspects that make Constantine interesting and left those on the cutting-room floor.
3. The Boobs of the Week. All the main characters, the ones who know what's going on, are grown-up men. Into this sausage party, we throw one female a week who is pretty, very young, and a complete noob. Her job is to be impressed with Constantine so he looks cooler, and then get disposed of before she can level up. I seriously doubt we are going to see anyone like Zatanna--a confident magician with her own way of doing things--although we might get Gemma, Constantine's niece and protege, as long as she's old enough to be "blessed in the chest."
October 29, 2014
Thoughts on GamerGate
I wrote about GamerGate for JWA, just some thoughts about why the backlash against women has been so intense. But I also felt it was important to offer some constructive suggestions for how both games and gamers might be more inclusive without losing autonomy or self-regulation.
The Gaming Community:
I think Extra Credits had the right idea--if players are regularly muted or red-flagged by other players for outbursts, threats, or other inappropriate behavior, they could be set on mute as a default, or flagged as problematic (and players could unmute them or play with them at their own risk). Or they could be suspended for some period of time. As long as there is some consequence for behavior, players will regulate themselves as they would in real world situations.
The Games Themselves:
I want to see more female PCs. I want those PCs to have level caps equivalent to male PCs--you shouldn't be denied the ability to equip certain armor or weapons because the female characters aren't strong enough. It would be nice if there's parity: if you have multiple character options, there should be more than one female character. For equipped armor and default clothes, there should be at least some clothes and armor that actually cover you. You can even have equal opportunity clothing: some options that cover you and make you look tough, regardless of gender, and some that are essentially bikinis or codpieces with shoulder pads that either a guy or girl can wear. (Hey, some guys may WANT to show off their characters' pecs and abs!) And it would be nice if not every seedy joint in a game is a brothel or strip bar. I'm also hugely appreciative of games where the NPCs don't always default to assuming the PC is a straight man, with the women flirting and the men treating you as a friend or a threat; it's great when there's a possibility of male NPCs flirting and female NPCs just treating you as a person.
The Gaming Community:
I think Extra Credits had the right idea--if players are regularly muted or red-flagged by other players for outbursts, threats, or other inappropriate behavior, they could be set on mute as a default, or flagged as problematic (and players could unmute them or play with them at their own risk). Or they could be suspended for some period of time. As long as there is some consequence for behavior, players will regulate themselves as they would in real world situations.
The Games Themselves:
I want to see more female PCs. I want those PCs to have level caps equivalent to male PCs--you shouldn't be denied the ability to equip certain armor or weapons because the female characters aren't strong enough. It would be nice if there's parity: if you have multiple character options, there should be more than one female character. For equipped armor and default clothes, there should be at least some clothes and armor that actually cover you. You can even have equal opportunity clothing: some options that cover you and make you look tough, regardless of gender, and some that are essentially bikinis or codpieces with shoulder pads that either a guy or girl can wear. (Hey, some guys may WANT to show off their characters' pecs and abs!) And it would be nice if not every seedy joint in a game is a brothel or strip bar. I'm also hugely appreciative of games where the NPCs don't always default to assuming the PC is a straight man, with the women flirting and the men treating you as a friend or a threat; it's great when there's a possibility of male NPCs flirting and female NPCs just treating you as a person.
October 7, 2014
On the Road
My dad and I have been reading Huck Finn together, and that got us talking about road trip narratives. He argued that the Odyssey is the original road trip story, and that got me thinking about what else would count: Three Men in a Boat? Definitely. Travels with Charley? No question. Canterbury Tales? Yeah, I could see that. Elizabeth Gilbert's Committed? No, that doesn't feel right. Neither does Lord of the Rings. So why not? What distinguishes a road trip from a story that happens on the road?
I'd argue that there are three elements that make up a good road trip narrative. First, and most critical, it really is about the journey, not the destination. There may or may not be a goal to the journey, and it's unimportant whether the hero accomplishes that goal--in several of the stories I mentioned, the heroes never get where they're going, but that doesn't make the stories any less satisfying. Committed and LOTR don't count because there's a critical story question that has to be answered: It's all about stopping Sauron, or deciding whether or not to get remarried, and every event in both books either furthers or hinders those goals. None of the stopovers in the Odyssey give Odysseus a single tool he needs to reclaim his wife and home.
Second, the people and the land are one: we learn about the place through the people we meet, rather than through the natural beauty of the scenery. And in most cases, we meet people from all walks of life to get a fuller picture of the world.
And third, the hero has companions, either human or animal. If the hero were alone, the story might become man vs. nature, like a Jack London tale, man vs. himself, because it's really about his inner journey, or man vs. society because wherever he goes, he's an outsider. But by bringing company along, the journey becomes a shared experience--the hero may go through important internal changes, but what's happening externally is just as important, and the reader is invited to be a part of it.
If anyone wants to argue that I got something totally wrong, or that I missed something crucial, I'd love to hear! Also, bookmarking this article on our need for more road trip narratives about women, because I think it's hugely important.
I'd argue that there are three elements that make up a good road trip narrative. First, and most critical, it really is about the journey, not the destination. There may or may not be a goal to the journey, and it's unimportant whether the hero accomplishes that goal--in several of the stories I mentioned, the heroes never get where they're going, but that doesn't make the stories any less satisfying. Committed and LOTR don't count because there's a critical story question that has to be answered: It's all about stopping Sauron, or deciding whether or not to get remarried, and every event in both books either furthers or hinders those goals. None of the stopovers in the Odyssey give Odysseus a single tool he needs to reclaim his wife and home.
Second, the people and the land are one: we learn about the place through the people we meet, rather than through the natural beauty of the scenery. And in most cases, we meet people from all walks of life to get a fuller picture of the world.
And third, the hero has companions, either human or animal. If the hero were alone, the story might become man vs. nature, like a Jack London tale, man vs. himself, because it's really about his inner journey, or man vs. society because wherever he goes, he's an outsider. But by bringing company along, the journey becomes a shared experience--the hero may go through important internal changes, but what's happening externally is just as important, and the reader is invited to be a part of it.
If anyone wants to argue that I got something totally wrong, or that I missed something crucial, I'd love to hear! Also, bookmarking this article on our need for more road trip narratives about women, because I think it's hugely important.
August 1, 2014
On medieval romance
A thought occurred to me, sparked by reading a biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Chalion at the same time. It seems to me that in some ways, arranged marriages for medieval aristocrats may have been a lot like modern jobs are for us: You're going for financial security and decent perks, within the limits of what you can bring to the table in return. And while you really want happiness/deeper meaning to be part of that bargain, you didn't get to opt out of marriage then any more than you could opt out of taking care of yourself financially today. (Technically, you could join the church instead, but since both men and women were making a lifelong bargain and bringing cash or property to the table in return for their position in the church, it feels close enough to marriage).
Putting it in those terms makes it feel less like children being sold into slavery by their parents and more like the kinds of practical choices everyone makes in life. It may change the way I write period pieces.
Thoughts?
Putting it in those terms makes it feel less like children being sold into slavery by their parents and more like the kinds of practical choices everyone makes in life. It may change the way I write period pieces.
Thoughts?
May 28, 2014
Catching lightning in a jar...repeatedly
I just read Jim Butcher's latest Dresden Files novel, Skin Game, and while I did have some minor quibbles with the book, what amazed me was how good it was, how well written, with banter that made me grin and characters I still have a stake in pulling at my heartstrings. I much prefer reading series to reading stand-alone books--I love to commit to a character and watch them grow over time--but I don't know a single other author that has kept a series going for fifteen books (and counting) without either burning out or jumping the shark. Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander, Laurie R. King's Holmes/Russell, Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan, Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake, CJ Cherryh's Foreigner, Patricia Briggs's Mercy Thompson, and countless others I've read have mostly lost something essential around book nine or ten, if not earlier. I get to the point where I read the new installments in the bookstore to see if the author has gotten over their slump, but I stop needing to own the new books either to reread them or just to support the author, and finally I stop reading the new books at all, even for free.
So as a writer who is still learning my craft, I'm trying to figure out what Butcher's doing differently than the other people I listed, in hopes of emulating it. This is what I've come up with:
1. Harry Dresden keeps growing and changing, and the threats he faces stay proportionally challenging. In the third book, Harry tries to avoid even opening a way to Faerie because he's terrified of dealing with his godmother. That avoidance is part of why the proportional threats are plausible: Harry often bites off a little more than he can chew, but he's not suicidally stupid, so he avoids things that are massively out of his weight class until he levels up enough to think he has a chance of doing something about the problems they pose.
2. Harry always both wins and loses, and the stakes keep changing. Sometimes he saves the day but loses Murphy's or Michael's trust and friendship. Sometimes he saves a friend at the cost of allowing himself to be suborned or corrupted. Sometimes a friend pays the price in his place. But no matter what, Harry never completely wins or completely loses, so as a reader, I don't get into a rut where either I know it's going to turn out fine, so there's no point in worrying, or I know everything's going to turn to shit, so there's no point in hoping. It makes each book satisfying because the tension is real.
3. Jim Butcher introduces supporting characters when needed, but keeps them interesting and uses them judiciously. In any big universe, you're going to have a few dozen supporting characters, but it can be hard to keep track of everyone, care about them, and keep the side characters from taking over the show. Butcher manages this in a few clever ways. He has a handful of characters who are core to every book (Murphy, Bob, Molly, and Thomas) and a few who are recurring guest stars (Michael, Billy, Georgia, Butters, Marcone), and then a bunch of characters who show up less frequently (Morgan, Ebenezer, Mab, Nicodemus, Ivy, etc.). Each of them is characterized in clear and unique ways, and they're each tied to specific places/problems: we know a story where Harry argues with the White Council is going to include the Merlin and Morgan and Joe Listens-to-Wind and various other Council personalities, but we don't have to juggle the other hundred-odd side characters who aren't relevant to that story. And Butcher cycles through his various problem sets and mixes and matches them, so you'll always have roughly fifteen people in any given book, all of whom are well characterized and have specific jobs to do, and the others go back in the box for two or three books until they're needed. The world ends up being rich and textured without ever feeling overcrowded. And while there are side stories from other POVs, Butcher keeps an implicit promise to the reader by always having the novels be from Harry's perspective.
4. Butcher avoids making Harry a Mary Sue. He does this in two important ways: Harry starts off with a certain amount of raw power, but levels up through learning to use it more wisely, rather than discovering he has some inborn magical destiny or is Merlin's secret lovechild or anything like that. And second, Harry's friends and enemies have lives that don't revolve around him. Marcone has other threats he deals with. Murphy dates Kincaid. Billy runs the Alphas, graduates college, and gets married. Even Father Forthill teases Harry that he doesn't just sit around waiting to help Harry and Michael. It's not all about Harry and his problems, which helps keep Harry from feeling narcissistic. And when those other characters get involved in Harry's problems, they're saying those problems are important enough to disrupt their lives, and it raises the stakes because they have something real to lose by getting involved.
So as a writer who is still learning my craft, I'm trying to figure out what Butcher's doing differently than the other people I listed, in hopes of emulating it. This is what I've come up with:
1. Harry Dresden keeps growing and changing, and the threats he faces stay proportionally challenging. In the third book, Harry tries to avoid even opening a way to Faerie because he's terrified of dealing with his godmother. That avoidance is part of why the proportional threats are plausible: Harry often bites off a little more than he can chew, but he's not suicidally stupid, so he avoids things that are massively out of his weight class until he levels up enough to think he has a chance of doing something about the problems they pose.
2. Harry always both wins and loses, and the stakes keep changing. Sometimes he saves the day but loses Murphy's or Michael's trust and friendship. Sometimes he saves a friend at the cost of allowing himself to be suborned or corrupted. Sometimes a friend pays the price in his place. But no matter what, Harry never completely wins or completely loses, so as a reader, I don't get into a rut where either I know it's going to turn out fine, so there's no point in worrying, or I know everything's going to turn to shit, so there's no point in hoping. It makes each book satisfying because the tension is real.
3. Jim Butcher introduces supporting characters when needed, but keeps them interesting and uses them judiciously. In any big universe, you're going to have a few dozen supporting characters, but it can be hard to keep track of everyone, care about them, and keep the side characters from taking over the show. Butcher manages this in a few clever ways. He has a handful of characters who are core to every book (Murphy, Bob, Molly, and Thomas) and a few who are recurring guest stars (Michael, Billy, Georgia, Butters, Marcone), and then a bunch of characters who show up less frequently (Morgan, Ebenezer, Mab, Nicodemus, Ivy, etc.). Each of them is characterized in clear and unique ways, and they're each tied to specific places/problems: we know a story where Harry argues with the White Council is going to include the Merlin and Morgan and Joe Listens-to-Wind and various other Council personalities, but we don't have to juggle the other hundred-odd side characters who aren't relevant to that story. And Butcher cycles through his various problem sets and mixes and matches them, so you'll always have roughly fifteen people in any given book, all of whom are well characterized and have specific jobs to do, and the others go back in the box for two or three books until they're needed. The world ends up being rich and textured without ever feeling overcrowded. And while there are side stories from other POVs, Butcher keeps an implicit promise to the reader by always having the novels be from Harry's perspective.
4. Butcher avoids making Harry a Mary Sue. He does this in two important ways: Harry starts off with a certain amount of raw power, but levels up through learning to use it more wisely, rather than discovering he has some inborn magical destiny or is Merlin's secret lovechild or anything like that. And second, Harry's friends and enemies have lives that don't revolve around him. Marcone has other threats he deals with. Murphy dates Kincaid. Billy runs the Alphas, graduates college, and gets married. Even Father Forthill teases Harry that he doesn't just sit around waiting to help Harry and Michael. It's not all about Harry and his problems, which helps keep Harry from feeling narcissistic. And when those other characters get involved in Harry's problems, they're saying those problems are important enough to disrupt their lives, and it raises the stakes because they have something real to lose by getting involved.
