Johnny L. Wilson's Blog: Doctor Johnny's Literary Medicine Show

Perhaps, it would be more accurate to describe the types of novels I want to write about in this essay as novels with media ties. Although this discussion was inspired by a novel about a comic book character rather than the typical novelization of a motion picture about a comic book character, some of the observations I wish to bring to the party are appropriate for novelizations, as well. And, to make sure we’re on the same page, I’m not talking about graphic novels—just novels about characters in a shared universe who are larger than life.
I am a tremendous admirer of the work Peter David did in creating a solid novel based on The Incredible Hulk (as well as his excellent novels in the Babylon 5 universe), but I must add the disclaimer that I believe his experience in writing The Incredible Hulk comics put him in good stead, just as Denny O’Neil’s experience with the Batman comics prepared him for a solid experience with the Batman Begins novelization. Yet, with such authors, one gets the sense that they are able to live and breathe the “canon” of the comic book histories before they add any psychological awareness or motivations to the party. I think the challenge is very different when one is writing about the universe with somewhat of a disconnect from the “canon,” as did C. J. Cherryh in Lois and Clark: A Superman Novel. Admittedly, the latter was essentially a novelization based on the television series, but the novel itself was far more compelling to me than the series. I believed the characters and enjoyed the characters more in Cherryh’s treatment than seeing the actors portray them. And, of course, Tom De Haven’s daring retake in It’s Superman takes far more chances
Having limited experience in the idea of creating a novel in a shared universe (I was the infamous T. H. Lain #5 who wrote The Bloody Eye for Wizards of the Coast’s short-lived line based on the iconic characters of Dungeons & Dragons: 3rd Edition.), I understand something of the value and limitations of working with pre-existing characters. For the T. H. Lain books, the authors were given access to a spreadsheet that took the statistics of all of the iconic characters from their initial adventures at “first level” up to the pre-epic statistics of a “20th level” character. Each author of the novels was allowed to choose 3-4 of the iconic characters to weave into her or his plot and, the characters were supposed to be at approximately the level within the stories as the number of the book within the series. With the fifth book, the iconic characters with which I worked were supposed to be fourth or fifth level.
But, I did something sneaky. Instead of merely concentrating on the iconic characters, I created my own character to travel alongside the standard characters. I had her threatened and damaged by one of the villain’s machinations, but resilient enough to be an interesting adjunct to the adventuring group. Plus, facing her own deformity, it made sense for her to bond with the half-orc barbarian iconic character. To be honest, it was much more fun writing scenes and dialogue for her and for my custom villain (a “good” cleric who had been disappointed in his faith and turned to the “bad” side in search of power) than it was to write for the iconic characters. In fact, one of the hardest criticisms of the book to take was the fellow who savaged me for having the druid character and the good cleric act so self-righteously. I thought I had given their interaction a nice amount of sexual tension mixed with rivalry, but I guess not. Nonetheless, I found it difficult to work with characters for whom I had not created the psychological motivations underlying their personal struggles.
And while this doesn’t exactly fit the subject of this blog entry, I had a rather embarrassing experience when writing the half-orc barbarian. My editor had misinformed me (prior to being laid off) that I was going to be the first author to put Krusk in a novel. So, I felt more freedom in dealing with Krusk than I felt with Jozan who had appeared in an earlier incarnation. I used a stylistic conceit of having Krusk draw out his sibilants and thought I had established a nice balance by using only a couple of sibilants in each statement. When I turned in my draft of the novel, my new editor informed me that I couldn’t use that conceit because another writer had not done it with Krusk in an earlier book. I was crushed. It wasn’t a difficult rewrite, but it was a necessary one. Unfortunately, it messed up my image of Krusk and I don’t feel like I handled him very well in the novel, either. In short, I’m very proud of my villain and my supporting character, but I’m not all the proud of the characters I shared with others.
So, I understand how difficult it is to adapt a character from one form (whether from a film, comic, game, television series, or graphic novel) to another. In fact, remember that the characters with whom I was working weren’t characters that had been experienced in comic, film, or television before. They were merely known from statistics and description in the core rulebooks for a role-playing game. I can’t imagine trying to rework characters that everyone thinks they know. I have the utmost admiration for people like John Byrne and Kevin Smith who have successfully recreated familiar characters more than once.
There is a two-edged sword wielded by those who try to give any audience something new. There is a sharp edge among fandom that says, “Give us something fresh!” But the other side is just as deadly when it says, “Don’t destroy any of the things that I love!” That is why, in publishing, smart editors look for a balance between “comfort and surprise.” De Haven’s It’s Superman! offers a modicum of comfort and a lot of hard-edged surprise.
The comfort in It’s Superman! comes from familiar names and places, though De Haven clearly locates Metropolis in Manhattan—a logical assumption that isn’t usually explicit in the “canon.” But we still have Smallville (even though Lana is missing), Ma (briefly) and Pa Kent, Lex Luthor (though not the high school rival and scientific genius from the “canon”), Lois Lane (not exactly as I’ve always pictured her), a Superman suit (again, not developed as per the “canon”), and the Daily Planet. What we don’t have is a Clark Kent who has developed confidence to go with his super powers. His country bumpkin persona used to deflect his Superman personality from his secret identity is all too real in this incarnation. We don’t have a Clark Kent who is naturally intelligent. Apparently, the scion of the super scientist of Krypton is of only average (if that) intelligence and not even a competent reporter on the small town paper. Apparently, Superman doesn’t have that Aristotelian sense of virtue that we see in the “canon.” This Superman acts out of a sense of ethical egoism. Superman is even a criminal when it suits him (and I’m not just talking about vigilantism).
Those aren’t the only surprises. Pa Kent is a “free thinker” according to Ingersoll and isn’t afraid to let anyone know it. From my knowledge of small towns and my impression of the rural U.S. of the 1930s, I doubt that a Pa Kent would have been quite so open in his rejection of theism. It just wasn’t done by the “good folks” even if some of their religiosity was hypocritical sham. Lex Luthor is convincing as a crooked politician, maybe even more credible as a character, but the missing scientific genius in favor of pure criminal mastermind doesn’t work for me.
There is comfort in the historical references: Will Roger’s fatal plane crash, Dillinger’s fall, FDR’s WPA, “Our Town” opening on Broadway, Poverty Row film studios reusing props and costumes, a reference to Hugo Gernsback’s preferred term of “scientifiction,” and more. These references were dead on and used extremely well. Yet, I was less than thrilled with the hobo-style peregrination of Clark from Kansas to Manhattan. It just didn’t make sense to me that Superman would ride the rails from job-to-job and hobo junction to hobo junction. Even Clark’s decision to say good-bye to Pa Kent in the way he did, didn’t resonate well with me.
And, as for Lois Lane, no one should begin to get me started about De Haven’s characterization of Lois. Lois as a hard-hearted career woman might resonate with some people, but it left me wondering why Clark/Superman would even care about her. To be sure, I can see Lois sacrificing everything for a story, but this Lois is totally self-absorbed and uninteresting. It seems reasonable to think that even in the decades before women’s liberation, it should have been possible to be both ambitious and feminine, both intelligent and desirable. But De Haven’s characterization of Lois would fit better with a lesbian Lois Lane than it does with a “canonical” Lois Lane.
Frankly, I’m glad I read the volume. I’m always interested in new stories or retold stories about heroes and supporting casts with which I have a vested interest. I love reading books in a series because the characters are like long-time friends and acquaintances to me. I enjoy reading books in a series because I enjoy seeing the characters grow. It was for the same reason that I picked up this novel based on comic book/radio/television/film characters. Yet, I felt a little dirty as I put the book down. I felt like I had betrayed my memories of some interesting characters. I’m sure there is a place for non-canonical stories about familiar characters, but reading It’s Superman! had me wishing that most of those stories would stay in the area of fan fiction and never find themselves on a legitimate bookstore shelf like this one did. Of course, this is all merely my opinion. Isn’t that what blogs are for?

Does it ever seem unnatural to you when a character or series is continued, expanded, or developed by another author than the original creator? I know there are entire societies where membership requires writing yet another Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan story. I know that some of the old Marvel Comics editions of John Carter of Mars were right there in the ERB tradition. I know that Felix Francis is trying to carry on his father's tradition and I am somewhat comforted by the fact that he collaborated with his father on a couple of novels before the more famous Francis died. I realize that terrific writers like Philip Jose Farmer have messed with the Tarzan canon to great approbation.

Yet, it was with a strange feeling that I picked up a copy of And Another Thing from the bargain shelf at Barnes & Noble the other day. Having met Douglas Adams and had a wonderful dinner debating the existence of God with him one evening in Cannes, I felt just a little dirty picking up the book. Yet, scanning a paragraph or two, I knew that this book was an homage of which the late Douglas Adams would have approved. Although I'm not zipping through this little volume like I thought I would, I find myself wondering if the zaniness isn't a little overwrought. At times, the prose seems so out there that it feels like one of those faux-Hemingway contests where the authors go over the top to emulate the master's literary conceits and stylistic approach. I have to admit, sometimes the over-the-top approach reads closer to Hemingway than some of the bare bones, unpolished prose of his posthumously published works like Garden of Eden. Still, I find myself both enjoying And Another Thing and feeling something hollow inside.

Reading this book brings back some of those old geek science-fiction debates we used to have (very analogous to Norman Spinrad's "pope" in Deus X). If we could accurately record someone's memories and make those accessible to the most sophisticated AI imaginable, would the conversation seem soulless or would our ability to see the "man" behind the screen keep us from experiencing an "authentic" conversation. In short, is there a Futurama-like future where we could have conversations with long-dead "heroes" in much the same way that those cartoon characters interact with talking heads in little globes?

I'm not entirely crazy, here. The prolific critic (and erstwhile screenwriter) Roger Ebert has enough of a body of work in audio and video that a group has created a means for him to "talk" by typing. Oh, that Stephen Hawking had such a tool! Imagine, if you will, that the Ebert technology is perfected. Then, add in this amazing AI (based on observing Ebert's reasoning and creativity over all these years)and this huge memory cache of audio, voice, and the actual memories I posited. Would you get anything like the critic and writer most of us read and admire?

Sadly, I think these works where talented authors take up the mantle of someone who has gone before teach us that such an experiment--an artificial Buckley, Ebert, or even Nixon (composed from speeches and the Watergate tapes, of course)--would still be hollow. It might be a delightful experience to interact with this artifact of a person and might be an entertaining one, but it would never be totally successful. Some people might even like Faux-Buckley or Faux-Ebert better than the original, but that isn't the point. The point is that it would still be more interesting to interact with the individual than the elaborate artifact expansion that could be built.

Before I make the point you've all anticipated, let me mention one more "bizarro" thing. At some point, I met a person who was working on a neural network project where he was studying the patterns with which people play games--ordinary card games--online. His idea was that if you could get a good enough neural net based-AI with enough of a sample of an elderly person's game playing, you might never have to tell an elderly person who plays online that their online opponent had died. I remember wishing this individual luck, but remember questioning whether this is truly a good thing. Would we really be doing an elderly person a service by hiding the fact that Joe Overbid, their regular bridge partner on MSN had died? After all, we tend to look at those obituaries in the newspaper more closely as we get older, and I know from my own experience that every obituary that hits home (God bless you, Ernie Harwell! God bless you, Frank Frazetta!) inspires me to accomplish more with my life. I expect that to be true until I can think no more.

And, of course, my long overdue and very telegraphed "point" is that I'm enjoying the latest take on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but somehow I wish it were possible to read another volume of this or another Dirk Gently novel straight from the source. And, of course, I wish I could have had another go at this man with regard to theology and philosophy in Cannes, or London, or Boston, or Santa Barbara. Anywhere our paths could have crossed again, that would have been terrific.

PS -- I'd like to apologize for leaving this blog blank for so long. I was under the foolish impression that the book reviews I was writing were going directly to the blog. I'll try to be more proactive in the future.