Everything Old Is New Again: Evolution of a Genre

A couple entries ago I spoke of how Hunger Games was, in fact, a bit derivative. But, as I stated then, that's a good thing. Holding onto conventions and rooting your works in the timeless aspects of the human experience is not only a benefit to your works but a necessity. And, because of this continual line that you can trace through works throughout time, you can follow this and see that old genres never really go away but rather evolve into something new. And evolution, regardless of context, can often be a strange force that can be hard for people to understand.

Proof of Karma?

This evolution is usually a result of adapting to the minute changes in society over time. For instance, if you were to look at early science fiction, when the scientific method had settled into a specific form and started to reject the spiritual aspects in precursors such as alchemy, you'd find those stories were really just contemporary takes on old fantasy stories long ago. Frankenstein is a beautiful example of a story that has been told or retold since the dawn of time - people using powerful forces to raise the dead.

In fact, Frankenstein is one of the best examples of the old cliche of "playing god" since, if you pay attention, all of the things that happened there in were touched on at least once in the bible. The key difference was that, for the first time, the powerful force in question was not a deity or magic but rather a natural force of nature. Science and magic were interchangeable for that story and the same can be said for many of the stories to follow. As the old saying goes: any suitably advanced technology will appear no different from magic.

Guys, it's just an iPad

But sometimes people don't recognize this evolution and instead consider their genre an isolated, closed system with no external forces applicable to it. During times of crisis they'll react by trying to put constraints on the genre so they can "play it safe". I think I've made it pretty clear in the past what I think of that concept, but I can understand why people may not see the evolution and how the additive changes wont destroy their genre, only alter it. One of the best (and easiest) examples of this is the comic book industry.

While the book industry is in some notable troubles and are struggling to find their footing in the digital age - the comic book industry is in something that people on the inside consider to be a death spiral. It's been on their lips for some time and spoken of in conventions as recently as this month when a panel declared they believed the superhero genre was dying.

Though it'll probably resurrect in time to promote the movie

Now, I could go on for some length about how the problems apparent in the industry have nothing to do with their genre, but that's another post all together. For now, let's focus on what's applicable here: genres don't die - they evolve. Right now sales are bad, but it's not because of the genre, it's for a lot of other reasons and, to make it clear how much it's not about genre: Superheroes were never a "genre" in the first place, they're a (for a lack of a better word, no pun intended) super-genre.

Disagree? Consider their origins.

In the 1930s there was a thriving comic book and comic strip industry with a variety of stories being published covering just about every genre you could imagine. During this time, a comic came out featuring the adventures of a man raised in the jungle using his wits, cunning and connection with the jungle to fight the forces of evil such as black magic, pirates and wild beasts. With the help of his animal friends and friendly natives he acts as the protector of the jungle. Was it Tarzan? No, it was The Phantom.

The Phantom was inspired by a combination of myths, legends and characters the likes of Tarzan and Zorro. Had he not been wearing purple long johns he probably would have just been regarded as a knockoff, really. But with the help of the costume he broke out as his own character and became something more than the sum of his parts. And this wouldn't be the last time Edgar Rice Burroughs left a mark on the fledgeling industry, John Carter of Mars left a giant footprint on it that still hasn't gone away.

The Barsoom series followed John Carter, a man transported to a world distant from his birthplace and living among people who appear similar to him but live in a drastically different environment. Thanks to being on an alien world drastically different to his birthplace, John Carter is given superhuman powers such as immense strength and agility. Using these powers, he defends the natives of this new world from hostile forces. Sound familiar? It should.

A lot of what's considered "Superhero" comics just originated from other genres and started to slowly fall into the giant blender until you couldn't tell the difference between them anymore. Hell, there's a reason why Batman is called the world's greatest detective.

So which of these "genres" is on the way out? It is true that a specific formula for these stories is probably in need of revamping and movement. The stories need to expand, they need to find new avenues and they need to move into plots that haven't been touched on before. The genre needs to move beyond simply violence for the sake of violence and tell stories once again. Recently, the writer of Static Shock for a period of time said that, during his time on the title, his writing duties were mostly taken from him by the editor and the artist who agreed that there needed to be "action on every page". That title has now been cancelled and has become another statistic to be added to the pile of failed projects in that industry.

The market has a tendency for natural selection, if you adapt to your environment you thrive, if you don't, you die. For instance, women have been a driving factor in a lot of the major successes of the book industry in the past decade and are a growing demographic in the comic book and graphic novel market. Knowing this, look at the picture below and see if you can understand what might be wrong with the "genre" at the moment.

And how is this related to writing in general? If something like superheroes can have its origins in sci-fi and fantasy works of the early 20th century, slowly altered over 80 years, and become something that is different enough that the people who work on it consider it a genre of its own, picture the evolution that happens when you make small changes over time to the genre you're working on. Picture the growth that can be accomplished by taking new risks with old genres and ideas. It could be as easy as changing one or two details, like putting Tarzan in a purple Speedo. Hell, even Frankenstein benefited from some additions.


Well, at first.

And what have I contributed to the evolution of the art form? My book! Buy please :)

Dangers of the Digital Age

As anyone reading this blog more than once could probably figure out, I'm a big supporter of digital formats being a way to bring the written word to the world quickly, cheaply and efficiently. There's a lot of strengths to the format and I've talked about them frequently. But, while every format has its strengths, it also has its weaknesses. One of the weaknesses, I'm afraid, is that there's no physical copy... who knew?

Now, of course, I knew this from the beginning and there's a lot of people who trumpet that in the first place as a reason why eBooks are bad. Though, I have to say, while it may be a weakness in some regards, it is a strength in others. For instance, you cannot burn an eBook, or the library they're in. Though, I have seen someone burn digital books as a form of protest once, so maybe that's incorrect. And sometimes, the "libraries" can actually burn themselves down.

But this isn't about reading eBooks so much as writing them. You see, you cannot produce an eBook manuscript on a typewriter. And, that whole fire image and the computer burning itself down? That kind of happened to me this past weekend. Not to say that it actually set itself on fire, but suddenly a portion of it decided it would actually, literally, burn out. At around 1 am last Thursday, or the crack of "second wind" as I like to call it, my power supply decided that it just did not want to function anymore and died.

Now, like anyone that's ever worked with a computer instead of a typewriter, I save religiously. But I never actually imagined my computer would decide to teach me the smell of burnt capacitor. Though I will now always know that smell - it wasn't exactly the lesson I took away from the situation. And what lesson did I take away from it? Always have backups!

Not just backups of the files but backups for the hardware too. If you're a writer and you've got a large project you're working on, make sure that, in the case your computer decides to show you it's paperweight impression, you have another computer of some sort to go to. A week without your word processor is that sad little week where you get to sit around and realize that you're trying to make a living off of writing elaborate bullshit for other people that effectively ceases to exist the minute the copies disappear.


Now imagine they downloaded your book a thousand times on iBooks before doing this. Enjoy the drinking problem!

Help me avoid my drinking problem and show your support by helping me pay for the power supply I had to install to replace Nibbles up there, Buy my book!

Everything Old is New Again: The Generation Gap

Last week, I went over some things I've seen or heard from writers, critics and even the audience about the relationship between the creators and their audience. The contract, the acceptance of new words and even the idea that there were no new ideas. But, when addressing "no new ideas" I came to think about it and realize that there was still something to be said about that. I've already expressed my opinion on the concept that there were "no new ideas", but there are facets that I didn't think to talk about at the time.

Namely: Why is it that an idea that clearly has roots in conventions has managed to surpass others of its kind?

One of the things I often hear about Hunger Games is how relevant to the times it is and how it reaches to the current generation and the culture they live in. The people who bring this up often talk about how Hunger Games easily mirrors our culture and our obsession with reality TV shows and how this would not have been relevant at any other time. Except, you know, when the Running Man did a similar concept to take a shot at game shows.

Arnold is unsure how he became a prize in the showcase, the 80s were hazy for him

But a dystopian future where society is controlled by a select few people that happen to be lucky enough to live in the upper class is something that touches on the fears of the modern day. Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party and all of the little movements in between are a driving factor in our society today which the audience can relate to. Sure, similar concepts of an oligarchy controlling the lives of the masses were featured in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four but that was written in 1949 and directed at a completely different culture.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in a starkly different environment. They had just come out of a long, harsh war that the US was dragged into by an...attack on US soil... carried out by... suicidal pilots. But there were also worries of foreign countries plotting against American interests while studying dangerous sciences that could result in... nuclear proliferation. But, wait a moment, most importantly there was a driving fear among the people about the battle of ideologies between capitalism and...communism.

Okay, fine, so the concept isn't uniquely targeted towards the generation of today and these ideas have all shown up before back when there was something remotely similar. Hell, the author even admits that the concept was rooted in things that had happened during the Roman Empire ages ago. So if that's not the thing that is driving it then it has to be the teenage romance taking part in it. After all, the teenage romance has worked wonders for the trendy things in the last couple of years. Except... Hunger Games is actually doing better in the box office than Twilight right now too...

Well shit, what is the unique element that makes this thing successful right now? Why is it doing better than other things that have used similar concepts in the past? What is it that makes it unique enough to have this much power behind it?

Timing.

A lot of times people forget that, despite the fact they may have seen the idea before, not everyone has. The Running Man was made before most of the audience of the Hunger Games had even been born, some of them having been born and too young to remember anything about it. Nineteen Eighty-Four was created before some of their grandparents had even been born. Hell, it was created before our President was born. And in the end, it doesn't have to be uniquely relevant, it just has to be relevant at all. People and ideas can be worthwhile for the same reasons in two different eras.

Though sometimes the classics are still better

And if you were to present some of these older works to them, they would likely notice that there was a relevancy to aspects of their life too, likely colored a bit by the eras they were created in, but having a timeless nature of echoing their fears and their life experience. As I pointed out last time, the one constant in fiction that works is human nature, an element which has not changed since the dawn of civilization.

Oh, sure, the labels change, the images change, but the basic concepts of what drives us never do. Centuries ago they may not have had communism to worry themselves over, but they did have monarchies which had a pretty similar effect of "the ruling class has absolute control". They didn't always have a fear of an apocalyptic war, but they did have war in general. And sure, they didn't have nuclear weapons, but they had Vikings...which you have to admit would have made people shit themselves in the same fashion.

A picture says a thousand words and still doesn't cover this story

Often I've heard of middle aged editors rejecting a concept presented to them because it's like something that they had read in the past. My first ever submission to a magazine was rejected based on the concept that they had seen similar stories to it in the past. Now my concept is still around and magazines are not, so which of them is more timeless? Oh, and for those of you who are unsure what a magazine is, here's a picture.

I'm not saying don't strive for originality or new ideas, but keep this in mind, no matter what you do, always try to keep things relevant to the modern conversation and you'll have a chance of catching their attention. Thankfully, this should be easy since you live in this world and can take note of the things that keep you awake at night.


I just hope Iran never gets them.

As for me, I think my book touches on quite a few social issues. But you'd have to buy it to know for sure. (I just touched on greed ^_^)