Complete Clanarchy! Meet Our Heroes.

I don't want the Arbiter universe to revolve around a single protagonist. Still, there's something to be said for simplicity, and no matter how complex or convoluted the plot may become, it helps if the reader knows who to root for.

Enter the clan: if they're members, they're probably on the right team.

So who are they? Well, we're diving right into the deep end. I guess the simplest way is with a small geography lesson. In the Arbiter world, there is a kingdom whose eastern border is shared with a world-famous forest: the Dawnless Woods. As the name suggests, these woodlands never see sunlight. Incidentally, it's also a profoundly dangerous place. Why? We'll get to that later.

What you need to know is that "the clan" (working title, but it may stick)  is a nomadic tribe of refugees that migrate along the western edge of the Dawnless Woods (the eastern border of the kingdom). The clan are not official subjects of the kingdom, but the kindly monarch has left them to their peaceful ways ever since the first of them began to patrol the forest's edge.

The clan is made up of people from a wide variety of cultures. If someone were to accuse me of promoting the superiority of multicultural coexistence, I'd plead guilty. I think culture's like human reproduction: inbreeding's bad, mmmkay?

The impromptu founders fled a variety of circumstances and, having no safe place to go, decided to band together and create one. Since the clan is in such a remote area and since they are constantly on the move, it's profoundly difficult for any would-be pursuers to hunt them down. Even if they did, clan members can count on the protection of their fellow nomads.

I haven't fleshed out everything, obviously. I only have ideas for a few roles/members of the clan. I know they'll have no formal government (be still, thy anarchist loins), because that can work until the group grows too big. Though it won't be law, they'll have a tradition of every man and woman being a father and mother to every child; this is because they don't want any orphans to feel left out because they weren't born into the clan.

I've planned a character named Jedrek with some odd (to us) characteristics that are actually common within the clan: he doesn't know who gave birth to him, nor does he know exactly how old he is. In our society, we'd assume the kid has been bullied and/or has some emotional baggage, but since he's a member of this clan, nobody thinks twice about it. He's the norm.

There's a number of reasons this clan idea has me excited. First, it opens the door to having a ton of protagonists, thereby allowing the audience to pick their favorites and allow each favorite to have their shining moments. I hate when the moral of Harry Potter (okay, he's actually a terrible example for this) can be interpreted as 'boy, aren't we lucky that this guy was born so special.' I prefer the times when a group of individuals with conflicting personalities can get past their disdain for one another to achieve a common goal. Better yet if those characters possess traits that naturally predispose them to be enemies or would otherwise prevent them from contributing to a mutual goal. It allows for more tension, presents a satisfying obstacle to overcome and thereby makes victory that much more satisfying, and is rife with opportunities for comedic relief.

The clan also allows me to play with some cultural norms that don't work in our society. We covered some of that above, but the 'takes a village to raise a child' dynamic is only one among many. We touched on the 'monogamy is not enforced' idea in the last post. I'm intrigued to see what the issue may have looked like before we established the monogamy norm, and this feels like an opportunity to do that. I'm sure we've all been told something is really, really bad and reacted by thinking "I wasn't planning on doing that, but now I wonder what's so wrong about it." Y'know, things like "don't eat non-kosher food, don't date your cousin, don't swear, don't treat your child's terminal condition because Jesus will get angry and refuse to heal them if you do."

Every taboo has a reason, surely. Some (no cousin dating) make sense, others (Jesus hates medicine) aren't good reasons, but they're reasons all the same. With the clan, I feel like we can make some parables to explore some of these things.

Finally, as weird as this is gonna sound, I think there's some opportunity for some The Walking Dead-flavored survivalism here. I think we're drawn to the whole zombie genre because survival in a world without establishment is scary and intriguing and each day that survival is achieved feels like a victory. With the beasties lurking in the Dawnless Woods and the mechanics of magic, I think we can have a lot of fun by taking some cues from the post-apocalyptic genre and applying them to fantasy. The loose-knit interactions of the clan should fit the lawless + monsters vibe of the survival horror genre well - though I think we'll avoid going as gruesome as those stories tend to.

So what are we thinking? Did this rough outline of this nomadic people spark your imagination in any way? Were there any vague 'oh, I like this idea, because you could try THIS idea with it!' moments? Are there any social/religious taboos you'd like to see explored? And are there any story tropes or nomadic stereotypes you think I'm in danger of committing? Throw me some of them bones, friends!

Romancing the Stones? No, that Plural Causes Problems...

Why do people feel the urge to bring elephants indoors? Once you bring an elephant into a room, you either can't shut anyone up about the damn thing, or everyone refuses to acknowledge it's even there.

Irrelephant. Yes, I've had my fun now...

It's hard to find fiction without some level of romance in it. Particularly in the west! We've got some cultural aversion to talkin' about bonin', and that seems to translate into a need for outlets like Harlequin and damsel-in-distress action movies and Sarah Jessica Parker. It's probably indicative of some serious problems. True to form, I'm gonna refuse to address those problems!

Not only am I thinking there will be a romantic element to Arbiter, I'm thinking of making a pretty grand experiment out of it. I plan to populate the world with a ton of characters and cultures, so it's only natural they'd want to hook up with one another. It's also only natural that this wouldn't always follow the Disney formula - same-sex couples, polygamy/polyandry, involuntary bethrothals/political marriages, and most prominently, the clan's marriage-less (inspired by the Mosuo, but not a mirror of their) culture.

"What clan?" you ask? That's right, we haven't talked about them yet, have we! Well, I know what's on the agenda next week.

Contrary to what strangers would probably accuse me of, this won't be an attempt to promote a non-monogamous agenda in the real world. Like the concept of magic, it's just a theme to explore what a society might look like if this thing was done this certain way.

Plus, think of how this could give birth to a good arc - things might get messy if a couple who aren't supposed to love each other are exposed to the public. Plus, jealousy is always a plausible motive for chaos and bad deeds.

And if a certain culture's approach to love starts to seem appealing, and thereby people wanna accuse me of trying to promote it in the real world, all the better: controversy is a great way to promote a story!

Awh, that's cute; li'l Gordo wants to pretend he has any idea how to sell a book!

Whatcha think? Ever wonder why, as a society, we're so obsessed with one-on-one love? Is there another way to do it that intrigues you more than any other? And can you think of any other franchises that have experimented with this sort of thing? Do share!

Pretense on the Premises! Requesting Backup, Over.

When pitching one's story to the powers that be, the ability to communicate its premise (quickly!) is essential. Agents and editors are inundated with would-be bestsellers, so when auditioning to these jaded scouts, you don't have a lot of time. You need to highlight the ways your book is unique, but at the same time, you need to convince them it will appeal to an existing market. It's exactly as schizophrenic as it sounds.

Aspiring to be an author is a terrible idea! Too late, better judgment overridden.

My natural mode of operation was to daydream until seemingly-random 'wouldn't that be cool?!' action sequences married themselves to some ideal or moral - one which I think the world would be better for, if more people embraced it - and then start crafting that mixture into a story.

Thus, The Agnostic Crusade was born. That was fun, but the only hope it has left is to be reincarnated as a superior species. Its career is dead! Learn and move on.

Winkle² has some good ideas, knows what it's supposed to be, and has received a whole lot of honing. So much so that we're exhausted with it. We have a better idea of the finish line, but we've come so far and it still feels so far away! Best we take a breather.

Arbiter isn't so far into the process yet. I know enough to say it's a fantasy project in which magic is approached scientifically. But that's not all I want to be different about it; even if it was, I'd sure as hell need a better way of saying it. Let me give you an example.

Death Note is a famous manga/anime (yep. Japan!). It's a thriller about a killer who possesses the ultimate weapon: a notebook that kills any person whose name is written in it. Much more specific, yeah? I personally (and mistakenly) hated it when I first heard the premise, but there's no denying: you understand why it would make a compelling story. I personally thought there was no way any killer with a brain could lose with such a weapon. Turns out, I was naive. The entire series is on the razor's edge!

I'm still working on what makes Arbiter unique - both in terms of coming up with something unique and expressing what's already unique in words. In the meantime, you can help! What stories 'had you at x' (where x is the summary, the description on the back of the book, or the 'hook')? And while I know we've only discussed magic, beasties, and fancy death animations so far, but is there anything about it you can say sets it apart from other fantasy?

Probably not yet, but we'll get there! I guess this is a challenge to myself: work towards a coherent premise!

Git yer Stakes outta mah Steak! Hyperbolic Collateral

I know, the title isn't too clear. This one's about what the heroes have to lose if they fail. Obviously, this is usually the world/the galaxy/the universe/existence itself, and that's the issue I want to avoid.

I understand why it's done. The most recent experience I've had with it was Guardians of the Galaxy (the stakes are right there in the name!). All things considered, I don't have much to complain about. If I were to grade it, it would be a B+ or A-, and I don't think I'm a lenient critic. The things I'd change would probably have prevented the movie from being made, if you think about it. All the same...

The premise is: our hero stumbles across a weapon with the potential to eliminate all life, and after a series of unlikely coincidences, he and an unlikely band of anti-heroes must prevent the antagonist from committing genocide with it.

It's a Marvel movie. Disney owns the rights to this one. These empires have experienced some 'growing up' over the years; they've made some things that aren't for kids. Still, they're not stupid by any stretch, and they know what kind of story appeals to the broadest possible audience. This movie has lots of things it takes a grown-up to understand, but because it's always clear that somebody's trying to 'destroy the galaxy,' kids are going to be able to understand that the good guy's doing a good thing because nobody who's even kind of good is going to destroy the galaxy. To put it simply, having huge stakes is a surefire way to make sure your audience is never lost, because they never have to question why the hero is trying so hard.

There are no problems until you start over-thinking the plot, which is the razor's edge the screenwriter has to walk. If you make it too complex, the kids get bored; if it's not complex enough, the adults lose their ability to suspend their disbelief. In Guardian's case (not pickin' on em, they're just recent!), it's hard to believe that the only two parties who know the location of the all-destructive infinity stone are a terrorist paramilitary faction and a small-time outlaw. It's a total buzzkill of an observation, but that's the problem: the bigger the stakes, the more of these plot holes you'll find.

Alright, elephant in the room. Yes, this was a movie about a universe that's always on the verge of collapsing.  It's hard to say it represents the majority of fiction. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from it! Because while Marvel movies might not make the best comparison for a fantasy project, but they are perhaps THE most apt example of the main reason you want to evaluate your stakes:

Longevity. Any time you have a series, you've got the long-term to consider. Every time your hero wins a battle, you're going to have to prove that the next trial will be harder, because it's not interesting if it's easy. If you start with somebody capable of destroying everything, it's not easy for the audience to comprehend how the next guy can also destroy everything only it would be MORE DESTROYED this time!

If the hero starts with something smaller, like 'saving their best friend,' the audience can understand why they'd want to risk themselves for their friend. They'll also understand the next threat is worse because it threatens the hero's family. Then their neighbor's family, then their bridge club, on and on. It's important to consider your stakes, because if you think about what we love about stories, one of the big answers is 'growth.' We like to grow with the hero, or if we're older than them, we like to watch them grow up, and either satisfy the nurturer in us or reminisce about when we went through something similar. So when we're considering what the hero's risking, we need to remember that they need room to grow!

To be fair, this guy never needs to graduate from 'elephant protection.' Some things just don't need justifying.

So have I wasted your time on a pet peeve, or do you agree? Do you think too much fiction starts at 'of course we're going to save the world!' Do you prefer being able to identify the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' right away, or do you like things ambiguous? Because if the stakes are smaller, we might have to ask whether the heroes are really doing the right thing; am I alone in liking that kind of conflict? Finally, give me some examples of your favorite reasons for fighting; what stories do you think gave a particularly compelling or different reason for the protagonists to face the odds?