Category: Musings

The sidekick in literature and movies/TV, while a minor character, can be as complex and as important to the story as the main character is. It is through the sidekick, or henchman if it’s a villain, we the audience can see a different side of the main character. Their job can also involve being someone the audience can relate to better than the hero.

Usually there is only sidekick. Think of Dr. John Watson, Gabrielle from the show Xena, or Robin from Batman. This makes it easier for the author and the audience to keep track of as well as providing a good balance. If you have a serious villain then there’s a good chance his or her henchman is going to be funny or a goof ball (see Harley Quinn to Joker in Batman: The Animated Series). Sidekicks don’t generally tend to be the same age as the hero or heroine, or the same gender either (I guess because some people think males and females can’t be just friends). Again this is to provide a contrast to the main character and to either bring wisdom, or not, and experience, or not, that the hero may not have.

Although keeping track of one sidekick is easy, it is possible to have more than one. For example, on Buffy the Vampire Slayer Buffy’s main sidekicks are Xander, who frequently provides the laughs and a brotherly figure, and Willow, who, once she becomes a powerful witch, provides back-up so Buffy can focus on handling the Big Bad while they handle the henchmen. In The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Frodo has Sam, Merry, and Pippin as his sidekicks even though Sam is Frodo’s best friend, Merry and Pippin come along for the journey. Modern literature and TV/movies experiment more with having multiple sidekicks yet it is still a rarity.

As there are different types of heroes and villains, there are different types of sidekicks exist. Some serve as a humorous foil. Others provide an alternate point of view, usually behind the scenes. Some possess skills the hero or villain doesn’t have or do tasks the main character can’t be bothered to do. Sidekicks can help expose flaws in the hero/villain and can act as a voice of reason.

However, a sidekick/henchman can also be a liability, sometimes distracting the main character from completing a specific, critical task. They can be kidnap and used as an Achilles’ heel as has been the case for some of the companions in Doctor Who. In the villain’s mind this forces the hero to choose between their sidekick’s life or defeating evil. Of course, the hero is always able to do both. Still, it makes for great drama and keeps an audience on the edge of their seat.

There are times a sidekick overshadows and surpasses the hero in popularity. For example, one could argue Spock is a more popular character then Captain Kirk even though Spock is second in command on the Enterprise. In this case it could be because Spock is so different from Kirk and a complete opposite to Kirk’s other sidekick Bones that viewers connect more with him despite his cool, logical personality. Spock, though, is the exception to the rule of when the sidekick becomes more popular than the hero does. Usually the type of sidekick that gains popularity is when they are the funny one as people like to laugh.

Naturally, not all main characters have or need a sidekick in order to be a fully realized character or to achieve their goal. Personally, I think the sidekick archetype needs to be used sparingly. While I appreciate a good supportive and funny sidekick, I’d rather focus my attention on the main character and his or her journey rather than getting distracted.

Memoirs. Creative Non-fiction. Autobiography. No matter what you call it, recalling one’s life, famous or not, is a popular genre. It’s so popular some have even been made into films (for example, Eat, Pray, Love). You don’t need to be famous, though, to write a successful memoir. That used to be the case decades ago because only celebrities and historical figures seemed to be the most interesting people on the planet. Today this isn’t the case and in fact some of the most successful memoirs are written by the average person.

Why are memoirs so popular? Is there a correlation between the popularity of the genre with the virtually universal usage of social media such Facebook, Twitter, and blogs? Perhaps, although trying to find information to back this up has been difficult. Social media does seem to have had an impact on how people present and talk about themselves.

The memoir, or autobiography as it used to be known as, has been around for centuries. St. Augustine’s famous Confessions was written in the very late 4^th century and moved people so much by his life story and conversion to Christianity that it heavily influenced the spread of the religion throughout the world. During the 18^th and 19^th centuries, readers were usually unable to distinguish between fiction and nonfiction so people used that to their advantage by selling tales of their wild lives.

In article from 2007, Jerry Waxler discusses why memoirs have become popular. He argues that through a memoir a reader can experience different lives and different viewpoints without having to ask intrusive questions. I agree with this to a certain degree but that only makes sense if the author has something powerful to say. For example, The Autobiography of Malcolm X had a big influence on perceptions and misperceptions of the black experience in America.

But can’t a reader get this same experience through fiction? I would say yes, especially if the author knows what they’re doing. Yes, truth is often stranger than fiction but what’s so strange about recounting the trials and tribulations of getting a divorce? Or surviving cancer? Or a survivor of abuse? True, some people aim to share a particular part of their life with others in the hopes of helping other people, but sometimes I get the impression the memoir is self-serving.

Some have used a memoir as a springboard of getting into the publishing business. James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces was originally written as fiction. After not being able to sell it, he decided to market it as a memoir. That’s when it got picked up for publication. After it was revealed many sections were falsified, it still sold well and is classified as fictional memoir. Is this a good idea? Personally, I think not unless your aim is to become a memoirist. If it is then yes, by all means go that route. If your goal is to write books in other genres why start your career with a memoir? Even if it’s well written and interesting, as a reader I don’t see how that will compel me to pick up your other books unless they are in a genre I favor. Maybe that’s my own snobbery as I truly don’t get the need to share very personal information with the rest of the world.

People truly and legitimately are fascinated by the lives of other people which is good and bad. My own personal preference is to write fictional stories of other people who long to have their voices heard. I’m a very private person and because I don’t think I really have led a particularly unique kind of life. I find that blogging about being a writer and what I’ve learned or disagree with is enough sharing for me. There’s a saying “Everybody has a story to tell” which I think people take too literally. If writing a memoir is a cathartic release, that’s great but is it something you really need to share with the world?

Ahhh, the age old question: Is the book better than the movie/TV show? This simple, purely subjective question can quickly lead to some really ugly arguments with no solution. For whatever reason, people can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact books and TV/movies are two different storytelling mediums. What works great in one medium will not work in the other because you’re comparing text to images. Imagine someone writing a description of a great piece of art. No matter how well-written and descriptive that narrative is, nothing substitutes for actually seeing the art piece in question.

For many readers, though, a beautifully written story allows the reader to visualize and ‘see’ but what the reader sees varies from person to person. 10 people reading the same exact description will visualize it 10 different ways based upon personal experience. And there are some readers who don’t actual see what they are reading. For example, when I read, I see the story rolling like a film in my mind but there are others who don’t. It’s not that they dislike or don’t enjoy reading it’s just that’s how their mind works.

Usually the biggest cause of arguments in book vs. TV/movie version lies in changes made. Again, we are talking about two different mediums. Book readers have different expectations than a TV/movie viewer. A slower paced story usually works much better in a book because it simply takes longer to read then to watch something. The visual medium has a fixed time limit. Viewers also expect a quicker pace (unfortunately) and if you don’t give that to them, they’ll change the channel or walk out of the theater. Because of that, cuts have to be made when a book is adapted. This could mean minor subplots are dropped, minor characters could be dropped or several meshed into one, major plots are changed, etc.

It is these changes that rankles readers and understandably so. Perhaps a beloved minor character just doesn’t show up. Or a plot is changed too drastically in order to fulfill a movie/TV viewer’s expectations. Sometimes an entire character’s personality is changed. Scenes between characters that aren’t in the book are frequently added in thus expanding a certain character’s role or adding more to the existing plot.

One thing a book reader must, must keep in mind is the author pretty much little to no say in the changes made when their book is adapted. One would think the author would be consulted, or at least given a heads up, but those in charge of the adaptation, and the studio backing it, call the shots at that point.

Casting has the potential to be another bone of contention. Do you cast someone who looks, or can be transformed through hair and make-up, identical to the character but can’t act? Or do you cast the person who best fits the role because they have the best acting ability but their looks may not quite fit the author’s description? Glad I’m not a casting director. In an ideal world it would be great if the person picked for the role not only could act, but also looked the part. But the world is never ideal. Personally, I’d rather have the best actor cast for the role especially if they ‘get’ the character they are playing over casting a horrible actor because they ‘look’ the part.

My personal belief is the book is almost always better than the movie/TV show and not because I’m a writer and love books. I love movies and TV almost as much and feel there are stories that are better told through the medium. But books can provide a lot deeper insight into a character, especially quieter, more introverted, introspective characters. And sometimes the setting is so fantastical and trippy that it’s best left to the reader’s imagination (CGI has changed this dramatically). More complex plots work better in books unless adapted into a mini-series or a set of movies.

There is no clear way to ever settle this debate. Pros and cons exist for both. While debate is healthy and can be fun, don’t let it turn into all out warfare. If you’re a book reader and hate the movie/TV adaption, that’s fine. Grumble and stick to reading the books but don’t treat people who prefer the adaptation as somehow stupider for it. For movie/TV viewers, if you haven’t read the source material, try picking up the book. Or not, it’s your choice just be prepared for the potential book snobbery. We all like what we like and no one should make another person feel bad. Truly it is to each his own.

Unless you enjoy anything Michael Bay directs. Then you and I can’t be friends.