When I started writing Wizards I spent some time trying to figure out what sort of genre it fit into. I mean, okay, it’s science fiction, borderline fantasy but I needed to know more specifically than that. Because — wizards, okay? But we’re not talking epic fantasy wizards. There’s no great quest or universal do-what that they’re facing. There aren’t heroes and villains in those kinds of broad brush strokes. So what do my wizards do?
I knew the framework I wanted for my characters but… My wizard works for the government, okay? And there’s a lot more to that. And there’s a lot of ways where it’s not really true but… Just take that to start with. He works for the government sometimes. So what? He’s a cop? A spy? An action hero? (Well, okay, yes, action hero, I think that’s rather built in. Although less action hero more action hello-did-I-set-that-on-fire?)
But this story was just never going to be a police procedural. So I thought — detective story? But just — no. I mean, I admit I started dreaming about my wizard while reading the Dresden Files books but I don’t actually want to go there. I enjoy detective stories and mysteries and other crime-solving things but I don’t really want to write them. (That being said, the first book-like-thing I ever wrote was a thriller and I barely even read those. So.)
But anyway, I was rolling these ideas around in my head, trying to get a handle on how these characters work in their world. And then I figured out where I was going wrong. I was looking at it from the wrong side. They’re not solving crimes, they’re doing crime. And everything just fell into place. Apparently I am much happier writing an active rather than a reactive role and being devious and weaselly rather than saving the damsel in distress and punishing the guilty. (Can’t go around punishing the guilty. Where would I end up? Honestly, always beg for mercy not justice.)
And okay, there’s a level of conflict in all of that. Because my wizard sort of works for the government but he’s not doing crime for the government. (Except maybe sometimes if it lets him manipulate the situation to get him out of trouble. But then it’s not crime technically it’s minorly-illegal-acts-in-the-pursuit-of-a-larger-end. Or at least that’s the way he phrases it when he’s called on it.)
Chris G: What are you guys up to?
Me & Paul M: Fighting crime.
Chris G: So, how’s that going? Killed any villains?
Paul M: No, we kind of made one.
Me: We’re not very good at it…
So it turns out my heroes — well, they’re not villains, but they’re criminals. Well, a bit. Well, some of the time. Well, from a certain point of… yeah, no, they’re pretty much criminals. Most action heroes are, really. They go about endangering lives, destroying property, making ordinary citizens aid and abet them in ludicrous, thoroughly questionable acts, imprisoning people against their will… (Even if they’re bad guys, they’re supposed to be arrested properly. There are rules. Heroes never do it right.)
Not that I’m justifying it or anything. I’m just saying, as action heroes go, mine are simply more up front about which side of the law they’re on. Unless they’re talking to their bosses. In which case they’re absolutely acting within the appropriate guidelines and only responding to the situation and have no idea how that caught on fire and they were nowhere near it anyway and they really need a drink now and possibly some bandages for no reason at all, why are you looking at me like that?
Kandace Mavrick
Paul McLaughlan
platform thing 
Wendy White
10/01/2012
I was thinking about this yesterday while dicing zucchini and watching animated robot-controlling heroes. The heroes in this particular series stole a prototype government spaceship along with some other technologies, and are now going around surfing on robots. With… some other elements thrown in there. Somewhere.
But essentially most of what they do is illegal, and they kill a lot, a _lot_ of government agents during their adventures. But (so far) those agents haven’t had faces, they’re just goons in masks or robot bodies. So the series is still kinda playing the protagonists as morally superior, however I can see it’s slowly turning things around now to make the audience start to become suspicious about whether that is the case or not.
They’re doing that trope I always enjoy where you begin to see analogues of the protagonists on the antagonist’s side, and you see how little difference between them there is. Always fun!
Making villains: fun for all the family.
Kandace Mavrick
10/01/2012
Yes, that’s me. Setting things on fire for fun and profit. And deeply thoughtful explorations of ethics for heroes. Actually that should totally be a class. Ethics for Heroes 101.
– Just because you saved her life, doesn’t mean you get the girl.
– Just because he’s ‘the Bad Guy’ doesn’t mean you’re justified in jumping up and down on his face.
– You really shouldn’t set fire to things in sheer exuberance. I mean, we understand you’re excited but does that belong to you? No. Does it say belong to some perfectly reasonable citizen who has nothing whatsoever to do with the fight you’re engaged in? Yes? So don’t you think they’d prefer if their office wasn’t set on fire/car wasn’t stolen and trashed/commute home wasn’t interrupted by flying debris?
– The Government isn’t always right. They’re not always wrong either.
– You can’t choose which laws to obey. I mean, obviously, you CAN. But at that point you’re a criminal. Deal with it.
etc
Wendy White
10/01/2012
This is my biggest complaint about the Harry Potter universe. The House system is essentially “lawful good” “chaotic evil” “academics” and “plebs”.
Occasionally you see Harry make crappy decisions based on being a hormonal angsty teen, and by the end Snape breaks the Slytherin stereotype to a degree, but really it all comes down to moustache-twirling baddies and morally unambiguous goodies.
Many people have made this point before me, but still. It annoys me that there was so little moral ambiguity in that series. Sure, it gets darker, but even then it’s pretty damn clear who is ‘good’ and who is ‘evil’. There was also something insidious in there that to me implied you can’t escape your birthright – whether you were born to be a bad guy, or born to be a good guy. Draco was essentially doomed to gloom from the start.
Although I guess you could say Rowling broke the stereotype of the bad guy who turns good by being moved by – oh, wait. Never mind!
On the other hand, I think that X Men: First Class did this quite well.
Plus, Michael Fassbender *imagine this last bit being written in glitter pen with little hearts*
Kandace Mavrick
10/01/2012
Mm. The Harry Potter series is interesting in that way. Like it TRIES to go to the grey place, it really does. And certainly many of its overt statements are like ‘you are not defined by the position you are born into’ but at the same time it’s based on a fundamental fairy tale style understanding of the universe – the child of heroes ends up a hero, the child of villains may struggle towards good but can never be truly happy. You know. (Also the Power of Love. Very Important fairy tale theme.) And fairy tales tend to be quite black and white moralistically. So the series is a bit contradictory and confusing and does laudable things and appalling things and… yeah. I wrote an essay about this once upon a time.
X-Men: First Class has its very own issues, but I thought they handled Erik and Charles and their conflicting philosophies really well — in a way that makes you kind of agree with both sides. Because you have to admire Charles’s optimism and his let’s-not-just-kill-everyone thing. But basically, Erik’s not wrong. Some of things he does as a result of that viewpoint are a bit dubious but his basic philosophy…
Which is why it’s so genius. And why they’re generally depicted as still being friends 50 years later. Cause they disagree, but it’s not because Erik’s evil. A lot of the time it’s because Erik’s right and Charles doesn’t want him to be.
And yeah, Fassbender and McAvoy did a brilliant job. Which is pretty freaking impressive seeking as they were following Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart.
Wendy White
10/01/2012
This. Exactly. It’s a fantastic dynamic.
wolflullaby
11/01/2012
I’d never seen the Harry Potter houses broken down in quite that way. It’s SO TRUE!!
wallace
14/10/2013
I remember that thriller and it’s now really bugging me that I can’t remember whether the creepy baby stealer got away with it. Knowing you, she did.
Kandace Mavrick
14/10/2013
She totally did. I can’t believe you remember that. I don’t even remember you reading it. (Although that could be because I’m constantly in denial about people reading my early work. I like to tell myself it never happened.)