Television in the Eighties saw a shift in tone occur in police procedurals and investigation series.  While individual series had their darker moments and character focus, the trend wasn’t picked up by competing shows.  Two series did lay the groundwork, though.  Hawaii Five-O, 1968-1980, showed that a police procedural can get involved in a longer plot, specifically, McGarrett’s quest to bring down Wo Fat.  The Rockford Files, 1974-1980, had a balance between Jim Rockford’s work and home life and included the conflicts between the two.  From that start, shows like Magnum, P.I., 1980-1988, The A-Team, 1983-1987, and Miami Vice, 1984-1990, expanded what stories could be told.  Magnum started as a detective series, but, as the seasons progressed, delved deeper into the title character’s background in Naval Intelligence during the Viet Nam War.  The A-Team started as light action-adventure, but had four Viet Nam vets and later got into how that war had changed them.  Miami Vice grew beyond the concept of “MTV Cops”* and, again, went into the relationships between the characters.  Vice also provided a stylized approach to violence, using music to set the mood of the scene.

In 1985, a new drama debuted on CBS.  The Equalizer, starring Edward Woodward as Robert McCall, combined elements from three different genres – espionage, detective, and vigilante.  McCall, a former agent with “The Company”**, advertised his services in the classified ads section of the newspaper; “Got a problem?  Odds against you?  Call the Equalizer.”  Each week, McCall would use his unique skill set to deal with problems that law wouldn’t or couldn’t be involved in.  The Equalizer’s background was never stated outright, though as the series progressed, McCall’s past returned to haunt him.  The series’ approach to violence also broke new ground.  Instead of being stylized, as seen in Miami Vice, or over-the-top, as in The A-Team, The Equalizer saw violence that was intense and personal to a degree that hadn’t been seen on television before.

Part of the change in how violence was portrayed came from a looser hold on what was allowed on television.  The Eighties saw cable television expand, with new channels available for a low, low cost.  Premium channels cost more, but added to the variety available.  With specialty channels catering to specific interests, such as MTV showing music videos and only music videos, viewers weren’t limited to watching what the major networks aired.  Prior to cable, ABC, CBS, and NBC all set their programming to maximize audience size.  Controversy would drive away part of the potential viewers to the competition, so programming was aimed at the lowest common denominator.  The advent of cable meant that the networks had to lure viewers back.  Old staples fell away as the Big Three revamped their lineups.  Since they couldn’t use some elements that cable channels had available, such as gratuitous nudity, the networks had to get creative in other areas.  Thus, Miami Vice‘s marriage of police drama and music video and The Equalizer‘s use of intense, personal, and implied violence.  The show may not have shown much, but it allowed the viewers’ imagination to fill in the gaps.

The Equalizer ran until 1989.  Edward Woodward suffered a heart attack in 1987, forcing him to reduce his workload as he recovered.  The show won an Edgar Award for Best Television Episode Teleplay in 1987 for the “The Cup”, where McCall helps Mickey Kostmeyer, his assistant through the series, protect his brother, a priest who had heard a confession about an assassination by a KGB agent.

In 2014, Denzel Washington starred in a remake movie, also called The Equalizer.  Washington plays Robert McCall, who appears to have an unremarkable life, spending time at night at a 24-hour diner and working at a hardware store during the day.  A widower, he spends his free time reading the 100 books that everyone should read, since his late wife had been doing the same, passing away before she could finish the last three books on the list.  At the diner, he befriends a young Russian woman, Adena, played by Chloë Grace Moritz, who works as a prostitute.  She shares her dreams with McCall, who tells her that all she needs to do is change her world.  McCall also has friends at work, including Ralphie, played by Johnny Skourtis, a clerk who wants to become a security guard at the store with McCall’s help.  Some of his co-workers wonder what he did before, believing he may have worked in finance.  McCall says that he was a Pip, as in Gladys Knight and the Pips.

When Adena’s pimps put her in the hospital, McCall discovers where there office is and pays them a visit.  He offers $9800 in cash to buy Adena’s freedom.  The Russian mobsters just laugh at him.  McCall starts to leave, then locks the office’s entrance.  The next thirty seconds sees McCall demonstrating why the enforcers should have taken the money.  The five mobsters are killed, with the lead enforcer shot in the neck and able to watch the action before he dies.

Viewers who aren’t familiar with the original series may suspect that McCall is far more than he appears.  An older gentleman who works at a hardware store, spends his free time reading classic novels, and lives in a small apartment should not have $9800 in cash, nor should he understand Russian, nor should he be able to kill five Russian mobster half his age.  Yet, McCall did.  Not much later, there’s an armed robbery at the hardware store.  McCall approaches the cash where the robbery is happening, aware of what’s going on.  He notes a few details of the thief, including the skull head on the robber’s hoodie zipper, similar to the skulls in the mobsters’ office, and the gang tattoos.  When the robber demands the cashier’s ring, one that belonged to her late mother, McCall appears ready to take action but is stopped when he sees a family with young children enter.  Instead, he has the cashier give over her ring, then follows the thief to get the license plate of his car.  The scene ends with McCall picking up a sledgehammer from the racks.  The next day, the cashier opens her drawer and sees her mother’s ring.  McCall is then seen wiping down a sledgehammer before returning it to the rack.

The Russian mob isn’t happy with the loss of their gangsters.  The five men killed weren’t just pimps; they were senior members of the mob’s organization in Boston.  Vladimir Pushkin, played by Vladimir Kulich, the head of the gang, sends an investigator, Teddy, played by Marton Csokas, an ex-Spetsnaz soldier who’s capability for violence isn’t tempered by civility.  Teddy is a blunt instrument, who doesn’t care about anything except finding the men who killed the senior gangsters.  His investigation leads him to McCall, who appears to be a plain American.  Teddy’s instincts, though, tell him that everything about McCall is wrong.

Pushkin’s mob has its fingers in many pies, including protection rackets and police corruption.  That combination is why Ralphie leaves the hardware store despite his hard work to qualify for the guard exams; his mother’s restaurant was burned down after she was unable to pay a pair of corrupt cops.  McCall tracks Ralphie down to find out why he left so suddenly and notices the scorch marks at the restaurant.  He finds the corrupt cops, records them on their rounds, and forces them to return the money extorted.

After another confrontation with Teddy, McCall gets photos of the enforcer and takes them to friends who are also former agents.  The friends pass along all the information they have on Teddy, including his real name and his background.  McCall takes the information and starts a one-man war against the Russian mob.  His first stop is with one of the corrupt cops, Frank Masters, played by David Harbour.  McCall forces Masters to take him to Pushkin’s money laundering operation, which he then shuts down, paying the Chinese women sorting and bagging the money before they leave then calling in the FBI.  Masters gives up his escape plans to McCall, which include a USB memory stick filled with who was being paid off by the mob and for how much.  The FBI receives a copy of the data through an anonymous tip.  The second stop for McCall is to destroy one of Pushkin’s ships filled with valuable cargo, along with the pumping station used to fill the tanker.

With the hit to the mob’s income, Pushkin gets insistant that the man responsible be found and killed.  Teddy brings in his own people, but loses one before they can even get started.  McCall meets with Teddy, bringing the broken glasses of the Russian’s own man with him.  The point of the conversation is to give Teddy and the mob the choice of shutting down operations and leaving peacefully.  Teddy scoffs and refuses.  McCall shrugs and walks away.

Teddy has done his homework, finding where McCall works.  He has men take the store employees hostage during closing then calls McCall.  McCall now has a choice; show up in twenty-nine minutes at Teddy’s location or his friends and co-workers will be killed in thirty.  Teddy tracks McCall’s movement by using the GPS on the the American’s phone.  The bus the signal is on approaches the Russian’s location.  Teddy has a sniper ready to shoot McCall on the bus, except the bus is empty.  Teddy was tracking the phone, but the phone rode alone.

McCall, instead, is at the hardware store.  The Russians have the employees in a back room.  Teddy gives the order to kill one, but Gladys Knight and the Pips starts playing over the store’s intercom.  One of the mobsters forces Ralphie to take him to the security office.  McCall is ready and kills the mobster.  In the back room, the radio crackles and a Russian voice asks for assistance.  The other mobster is dealt with as quickly as the first.  McCall tells Ralphie to get the employees out the back, then gets ready for Teddy’s arrival.

Teddy arrives at the store.  The lights all go out as soon as he and his men are inside, the main doors locking.  Teddy and his men are armed, but McCall not only has had time to prepare but knows the layout of the store far better.  McCall sets out traps, waiting for one of the Russians to come by before triggering them.  Soon, it’s just McCall and Teddy, with Ralphie back to assist.

There were a few changes made between the original TV series and the movie.  The location moved from New York City to Boston, though that change was to take advantage of not just shooting locations but the difference in organized crime in the cities.  New York City is known for the Mafia, the Five Families with ties to Italy.  Boston, however, is more diverse, with Italian, Irish, and Russian mobs.  As well, Washington’s McCall is far more integrated with his community.  Woodward’s McCall was the outsider who lived in New York but wasn’t a part of day-to-day life.  This McCall would be called in to solve a problem.  Washington’s McCall was a part of the community, helping friends and co-workers with problems, from getting Ralphie ready to qualify as a security guard to retrieving a co-worker’s special ring.  This McCall, like Woodward’s, may have been atoning, but the approach was different.  The core of the character, though, was there.  A former agent with a skill set that could be used to help those who needed it, and a willingness to get involved.

The movie showed more violence than the TV series did, though that is more from movies having far more leeway, depending on rating, to depict violent acts than television.  The tone remained, though, and not all violence was shown.  Much more was implied.  The armed robber never re-appeared after fleeing the crime scene; all the audience sees is McCall picking up a sledgehammer, the ring in the cashier’s register, and McCall wiping the sledgehammer down before returning it to the racks.  Credit for maintaining the feel of the TV series goes to Antoine Fuqua, the director.  Fuqua, who broke into movies with The Replacement Killers and worked with Denzel Washington on Training Day, maintained the mix of everyday life and McCall’s past, using the contrast to heighten the mood.  The theatrical remake of The Equalizer keeps the tone of the original series while taking advantage of being a movie and modern technology.  The Robert McCall of both is easily recognizable, though each version is its own take on the character.

Of note, the movie performed well enough at the box office that Sony has announced a sequel, provided that Fuqua and Washington both have the time in their schedules that mesh with each other.

Next week, the April news round-up.

* Brandon Tartikoff, head of NBC Entertainment, had used the term, “MTV Cops”, wanting a show that included the visual style of a music video, but that concept did not turn into /Miami Vice/. [http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/08/06/tv-legends-revealed-did-miami-vice-really-begin-as-mtv-cops/]
** The series never specified which intelligence agency and just called it “The Company”, though the implications were that it was the CIA.

(Way With Worlds is a weekly column on the art of worldbuilding published at Seventh Sanctum, Muse Hack, and Ongoing Worlds)

TMI is a slang term for “Too Much Information” (and one that hopefully is still relevant when your read this). It’s basically a remind you’ve said too much, usually in an embarrassing way about an equally embarrassing subjects. Writers and worldbuilders face their own risks with TMI when we communicate our worlds.

We can overdo telling people about them.

You know what I’m talking about. The infodump that goes on for pages, the loving detail in a character’s mind most normal human (and human-alikes) would never think like, the historical quotes that seem like their own stories. It’s when you tell too damn much, so much people are taken out of the story or game, out of the world, and into your notes.

Maybe we can’t resist doing it because we have so much to share. Maybe we want to make sure people understand. Maybe we want to make sure they’re not totally lost. Maybe we follow the style of an author or writer we loved and overdo it.

It seems that when we do it, we do it big-time.

People don’t need TMI. TMI distracts because there’s suddenly a Wall Of Exposition. TMI confuses as the context may make sense only in your head. TMI disappoints as it can spoil stories. TMI breaks the sense of realism as infodumps feel like they came from outside the world. TMI can even change your story, as a rollicking adventure becomes a three-page discussion of dragon biology.

We as worldbuilders have to learn to communicate the right amount of information. That’s hard.

How Do We Avoid TMI?

TMI is actually hard to deliberately avoid because so much of it is emotional, or easy to misinterpret, or private. We don’t want to go the other direction and not reveal enough. In the end I’ve come to a simple conclusion.

Communications in your text, characters, story, exposition should:

• Come naturally to the story so it doesn’t break the sense of involvement.
• Contain enough information appropriate for the characters. Remember you can learn a lot from “overhearing.”
• Contain enough information for the audience (this may mean that when you make some choices in the story it needs to be in ways that are informative).
• Be phrased appropriately – a good sign of an infodump into TMI territory is when the language shifts from appropriate-to-tale to “have some stuff.”

This is an organic process, and empathy is a big part of it – you have to have a sense of both your characters and your audience. It’s art, not science, and I think awareness of it gets you halfway there – the other half is experience in doing it (or not doing it). Keep world building, keep writing – and keep taking feedback from your editors and your readers and your own reading.

However I can provide you guidance to know when you’ve gone into TMI territory. Setting the outer boundaries may help keep you out of TMI territory, or learn when you cross over.

Here’s where you may mess up:

“LOOK, I BUILT A WORLD!”

Sometimes our writing and world building results in us shoving the fact we have a world in people’s faces. There’s a huge world out there and we feel we have to remind them of it. Suddenly there’s unneeded maps and infodumps and unneeded references. This takes people right out of the story or game where they experience your world, and puts them into knowing the world was constructed.

Worlds are experienced, not told about. Remember that. Help with the experience.

Oh, and doing can also seem like bragging. Don’t make the readers dislike you, it’s not conductive to their enjoyment.

“LOOK, DETAIL!”

Be it realistic or weird, sometimes we go into TMI mode because we want to show them everything we did. We’ve got to cram it in descriptions and dialogue, and . . . well at that point suddenly we’re giving too much information. There’s so much there, but it’s hard to help ourselves.

In real life I don’t launch into extensive discussions of public transport history without prompting. Your characters shouldn’t do the same.

In real life you don’t look at a bookstore and recall your entire past history of going there in florid detail. Neither should your characters unless that *is* the story.

Don’t go showing off extensive detail. Show what is appropriate for the stories, character, and setting. Your audience can fill in the gaps.

Besides, then you have enough for your eventual world guide book or tip guide for your game or whatever.

“LOOK, REALISM!”

How many times do you need to know a character went to the bathroom? Or the sit through a five minute FMV discussing why this elf is a psychotic killer? Or . . . you get the idea. Realism can be overdone when people brag about it.

When your attempts to communicate to the audience are “look see how realistic I am, man I thought this out” then you have a problem. Your audience is probably going to give you the benefit of a doubt, you know? Working too hard to show realism becomes a source of TMI.

People are not going to be impressed by the realism of your world when its shoved in their face – and some things can be assumed (such as characters actually going to the bathroom or eating). People can give your characters and world credit for being realistic or at least having its own realism. They don’t need it described to them in painful detail.

“LOOK, WEIRDNESS!”

Another form of TMI is “look at this weird thing I did, wow isn’t it awesome” where your story or game or play shows off, in painful detail, the crazy thing you did. You want them to know how innovative you are, how odd this is, as opposed to letting them feel the impact.

it’s almost a flipside of Aggressive Realism; instead of trying to convince people of the realism of your story more than you need, you try to bring them into the strange-yet-real part.

It’s really showing of how weird you can be but still pull the world off.

In reality, if it’s not weird for your characters, it shouldn’t seem weird to the audience. In fact, keep in mind the impact of weirdness is amplified when it seems normal.

Learn What To Say

TMI can affect many a worldbuilder and storytelling. In a few cases we probably need some writers to lean towards it a bit more as they get lost in tropes and assumptions.

In the end however serious TM ruins the experience of a work, it takes people out of the world and into you lecturing them or showing off.

Worldbuilding is about detail. When it comes to your stories or gmes or whatever, instead learn to communicate what’s important to people. The details you know let you tell the story – the details they find out let them understand it.

You just don’t need to know where all the trap doors and scenery is to enjoy the play.

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/

Sorry folks, but that last Tumblr update the company made?  Looks like it crashed the system I use to make updates to the site with generated results – after trying several troubleshooting steps I ended up opening a support ticket.

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/

The History of Adaptations
Thirties
Forties

It’s time to step back a bit with the history of adaptations.  To prepare for what’s coming up during the Fifties, I need to cover the early years of the film industry.  I’m still using the compiled list at Filmsite.org as a base.  By using what was popular, I hope that the movie titles and the actors are familiar to readers to give an idea of how beloved films came about.

I delayed looking at the early years mainly because of the age of the works.  I was expecting the era to be mainly adaptations of works long forgotten.  I was also expecting works that were lost to the ages, through neglect, disaster, or other means.  Several of the works below have been lost, with only production and marketing stills the only remains.  Others, though, have been preserved and enshrined.

The early years of the movie industry didn’t have anything like the MPAA or the Hays Code to limit or even censor content.  Censoring was done at the local level, by concerned citizens.  Movies could be and were as steamy as they wanted.  However, local censors could remove scenes that they felt were offensive to moral standing.

The Great War, as World War I was known prior to 1939, began in 1914.  The war began with the armies using tactics from open ground charges as seen even in the American Civil War to trench warfare, due to the weapons used being far more lethal than in previous conflicts.  Artillery and the machine gun changed how infantry was used, and the introduction of airplanes further evolved tactics.  The War resulted in over 16 million dead and 20 million wounded by the time it ended in 1918.

Prohibition took effect in the United States in January of 1920 with the certification of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919.  The Amendment made illegal the production, transport, and sale of alcohol, though, if one could somehow obtain it without violating the law, private consumption and possession was not prohibited.  To assist in enforcing Prohibition, the Volstead Act was also passed, with both the House of Representatives and the Senate overriding President Woodrow Wilson’s veto.  The Act prohibited intoxicating beverages, defined as over 0.5% alcohol by volume; regulated the making, selling, and transporting of intoxicating liquor; and ensured there was a supply of alcohol for use in scientific research and for religious rituals.  The Twenty-First Amendment, certified in December of 1933, repealed the Eighteenth while still prohibiting the transport of alcohol across state lines when that transport was in violation of state laws.*  Moves became a legal form of entertainment, one where audiences didn’t have to worry about money getting into the hands of criminals.

The Nineteenth Amendment fared better.  The Nineteenth gave women the right to vote in August of 1920.  With the right to vote and the dawning of the Jazz Era, the flapper was born.  Women could have a greater influence on their communities, and young women were eager to take the opportunity available.  The Roaring Twenties saw an exuberance until it ended with the stock market crash of 1929, heralding the Great Depression of the Thirties.

Movie technology was in its infancy.  Most of the films listed are silent movies, unless otherwise noted.  The advent of sound was huge.  Early films needed someone in the theatre to play the music.  As sound recording developed, the musician was replaced by a separate recording that needed to be synchronized with the film.  The Jazz Singer, as discussed below, represents a huge leap in audio.  Colour was also slowly coming about.  Technicolor**, invented in 1916, used a red-green additive process in the early years, but costs could be prohibitive.

The era had a mix of styles as directors experimented to see what worked and what didn’t.  Epics, comedies, dramas, the early years had them all.  The list below is lengthy, but covers fifteen years instead of the usual ten.  Accounting procedures would have had to account for releases moving from city to city instead of a release across the country on the same day.

1915
The Birth of a Nation – adapted from the novel and play The Clansman by Thomas Dixon Jr.  This was director D.W. Griffith’s movie about the birth of the Ku Klux Klan and left controversy in its wake.

1916
Intolerance – original.  D.W. Griffith made this movie in response to the reaction to the The Birth of a Nation, showing the dangers of prejudice.
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea – adapted from the novel by Jules Verne.

1917
Cleopatra – adapted from several sources; H. Rider Haggard’s novel Cleopatra, Émile Moreau’s play Cleopatre, and William Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.  Starred Theda Bara as eponymous ruler and Fritz Leiber, the science fiction author‘s father, as Caesar.  Cleopatra has been lost to the ages after two fires destroyed the only full prints in existence, leaving only production stills and fragments of the original film.  Bara’s costuming, what there was of it, was considered scandalous at the time and could still be considered risqué today.

1918
Mickey – original.  Starred Mabel Normand as the titular tomboy and was produced through her film company.

1919
The Miracle Man – an adaptation of an adaptation, Frank L. Packard’s novel via the 1914 George M. Cohan play, both of the same name.  Another lost movie, it starred Lon Chaney.

1920
Way Down East – adapted from the play Way Down East by Lottie Blair Parker.  Another D.W. Griffith film, it starred Lillian Gish.  The climax has Gish running across an icy river, a scene more famous than the rest of the movie.
Over the Hill to the Poorhouse – adapted from the 1872 poem “Over the Hill to the Poorhouse” by Will Carleton, thus showing that the film industry will adapt other media.
Something to Think About – original.  Cecil B. DeMille directed the film that Jeanie Macpherson scripted.  The two will combine efforts for several more movies.  Gloria Swanson starred.

1921
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – adapted from Vicente Blasco Ibañez’s novel The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Set during the Great War, the film established Rudolf Valentino as the Latin Lover despite being a supporting role.
The Kid – original.  Charlie Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, and starred in the film.  His co-star was Jackie Coogan, better known today as Uncle Fester from the black and white Addams Family TV series.

1922
Robin Hood – adapted from the legend of the roguish outlaw.  Douglas Fairbanks starred as Robin with Alan Hale co-starring as Little John.  Hale would reprise the role with Errol Flynn in 1938’s The Adventures of Robin Hood and with John Derek in 1950’s Rogues of Sherwood Forest.  Robin Hood was the first movie to have a Hollywood premiere.
Oliver Twist – adapted from the Charles Dickens novel.  The movie had Lon Chaney as Fagin and Jackie Coogan as Oliver.

1923
The Ten Commandments – adapted from the Bible.  Cecil B. DeMille directed and Jeanie Macpherson wrote the script.  DeMille would go on to do a partial remake of the film in 1956.
The Covered Wagon – adapted from Covered Wagon, a novel by Emerson Hough.  Alan Hale played Sam Woodhull, the film’s villain.  The movie was dedicated to the memory of Theodore Roosevelt.

1924
The Sea Hawk – adapted from the novel of same name by Rafael Sabatini.  The 1940 Errol Flynn movie was originally going to be another adaptation of the book, but went a different direction, using Sir Francis Drake as an inspiration.

1925
The Big Parade – adapted from two sources; Joseph Farnham’s play of same name and Laurence Stallings’ autobiography Plumes.  The movie was directed by King Vidor and was set in the Great War.  It is considered the first realistic war drama.
Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ – adapted from the 1880 novel of same name by Lew Wallace.  William Wyler, the assistant director, would remake the movie in 1950, including a shot-for-shot reproduction of the chariot race.  The chariot race itself is influential, as can be seen in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace with the pod-race.
The Gold Rush – original.  Charlie Chaplin starred as the Tramp, and also was the writer, director, and producer.

1926
Aloma of the South Seas – adapted from the 1925 play of same name by John B. Hymer and LeRoy Clemems.  The movie would be remade in 1941 with the same name, starring Dorothy Lamour and Jon Hall.  Once again, the movie is considered to be lost, with no prints known to have survived.
Flesh and the Devil – adapted from Hermann Sudermann’s play The Undying Pass.  Greta Garbo stars with John Gilbert.
For Heaven’s Sake – original.  A Harold Lloyd action-comedy.  Lloyd alternated between character pieces and action/comedy to keep audiences coming out to see his works.
What Price Glory? – adapted from the 1924 play of same name by Maxwell Anderson and Lawrence Stallings.  The movie was remade in 1952 as What Price Glory with James Cagney.

1927
Wings – original.  Set during the Great War, it starred Clara Bow and saw Gary Cooper in a role as a doomed cadet.  Wings was the first film to win an Academy Award.  With The Big Parade and What Price Glory?, both above, showing that audiences wanted to see war movies, Paramount played Follow-the-Leader.  The studio hired director William A. Wellman because he had experience in airplane combat in the War.
The Jazz Singer – adapted from the the play The Jazz Singer by Samson Raphaelson, which was based on his short story “The Day of Atonement”.  The Jazz Singer was the first feature length talkie, at least partially.  There was still some synchronization of film and audio recording, but Al Jolson’s singing was integrated with the playback.
Love – a very loose adaptation of /Anna Karenina/ by Leo Tolstory.  The movie took advantage of the film chemistry between Greta Garbo and John Gilbert as seen in Flesh and .the Devil, above.

1928
The Singing Fool – original.  This was Al Jolson’s follow up to The Jazz Singer.  Still only part-talkie, but that was the music, which audiences were coming out to hear.
The Road to Ruin – original.  The movie was an exploitation film that warned against the dangers of alcohol and sex.  Helen Foster stars as the unlucky teenaged girl who drinks during Prohibition and sees men.  The movie was remade in 1934 with sound with Foster in the same role despite being 27 at the time and six years older than the actor portraying her boyfriend.  Since alcohol was legal in 1934, it was replaced by drugs in the remake.

1929
The Broadway Melody – original.  It was a musical that took advantage of the new sound technology.  Also had a Technicolor sequence, influencing a trend of musicals using colour.  The Broadway Melody was the first all-talking musical, unlike Jolson’s movies above which were only partially talkies.  The film won the Academy Award for Outstanding Picture (now called Best Picture).  Three sequels were made, The Broadway Melody of 1936, The Broadway Melody of 1938, and The Broadway Melody of 1940.  The movies was also remade in 1940 as Two Girls on Broadway.
Sunnyside Up – original.  Once sound technology became easier to use, musicals, such as Sunnyside Up flourished.

Of the 29 films listed above, 18 are adaptations with the remaining 11 being original works.  Of the adaptations, two, The Miracle Man and The Jazz Singer, were second generation adaptations, having adapted material that itself was an adaptation.  Two more, Cleopatra and The Big Parade, used multiple sources, with Cleopatra pulling from three different original works and, ultimately, the life of the Egyptian queen herself.  Six movies, two of them original works, would get remade; Robin Hood in 1940, The Ten Commandments in 1956, Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ in 1959, What Price Glory? in 1952, the The Road to Ruin in 1934, and The Broadway Melody in 1940.  The remakes of The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ will appear in the discussion for the Fifties; the movies were popular in two eras.

With the advent of sound in 1927, especially after The Jazz Singer, musicals became popular.  Three of the four movies listed after 1927 are musicals, and they are all original works.  Prior to 1928, nine movies, or half of the adaptations, were based on stage plays.  Eleven were based on novels, including the movies with multiple sources, such as Cleopatra, and adaptations of adaptations.  The Bible, a short story (itself adapted as a play before becoming a film), and a poem account for the remaining adaptations.  Plays were an expected source; they’re already written and have had performances on stage.  Novels, especially the older ones like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ, have a good chance of being read by a portion of the audience.  The unexpected source was the poem.  Over the Hill to the Poorhouse may be unique in this series by being based on a poem.

Colour film processes were still being developed in this era.  As mentioned above, Technicolor was pioneering an additive colour process, but it required a camera the split the light into a red and a blue-green stream, landing on separate film.  Hand colouring was also done, but was time-consuming.  Black and white was easier and cheaper; most theatres only had equipment that could only handle silent black and white films.  As seen in the Thirties, though, once colour is introduced, black and white fades away, only returning as an artistic choice***.

Popular movies of the early years of film tended to be adaptations.  The main reason is that the years were transitional.  Everyone involved was still learning the differences between film, where the camera could move around, and stage, where the audience was the fourth wall.  There were still people willing to play with the new medium.  Charlie Chaplin’s entries above show him in the four key areas, writing, directing, producing, and starring.  The ratio of adaptations to originals is similar to those found for the Thirties and Forties.  This ratio, roughly 2:1, won’t change for a few decades; the direction it does change in may be surprising.

* Any resemblance between Prohibition and the War on Drugs is from people not learning from history.  Prohibition was killing a wasp with a wrecking ball.  The result of the War on Booze was a massive influx of cash to organized crime, since they were the ones supplying illegal alcohol, and a loss of respect for the law.  Al Capone could make far more in one day than any fine under the Volstead Act, and the agents working for the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Prohibition could be easily bribed to look the other way.
** Technically, Technicolor is a trademark for the colour processes pioneered by the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation, now a division of owned by Technicolor SA.
*** Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho is a perfect example of the use of black and white filming as an artistic expression.

(Way With Worlds is a weekly column on the art of worldbuilding published at Seventh Sanctum, Muse Hack, and Ongoing Worlds)

So After being challenged on the issues of language and sentients over at Trilobyte Studios, I decided it was time to focus my rewrite of Way With Worlds on my language columns of the past.

And nothing is a better example of the issue of writing good language than how we refer to technology – and by technology I mean anything used to achieve a goal, from a spell to computers. For the sake of not having to say “technology and magic” over and over a gain, I’m going to refer to this as Technology most of the time.

When we talk Technology, we face the most fascinating question of how people using technology refer to it in our worlds. Think of how many words we have for tools and so forth. Think of how characters need to refer to technology in their worlds.

Think of how we often do it wrong.

A Rabble Of Babble

Technobabble is a general term used for “scientific-sounding” BS-ey terminology used to refer to technology. Many science fiction stories and properties are infamous for this; “Star Trek” is often joked about, but it’s everywhere. It’s that term made from throwing together three scientific terms, it’s that spell that sounds like something no normal human (or elf) would describe in those words.

You know the kind of terms I’m talking about

I really didn’t get how bad it could get until I got into making the random generators of Seventh Sanctum. I’d make ones to describe weapons and technology, and suddenly I could see how words were just slammed together to make something vaguely technical. I could see how often mystical spells had come from The Home Of THe Assembled Adjective.

There’s something about Technobabble tat just feels wrong. It’s the uncanny valley of technology, because it’s got words but it doesn’t feel like ones humans would use.

It’s words made by an author, not a character.

And That’s the problem.

Diagnosing the Problem: The Forms

To discuss the best way to avoid Technobabble, I’d like to look at the problem and then step back on how to solve it. The reason for this is simply because we’re too used to technobabble, and we don’t always see it.

By now we’re used to fictionally crafted worlds, with their made-up terms, and of course their technobabble and magicbabble. It’s something we just sort of plow through and tolerate and really promise we won’t do . . . right before we do it. It keeps popping up.

Technobabble is kind of the Shingles of bad terminology.

I’ve found that there’s a few warning signs you’re using technobabble.

Classic Technobabble – When you’ve got Heisenberg Rail Cannons and Nomydium Alloy Quantum Stabilized Armor you have straight-up classic grade A technobabble. This is when you’ve thrown a lot of sciencey/magical words together that really don’t say much. It’s borders on being real babble.

Coldbabble – Coldbabble is technobabble that’s Technobabble’s evil twin – just evil in a different way. This is when your description sounds like a kind of operating instructions or label. It’s a spell that an actual person calls “A Level 3 Muscle Mending Spell” or a technology referred to as a “Flesh Restoration Pod.” It says something, but not in the way most people would

Transplant Babble – This occurs when people graft terminology from one setting or one idea into another with no good reason. It’s fantasy characters referring to light spells as Lasers – just so the audience gets it when they wouldn’t. This is a less common issue, but now and then you’ll see it.

So how do you avoid these traps -and others I doubtlessly haven’t identified? It’s simple.

You’ve got to stop naming technology and ask what it means to the people using it.  It’s all about the characters.

Language As A Tool For Tools

Why do we have special terms for technology (and magic and other tools)? Simple – we need to refer to them properly.

We need to call a hammer a hammer when you just need someone to hand it to you. We may refer to a computer with more detailed description, like make or model, to communicate that information. We need to refer to tools so we can talk about them.

Just like anything else.

The key to writing good technical language and avoiding Technobabble is to ask what language is needed to refer to said tools – in the setting, by the characters.

In fact, there may be many ways to refer to the same thing. The reason Technobabble of all kinds often seems weird as characters will use the same made-up terms in all situations.

Let’s look at these factors.

Factor 1 – Context

Terminology depends on context. Who is speaking, who is being spoken too. Technology of all kinds will have terms relevant to the context it is used in.

Technology will have multiple names but all should be meaningful.

The pain in your leg probably has a very long latinized term your doctor uses – and it describes the symptom in a detailed way. A car engine is properly an internal combustion engine – but who curses their “internal combustion engine” for not working? We refer to an explosive called TNT, but the name is derived from the chemical formula of the explosive because do you want to use that long string of syllables every time?

Language to refer to technology should:

• Fit the context of the situation.
• May have multiple ways to be referred to.
• Should communicate information

Factor 2 – Usefulness

Language to refer to things will vary with the situation. It’s all well and good to go looking for a Hyperflux Restablizing Neutronium Balance Capacitor, but sometimes you just need to “find the damn capacitor.” you don’t want to refer to a spell as a “Gate Spell” during your final magi exam when there’s 22 different variants of it.

We use different language for technology depending on the situation. All technology has should have ways to be referred to based on the situation itself. You really don’t have time to ask for “Mordaks Third Level Incandescent Sphere of Fiery Doom” when you really want to yell “Fireball them!” as you run away from Rabid kobolds.

Language to refer to technology should:

• Be useful for appropriate situations (and likely will be due to a kind of language darwinism)
• Be applicable to dealing with those situations.

Factor 3 – Person

Technical terminology used – used to communicate with people – will vary among the people talking. An engineer, a scientist, and a disgruntled user are going to refer to computer parts and processes in very different ways. A wizard, a priest, and a warrior may refer to spellcraft differently.

There will thus be different words used by people in a group, among people in a group, and between groups. These can be as varied as any other set of words – because people are varied.

Consider the possible influences:

• Social roles.
• Backgrounds.
• Personal attitudes (a proscribed magic or technology may be referred to insultingly).
• Slang and custom references.
• Knowledge and ignorance.

Individual characters will often have different tastes in how they refer to technology. You need to understand how the people in your setting see the different technologies and refer to them. When their discussion can sound like the last time you and a friend tried to set up a video game set or fix a car, then you’ve made technological language realistic.

Language to refer to technology should:

• Be appropriate to the characters and their backgrounds.
• Be appropriate to the interactions of the characters – as the characters feel is proper.

Factor 4- Time

Terminology changes. Grab one of the handy slang dictionaries available at bookstores or online, and you may be amazed what words used to mean and what phrases vanished. “Hilary” used to be a man’s name. The term “mook” has had a variety of meanings. Even as you read these now, these simple references may have changed.

In creating terms in your stories, ask yourself how terms may have changed over time – or be preserved. A tradition-bound culture may use archaic references, a culture with a lot of immigration may adapt a rainbow of foreign words quickly. THis happens to technology as well – do we refer to cars as motorcars anymore in america?

A quick guide to see how time affects technical terms:

• How old it is – If technology has been around a long time, people probably have casual ways to refer to it. If its new, there may be very few terms – and those may be quite technical.
• Importance of the original name – If it’s vital for some reason that a technology be referred to very specifically, words for it may not have changed or changed much. On the other hand if it doesn’t matter, terms may change quickly, possibly to some people’s frustrations (“Junior, it’s a Thunderous Bolt of Lightning, not a ‘Flash and Zap'”)
• How easy was the original name to use – The goal of communications is to, well, communicate. If an important technology is hard to refer to , people will probably come up with new, simpler words.

Language to refer to technology should:

• Evolve with people’s needs, social structure, and history.
• Exist for a practical reason – and if practical may not change that much.

In Closing

Technical terminology shouldn’t be obscure unless there’s a good reason for that. It’s part of language, part of the language of your setting, and thus should serve the needs of those using that language. When you keep the human (well, sentient) factor in mind, it becomes very clear why Technobabble fails.

Technobabble fails because it’s unrealistic and doesn’t fit the characters and world. It’s when you reach in from outside and inflict language on your setting.

Instead, let the language come from your setting. It’s much more realistic.

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/

Hey gang, hope everyone’s doing good!

Our latest big news, is that after my last Way With Worlds, Blaze over at Trilobyte Studios decided to do a MB effort to define language for worldbuilding!  Looking forward to seeing how this goes.

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/

Continuing from last week’s discussion on adaptations surpassing their originals. it’s time to look at a specific example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The original Buffy hit theatres in the summer of 1992.  Kristy Swanson played the titular character, with Donald Sutherland playing her Watcher, Merrick.  The film was marketed as an action/comedy/horror movie, taking the elements of the typical slasher flick and flipping them around.  Thus, the blonde cheerleader who would normally be one of the first victims of the slasher becomes the heroine, with her love interest, Oliver Pike as played by Luke Perry, becoming the dude in distress.

Los Angeles is in danger from a cabal of vampires led by Lothos, played by Rutger Hauer.  One girl can save the city.  Too bad she doesn’t know she’s LA’s only hope.  Buffy Summers is a high school senior and a cheerleader, looking forward to her hobbies of shopping and her boyfriend, Jeffrey.  Naturally, at Buffy’s school, there’s a schism between the popular and the outcasts, where Oliver and Benny (David Arquette) fall.  Fortunately for LA, Merrick is searching for the new Slayer.  The Chosen One, Buffy, isn’t as impressed, but her new abilities start manifesting.  In addition, Merrick describes a dream that Buffy keeps having.  She begins training under Merrick’s tutelage.

Oliver and Benny are the first of the school to run into the vampires.  Merrick arrives too late to prevent Benny being turned into a vampire, but does rescue Oliver.  Another of Buffy’s classmates, a girl named Cassandra, played by an uncredited Ricki Lake, is kidnapped by Amilyn, played by Paul Reubans, and sacrificed to the vampire’s master, Lothos, played by Rutget Hauer.  Lothos has killed a number of Slayers in the past and has set his sights on Buffy.  An encounter in the woods has Amilyn and his gang of vampires fight Buffy, Merrick, and Oliver, leading to Amilyn losing an arm and Buffy and Oliver getting closer.

Later, at a school basketball game, Oliver recognizes a classmate who has become a vampire.  Buffy chases the the vampire and runs into Lothos himself.  Lothos hypnotizes Buffy, but Merrick arrives in time to prevent anything further.  Merrick is staked himself by Lothos, and dies.  The Watcher gives Buffy one last bit of advice, to do things her way, not the old ways.

Shaken, Buffy tries to return to her old life.  At school, though, her friends have turned on her, making her an outcast.  Buffy realizes that her priorities have changed while her old friends are still fixated on shopping and the upcoming senior dance.  Even her boyfriend, Jeffrey, has found a new girlfriend.  Oliver, though, stays by her, understanding what Buffy is going through.

The senior dance is for seniors only.  As per tradition, vampires cannot enter a building unless invited.  The vampire army built by Lothos and Amilyn, though, consist of high school seniors, and each of them received a formal invitation to the dance.  Buffy arrives in time to fight the vampires inside and outside.  Oliver takes on his old friend, Benny, while Buffy first stabs Amilyn then goes after Lothos.  Once again, Lothos tries to hypnotize her, but Buffy is ready with a cross and a can of hairspray.  By using her keen fashion sense, Buffy defeats Lothos.

As mentioned, one aspect of the film was comedy.  The movie was light entertainment, a summer popcorn movie that was common before the Blockbuster Era we currently have.  Buffy was moderately popular but not a major hit.  Joss Whedon wrote the screenplay for the movie, though there may have been some meddling by executives to get popcorn fare.

Five years later, Joss Whedon returns to the character with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series.  The pilot for the series was once meant for a potential sequel to the original film, but as the show continued, the link between the movie and TV series became nebulous.  Ideas from the film appeared, but reworked to fit the new show.

The TV Buffy, with Sarah Michelle Gellar taking over the lead role, kept the horror and the comedy, but became far more darker and tense.  The show first aired on the WB, owned by Warner Bros, and was a breakout hit for the fledgling network.  In 2001, Buffy moved over to UPN, a Paramount owned network.  Despite being on smaller networks, the show gained a following.

In the pilot, Buffy Anne Summers and her mother move to Sunnydale after an incident that resulted in the burning down of the gym at Buffy’s previous school.  Buffy is hoping to be a normal girl, despite being the Slayer.  All those hopes are dashed when Rupert Giles, played by Anthony Stewart Head, appears as her new Watcher.  Sunnydale High sits on top of a Hellmouth and Buffy’s abilities are needed to prevent Hell from boiling out.  Being the newcomer, Buffy starts out as an outcast in the school.  She meets Xander Harris, played by Nicholas Brendan, and Willow Rosenberg, played by Alison Hannigan, who befriend her through common experience of being outsiders.  Cordelia Chase, one of the popular crowd and a cheerleader to boot, represents what Buffy could have been.  Cordelia eventually joins in with Buffy and her friends in fighting the evil lurking in Sunnydale.

Through the series, the cast grows, emotionally and numerically.  Seth Green, who had an uncredited role as a vampire in the original Buffy, joins the cast as Oz, Willow’s boyfriend.  David Boreanaz joins as Angel, a vampire who becomes romantically linked with Buffy.  After Buffy is clinically dead but revived, a new Slayer, Kendra, played by Bianca Lawson, arrives.  Unlike Buffy, Kendra was raised by the Watchers, and the difference between the two Slayers is evident.  Kendra lacks Buffy’s ability to improvise, leading to her death and the activation of Faith, played by Eliza Dushku.  Again, the difference between Buffy and Faith is evident.  Faith didn’t have the support system Buffy did with her friends.

Each season carried a theme.  The first season, set mainly in and around Sunnydale High, showed that high school was hell.  By the time Buffy graduates in season three, she had prevented several apocalypses, saved the student body more times than they could count, and befriended many others.  Season two shows how Buffy’s approach, while not always successful, had advantages over a strict teaching.  The season also had Buffy fall in love with the wrong man, Angel.  Angel was under a Gypsy curse; if he ever achieved happiness, the Angelus personality within would be released, causing untold tragedy.  Season three shows the difference between the relationship Buffy has with Giles, the relationship the Council of Watchers would impose on Slayers, and the relationship Faith had with the Mayor, who was using the girl for his nefarious purposes.  Season four was about change, with Buffy and Willow heading to university, Xander getting a job, Oz leaving because he’s a danger as a werewolf, and Cordelia leaving for LA with Angel for a spin-off series*.

The series became known for its writing, taking chances that wouldn’t normally be seen on the regular networks.  “Hush”, a fourth season episode, took a show known for its snappy dialogue and made everyone mute, unable to speak, and was successful.  “Once More, with Feeling”, from season six, was an all-musical episode, making /Buffy/ the second show to try that, the first being Xena, Warrior Princess.

How does the TV series stack against the original?  The series built on top of ideas presented in the movie and gives them more time to develop.  The implications of the Buffy-verse is shown to viewers.  The result is a TV series that has more than its fair share of academic papers written about it, with over two hundred produced about various aspects of the show, from dialogue to characterizations to the metaphors of humanity used as the base of many episodes.  The Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series has had comics, including Seasons 8 through 10, and games, including Eden Studio’s role-playing game of the same name.  The TV series has far surpassed its original.

Next week, continuing the history of adaptations with the early years of the film industry.

* Angel, naturally enough.  Set in LA, Angel was the head of a small private invesitgation company, specializing in the unusual.

(Way With Worlds is a weekly column on the art of worldbuilding published at Seventh Sanctum, Muse Hack, and Ongoing Worlds)

Over at Trilobyte Studios, my friend Blaze read my columns on races, and had some interesting insights – and some disagreements with me.

Though explores concepts of sentient versus sapient species and proper definition, one thing that stood out for me is that he argues about my thesis that “we might as well use race and species interchangeably since many people do.” He felt that was improper.

It’s not hard to see why. Not only is it improper, Blaze actually has had to explain English to non-English speakers (never an easy job with English) and is aware of the need of clarity. Though we both deal in language, we clearly approach it differently and I wanted to explore that issue as it relates to world building

I argued it was best to surrender to the overwhelming language issue and lump it. Blaze argues that we should not, and makes a case for proper language usage. I myself, after reading his entries, think he has a point – indeed, those of us doing and teaching worldbuilding should consider proper language. How else do we communicate?

My take, however, is that for the purpose of my work, that I surrender to the improper terminology and do my best to qualify it. It broadens and makes my work more relevant and perhaps avoid nit-picking. I’m not there to try and rectify language, I’m about technique.

However, maybe I should be. After all if I’m going to write on worldbuilding perhaps I should make a stand for proper language. Besides, improper language normally drives me up a wall.

Oh, I don’t have an answer to this. Sorry. In fact I don’t expect to have an answer until I bundle up and re-edit these essays into a book. By then maybe I’ll have an idea of if I want to work on changing language. Or maybe not.

But I’m glad that someone talked about it.

The Challenge Of Worldbuilding And Language

Language is extremely important when discussing worldbuilding. Yes, that’s partially a big duh – but Blaze made me think about how important it is to have standards in language. Casual terminology and such might not be the right words to discuss this.

Consider all the challenges facing worldbuilders when it comes to even talking about the craft:

• First there is the language of our creation itself. What is magic or technology, species or race, sentient and not?
• We have to use scientific terms when discussing, well, scientific issues.
• We can throw out cultural references that require understanding – rather challenging when one is separated by culture or by he years.
• We may have to use religious, theological, and mystical terms that others may not understand and that have a lot of baggage, misunderstanding, personal meaning, and ambiguity.
• We may outright invent language or terms for our worlds – which, if we’re not careful may not be easy to communicate with our fellow creatives..
• Then we have to put all this into a world and a tale or game for people to discover it.

It almost makes you amazed anyone can craft a coherent setting – yet we do. Many of us build unforgettable vistas that are just behind our eyes or pixels on a screen. And yet at its core is language.

Thus I think we worldbuilders should take the time to weigh our language carefully. What words do we use? What is appropriate? What is not appropriate/ What communicates best?

We might not even agree on everything, but we can at least hone our knowledge, our vocabulary, and our use of words to make sure we’re using them right.

In fact, this leads me to a most interesting question – one that has no answer yet – but one we should consider .. .

More Unified Language Of Worldbuilding?

Blaze made me wonder if perhaps we worldbuilders should take some effort, be it debate or book or web page, to come up with a kind of “language guide” to worldbuilding. SOmething that worldbuilders could pick up and get the best idea of how to use words, communicate, and employ language in creation, documentation,and communication of our world.

Just consider this:

• Imagine best words to refer to particular things (like, say, race and species) that are both correct and relevant.
• Proper terminology for important scientific, religious, and political terms. Perhaps a top 100.
• Proper terms for documentation, storage, and methods that we’ll use to build our worlds.
• Language traps. Words people might get wrong.
• Terms around the world that may be useful to know (or steal).

Maybe we worldbuilders should take a stab at finding a way to codify our passion with useful terminology.

We might even invent some new, needed words.

Most Certainly Not In Closing

So I leave this open to you, dear reader. What do you think? Should we worldbuilders work to hone our language and terminology a bit more? Could we?

I don’t have an answer. But maybe some of us can together . . .

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/

I’m in the preparatory stages of writing a sourcebook called Species Shock, for really weird non-rubber forehead aliens. It’s going to include a dozen or so species, covering evolutionary history, present culture, psychology, value systems, language… On and on. A lot of stuff.

And that’s just the second part of the book, a grab-and-go section. But the other part of the book is a how-to guide that will be the theory to the second section’s in-practice. It’ll go over things like the different kinds of intelligence that exist, how to justify humanoid aliens if you really absolutely have to (but please don’t), cultural universals, and so on.

If all goes well, it won’t do badly as a companion to Robert Freitas’ Xenology, which you should totally check out right now and I mean right now, because this article will totally wait for you.

Done? Great.

So as I’m in the process of putting my notes together, I thought it might be nice to gloss over a few ideas in this column. We’re not going to get too in-depth, though.

1. Don’t forget to study

And by that, I mean that there are a few other things that I think are relevant and worth reading. The first is Freitas’ Xenology, which I’ve already linked to and just did again.

Second, there’s a page that I wrote on TV Tropes several years ago which covered some of this ground. You should check that out too: ”So You Want To Design An Alien Mind”.

Finally, if you haven’t been with me since the beginning then it might be worth mentioning an earlier article of mine from this column: “Blue and orange morality for fun and… profit????”

2. Don’t forget to talk about humans

In every profile featured in Species Shock, there are going to be two sections called Conflict and (more-or-less positive) Relationships. No species is going to be so nice and fantastically hippie’d that they won’t ever have strong disagreements with humans, which they won’t be able to settle with just a trip to the ballgame and a talk over beers. They may not react with physical violence (though they may, and the profiles will discuss the possibilities) but there will be situations in which they will desire to exert their will contrary to the wishes of humankind.

These don’t necessarily have to be over resources or anything, mind. I’ve got a species who may potentially come into conflict with humans over the fact that they act as brood parasites toward their own kind.

On the flip side, I don’t have any interest in designing species that can only have conflicts with humans in every conceivable universe. So I’m going to think about what each species might want from, and be able to give to, humankind, and how they might relate to our species on a more peaceful, symbiotic basis.

3. But don’t forget that they’re aliens

Some species will share psychological traits with humans. Any similarities to human psychology will often serve only to make the differences more jarring and, insofar as they may be unexpected and/or downplayed, dangerous.

They have different value systems. They have different mental concepts and maybe even different logic and truth systems. They definitely have different languages, and almost certainly they don’t communicate exactly like people do, with the same range of noises produced in the same manner (in fact, one of the default assumptions I’m making in the book’s profiles is that nobody can pronounce each other’s languages properly).

4. Don’t forget about cultural universals

Cultural universals are elements of culture that can be found in all human cultures. Here’s a sample list. As part of making sure that your aliens are truly alien, you should take the time to decide which universals the aliens do and don’t share with us.

Robert Freitas goes over cultural universals too, including a sample list of cultural universals for hypothetical alien species.

And don’t make humans the center of the universe either. If you have multiple alien species then you should come up with some cultural universals that are shared by some of the aliens but not by humans.

5. Don’t forget to make your aliens individuals

There will be rough cultural outlines, basic assumptions, stuff like that, common to each species profile. But I don’t want to make any of these species into a planet of hats, and one section of the profile will be geared to that end.

Let’s say that for some reason I were writing up Klingons for Species Shock. They kind of go against everything that the book stands for (indeed, you wouldn’t be totally off the mark in saying that they’re the reason that the book is being written) but whatever.

Klingons are pretty hardcore about honor and being warriors and stuff like that. So this section of the profile would give a few different examples of Klingon warriors, showing that there are multiple interpretations of their codes and honor systems and such. It will also describe, say, Klingon scientists, Klingon taxi drivers, and, oh, let’s say Klingon farmers, and discuss how each of these occupations applies the common Klingon ideas to their lives.

6. Don’t forget to set them in context

Your aliens did not arise out of the nether of the never-never. They have an evolutionary history, and even if they exterminated all other life on their planet there was other life there once upon a time. So take the time to get an idea of how they got from single celled organisms to where they are now. Figure out some of the places where their path diverged with other species. And above all, figure out what some of the species were that they are or at least were contemporary with.

You should be able to give a few decent paragraphs of what their world’s wildlife is like, and by having an outline of their world’s evolutionary history it should make sense.

Your turn: What else do you think is worth keeping in mind when writing up aliens?

R. Donald James Gauvreau works an assortment of odd jobs, most involving batteries. He has recently finished a guide to comparative mythology for worldbuilders, available herefor free. He also maintains a blog at White Marble Block, where he regularly posts story ideas and free fiction, and writes The Culture Column, an RPG.net column with cultures ready for you to drop into your setting. 

And my first generator in awhile is up – the Undead Generator!  I wanted something to jumpstart me a bit, and then I saw a review for the game Cave Evil, which has an amazing “death metal” design and plenty of undead.  That made me think about the various undead in other games and their unique natures compared to garden-variety monsters.  I got inspired to make an undead generator and make monsters a bit more metal . . . and disgusting and rotting.

So you can get monsters like:

• Consuming Ripper of The Sands
• Doomed Slayer
• Dread Shambler
• Enchantment Wraith
• Exhumed Warrior
• Festering Grinder of the East
• Ghoul of Hell
• Hellish Festering Lasher
• Interred Homonculus of The Ocean
• Resurrector of the West
• Rogue Phantom of The Sky
• Rotting Atrocity
• Vampire Atrocity of Stone
• Wind Poltergeist
• Wraith Rock Rakshasa

I consider this a first release – it probably needs a bit of tweaking from feedback (some of the elaborate names seem overly elaborate).  Overall I’m quite pleased, because it’s “on” quite a bit – and when it’s on, it’s really on (Hellish Festering Lasher is an extremely ‘metal’ monster name.)

What was interesting with this generator is that it was reminiscent of others I’ve done.  “Themed” generators often have a mix of words that fit the theme and that are general.  Thus you could have a Rotten Shambler (suggesting undeadness) but a Rock Shambler has no “undeadness” – but a “Rock Ghast” does sound udead.  So getting this to work was a case of mixing words that suggest undeadness and general words to suggest creatures and beings.

OK folks, go to it, and let me know what you think!

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/