Yes, excellent technique, ST, describe it when you need it, and unleash regular tricky author maneuvers to make sure the reader stays alert. Heh heh heh ... the author sneaks up on the peacfully meditating reader ... just HAD to try out that taser, didn't you! The startle reflex: work that heartbeat! Beats aerobics.
I've got a question. I was just posting about the orcs, who I've always felt very sorry for-- the uglies just had no chance-- how is an orc supposed to reform? Orc to Elf archer: 'But I'm a GOOD orc!' Elf archer: '*twang!* You are now!' (Yes, I know, technically, elves are supposed to accept surrender. Still doesn't mean they'd listen to the higher aspirations of an orc.) Sauron, on the other hand, I don't feel sorry about at all-- 'Oh, the poor misunderstood godlike maia, he just couldn't help but sew wanton malice and mayhem. Boredom is SUCH a terrible thing.' --no, I don't think so.
So, what do you think, is it better to have a purely hateful villain, or a villain with reasons (like being MADE wrong) that readers can feel somewhat sorry for? Would you rather have both types? We've touched on this in previous pages of this thread, (Nazgul Number Nine was eloquent on shades of grey in a character), so let me extend the question: What TYPES of reasons to go wrong or stay wrong would you buy in a bad guy?
|