McGeesJabberwock
12-23-2006, 06:22 AM
Well, well, well, how time flies. Monday will be Christmas 2006, the one-year annversary of me owning a copy of The Looking Glass Wars. For this special occaison, I am going to give this book a little 'pressie' of my own; a character analysis! Sure
Beddor's got a big complicated world to work with, his plot, while a bit too Lion King-y, has potential, although his writing style is a little wooden but does he gave good characters?
To start off with, here are two extracts, from two conflicting LGW reviews.
'It's far more than a meagre attempt at reworking Alice, the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter to fit into a modern-day distortion of the tale; rather, Beddor has created his own version of the story, one where the characters have small hints of their counterparts, but are much more defined and complex individuals, with feelings and clear identities.'
~The Independant
'"Alyss" is aloof, emotionless, and nonbelievable as a main character. Empathizing with her horrible plight is impossible. "Redd", the villain, the usurper Queen of Hearts, is the worst of the bunch, being such an awfully predictable villain at times I just had to laugh. The imitigably stupid anti-hero, Dodge, isn't fleshed out enough to even be worth mentioning. In perhaps the worst adaptation of original to Beddor's twisted work, the generals "Dopple" and "Ganger", shoddy imitations of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, bear absolutely no resemblance to their equivalents, and their characterization is very vague. Hatter Madigan, the character with by FAR the largest potential in this story, is continually stuck in Limbo as the "unspeaking, unfeeling bodyguard with a dark past and a singular purpose". '
~Spencer Wilkerson, Amazon.com
Both can't be right. Characterisation has nothing to do with opinion, it's either there or it isn't. However, quite a lot of this analysis will have opinion within. So which review is right? Let's find out...
Alyss: So, someone from another world has a name that's exactly like a name from our world, only with different spelling? That's a pretty big pill for me to swallow. Anyway, she starts out good. She's cute, loveable and reminds one of how they acted when they were seven (although her dancing with Dodge is a little creepy). She acts realistically when she suddenly finds herself away from her home in grimy old London, and the scene where she shuns Wonderland after Dodgson messes everything up is the book's most emotional moment. At Parts One and Two, the reader is given every reason to care for Alyss; her majestic powers have been stifled and she has to face life in a world she doesn't belong in and where no-one understands her.
Then she goes back to Wonderland, gets her powers back (and better than ever[!]) and everyone loves her except the baddies.
Darn it.
OK, so I'm thinking, SHOULD she have returned? I mean, the 'explanation' as to how she can live the rest of her life in Wonderland, and yet there's historical records of Alice Liddell existing on Earth past age twenty is silly and contrived. Well, if she HAD to return, couldn't a good story have been written if she DIDN'T have her powers? It would leave the reader with more doubt about whether she could succeed in her quest. There are quite a few ways the arc could have gone if she was powerless; Bibwit may have had to give her more intense training, political complications could have arose from a powerless queen, Dodge may have doubts about loving her, and, most importantly, Redd would have had the upper hand.
Another complaint I have about her is that she's too goody-goody and lacks a dark side. She says to Redd 'We're family' before entering battle and rubs Hatter and Dodge's shoulders whenever they angst.
Speaking of Dodge...
Dodge Anders: He has potential. He isn't really on the side of good or evil; he's fighting for himself and peace of mind. While the other goodies fight for others, he just wants to avenge his father and restore the kingdom so he can have the world of his childhood memories back. Unfortunately, he gets a bit too whiney at times, and he sprouts some of the book's most emotionally manipulative scenes. When he buries his father, the scene is milked like a goat. He cries 'silent tears', he can't bear to see his father under dirt, and he plants flowers that grow into his father's likeness. It's worth noting he and Alyss are the ONLY people in the book that cry over a loved one's death. We should see MILLIONS.
Hatter Madigan: Ah, the "unspeaking, unfeeling bodyguard with a dark past and a singular purpose". The most popular character. However, his character has been done before, and much better (see Batman and V). He does angst a lot, but most of it seems to be about how well he's doing his job (see http://www.toonzone.net/anbat/btas/iatn.html) rather then whether or not it's the right thing that he chose to do this. I would like to see him nursing a grudge against Alyss and Genevieve for putting him through all this strife, but I'm not sure this will happen. I also think his skills are too over-exaggerated; he never makes mistakes, he has no weaknesses and he rarely, if ever, loses any battles. You may point to the bloody coup in Chapter 10 and Hatter M #3, but keep in mind, there, he was TOLD to abandon the battle. Who's to say he wouldn't have finished off Redd's army if he stayed?
And how could he have inspired the Mad Hatter? Beddor notes 'The only visual connection to the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll’s work or the Disney film is the iconic Hat', thus the 'backstory' this provides for Alice in Wonderland is a bit unbelievable. Where did the tea party come from? Why the riddles and obsession with time? Did the Mad Hatter have any blades or knives? Why isn't there a March Hare in LGW Wonderland, yet pictures of him are in the 'Shatter the Myth' trailer? (When most people use existing material and take away everything that made that material what it is, they're usually criticised rather than praised.)
Redd: OH NO! SHE'S EVIL AND WANTS TO RULE WONDERLAND AND MAKE IT DYSTOPIAN!!! SHE HAS BLACK FANGS TOO! AIIIE!!
Ahem.
OK, Redd wants revenge as she was denied the throne for...doing drugs. However, she's a pretty cliche, cartoony villain. In fact, it's implied she even KNOWS she's evil. People who say they're evil either regret it or are trying to be funny. And 'Off with their stinking, boring heads' is up there with 'Yer nut sendin' me to deh coolah!' from Batman and Robin. When creating believable characters, one-liners are not your friend (rather ironic that a book with so many smirky one-liners is working off the third most quoted work of literature in the world.)
And does anyone else find it silly that she and her followers are described as 'trailing blood-red clouds and howling winds'? Maybe Redd would be less grumpy if she got some sun once in a while?
I am thankful that Beddor as said that we will know Redd on 'a more personal level' come book two, as if he listens to criticism. But in the same interview, he said she was 'more evil than Carroll could have ever imagined'. The sigh I emitted after reading that could rival Hurricane Katrina.
Bibwit Harte: OK, Bibwit's quite cool. He's like a cross between Dumbledore and Professor Wogglebug from the Wizard of Oz. There's more 'fun' in him than the other, more moody characters. However, for a tutor, we don't see him doing much tutoring.
The Cat: OK, positives first. He helps build Dodge's character. Um...except for that, he just seems to be there because Beddor thought it would be 'cool' and it would add more violence.
Jack of Diamonds: He's one of the more varied characters and definately has more personality than most of them, but the butt jokes surrounding him get tired quickly, and as villains go, he's as threatening and sinister as a Care Bears toy.
Lewis Carroll: I have nothing against satirising Lewis Carroll, and I would probably welcome this portrayal were the book humorous or a parody, but this is meant to be a more serious version of the story, and the (admittedly clever and subtle) jokes about Carroll clash with the dark tone the book is meant to have. It also feels like a none-too-subtle implication that Beddor believes himself a better writer than Carroll; I suspect he is quite egotistical, as he puts up every single positive review his book recieves on his website, even those that are badly-written or last less than a paragraph and boasts: 'The Looking Glass Wars unabashedly challenges our Wonderland assumptions of mad tea parties, sleepy dormice and a curious blonde girl to reveal an epic battle in the endless war for imagination.'
But I'm rambling.
General Doppelganger: He's just there. No personality, no characterisation, nothing to distinguish him from the other characters. Ditto for rook.
Hombourg Molly: I don't really think I should analyse her, as, so far, she's been quite minimal and will only become prominent in later books.
Queen Genenvieve: She's just basically Mufasa from the Lion King as a kindly old granny. 'Oh, my sweet king!', oh please.
Gwynooks, spirit danes, tuttle birds and gwormmies: Too Dr. Suess for such a dark story, and it feels Beddor is trying way too hard to be imaginative.
OK, I'm done.
Beddor's got a big complicated world to work with, his plot, while a bit too Lion King-y, has potential, although his writing style is a little wooden but does he gave good characters?
To start off with, here are two extracts, from two conflicting LGW reviews.
'It's far more than a meagre attempt at reworking Alice, the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter to fit into a modern-day distortion of the tale; rather, Beddor has created his own version of the story, one where the characters have small hints of their counterparts, but are much more defined and complex individuals, with feelings and clear identities.'
~The Independant
'"Alyss" is aloof, emotionless, and nonbelievable as a main character. Empathizing with her horrible plight is impossible. "Redd", the villain, the usurper Queen of Hearts, is the worst of the bunch, being such an awfully predictable villain at times I just had to laugh. The imitigably stupid anti-hero, Dodge, isn't fleshed out enough to even be worth mentioning. In perhaps the worst adaptation of original to Beddor's twisted work, the generals "Dopple" and "Ganger", shoddy imitations of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, bear absolutely no resemblance to their equivalents, and their characterization is very vague. Hatter Madigan, the character with by FAR the largest potential in this story, is continually stuck in Limbo as the "unspeaking, unfeeling bodyguard with a dark past and a singular purpose". '
~Spencer Wilkerson, Amazon.com
Both can't be right. Characterisation has nothing to do with opinion, it's either there or it isn't. However, quite a lot of this analysis will have opinion within. So which review is right? Let's find out...
Alyss: So, someone from another world has a name that's exactly like a name from our world, only with different spelling? That's a pretty big pill for me to swallow. Anyway, she starts out good. She's cute, loveable and reminds one of how they acted when they were seven (although her dancing with Dodge is a little creepy). She acts realistically when she suddenly finds herself away from her home in grimy old London, and the scene where she shuns Wonderland after Dodgson messes everything up is the book's most emotional moment. At Parts One and Two, the reader is given every reason to care for Alyss; her majestic powers have been stifled and she has to face life in a world she doesn't belong in and where no-one understands her.
Then she goes back to Wonderland, gets her powers back (and better than ever[!]) and everyone loves her except the baddies.
Darn it.
OK, so I'm thinking, SHOULD she have returned? I mean, the 'explanation' as to how she can live the rest of her life in Wonderland, and yet there's historical records of Alice Liddell existing on Earth past age twenty is silly and contrived. Well, if she HAD to return, couldn't a good story have been written if she DIDN'T have her powers? It would leave the reader with more doubt about whether she could succeed in her quest. There are quite a few ways the arc could have gone if she was powerless; Bibwit may have had to give her more intense training, political complications could have arose from a powerless queen, Dodge may have doubts about loving her, and, most importantly, Redd would have had the upper hand.
Another complaint I have about her is that she's too goody-goody and lacks a dark side. She says to Redd 'We're family' before entering battle and rubs Hatter and Dodge's shoulders whenever they angst.
Speaking of Dodge...
Dodge Anders: He has potential. He isn't really on the side of good or evil; he's fighting for himself and peace of mind. While the other goodies fight for others, he just wants to avenge his father and restore the kingdom so he can have the world of his childhood memories back. Unfortunately, he gets a bit too whiney at times, and he sprouts some of the book's most emotionally manipulative scenes. When he buries his father, the scene is milked like a goat. He cries 'silent tears', he can't bear to see his father under dirt, and he plants flowers that grow into his father's likeness. It's worth noting he and Alyss are the ONLY people in the book that cry over a loved one's death. We should see MILLIONS.
Hatter Madigan: Ah, the "unspeaking, unfeeling bodyguard with a dark past and a singular purpose". The most popular character. However, his character has been done before, and much better (see Batman and V). He does angst a lot, but most of it seems to be about how well he's doing his job (see http://www.toonzone.net/anbat/btas/iatn.html) rather then whether or not it's the right thing that he chose to do this. I would like to see him nursing a grudge against Alyss and Genevieve for putting him through all this strife, but I'm not sure this will happen. I also think his skills are too over-exaggerated; he never makes mistakes, he has no weaknesses and he rarely, if ever, loses any battles. You may point to the bloody coup in Chapter 10 and Hatter M #3, but keep in mind, there, he was TOLD to abandon the battle. Who's to say he wouldn't have finished off Redd's army if he stayed?
And how could he have inspired the Mad Hatter? Beddor notes 'The only visual connection to the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll’s work or the Disney film is the iconic Hat', thus the 'backstory' this provides for Alice in Wonderland is a bit unbelievable. Where did the tea party come from? Why the riddles and obsession with time? Did the Mad Hatter have any blades or knives? Why isn't there a March Hare in LGW Wonderland, yet pictures of him are in the 'Shatter the Myth' trailer? (When most people use existing material and take away everything that made that material what it is, they're usually criticised rather than praised.)
Redd: OH NO! SHE'S EVIL AND WANTS TO RULE WONDERLAND AND MAKE IT DYSTOPIAN!!! SHE HAS BLACK FANGS TOO! AIIIE!!
Ahem.
OK, Redd wants revenge as she was denied the throne for...doing drugs. However, she's a pretty cliche, cartoony villain. In fact, it's implied she even KNOWS she's evil. People who say they're evil either regret it or are trying to be funny. And 'Off with their stinking, boring heads' is up there with 'Yer nut sendin' me to deh coolah!' from Batman and Robin. When creating believable characters, one-liners are not your friend (rather ironic that a book with so many smirky one-liners is working off the third most quoted work of literature in the world.)
And does anyone else find it silly that she and her followers are described as 'trailing blood-red clouds and howling winds'? Maybe Redd would be less grumpy if she got some sun once in a while?
I am thankful that Beddor as said that we will know Redd on 'a more personal level' come book two, as if he listens to criticism. But in the same interview, he said she was 'more evil than Carroll could have ever imagined'. The sigh I emitted after reading that could rival Hurricane Katrina.
Bibwit Harte: OK, Bibwit's quite cool. He's like a cross between Dumbledore and Professor Wogglebug from the Wizard of Oz. There's more 'fun' in him than the other, more moody characters. However, for a tutor, we don't see him doing much tutoring.
The Cat: OK, positives first. He helps build Dodge's character. Um...except for that, he just seems to be there because Beddor thought it would be 'cool' and it would add more violence.
Jack of Diamonds: He's one of the more varied characters and definately has more personality than most of them, but the butt jokes surrounding him get tired quickly, and as villains go, he's as threatening and sinister as a Care Bears toy.
Lewis Carroll: I have nothing against satirising Lewis Carroll, and I would probably welcome this portrayal were the book humorous or a parody, but this is meant to be a more serious version of the story, and the (admittedly clever and subtle) jokes about Carroll clash with the dark tone the book is meant to have. It also feels like a none-too-subtle implication that Beddor believes himself a better writer than Carroll; I suspect he is quite egotistical, as he puts up every single positive review his book recieves on his website, even those that are badly-written or last less than a paragraph and boasts: 'The Looking Glass Wars unabashedly challenges our Wonderland assumptions of mad tea parties, sleepy dormice and a curious blonde girl to reveal an epic battle in the endless war for imagination.'
But I'm rambling.
General Doppelganger: He's just there. No personality, no characterisation, nothing to distinguish him from the other characters. Ditto for rook.
Hombourg Molly: I don't really think I should analyse her, as, so far, she's been quite minimal and will only become prominent in later books.
Queen Genenvieve: She's just basically Mufasa from the Lion King as a kindly old granny. 'Oh, my sweet king!', oh please.
Gwynooks, spirit danes, tuttle birds and gwormmies: Too Dr. Suess for such a dark story, and it feels Beddor is trying way too hard to be imaginative.
OK, I'm done.