Quantum Storytelling

There are dozens of things that the TV series Lost does well, beyond the familiar cast-away premise with a more-to-the-island twist.

Read more

Dexter

Everyone has been raving about Dexter. I finally got around to watching the first two episodes. I like it a lot. Being a huge fan of the film Mr. Brooks, Donald Westlake’s novel The Ax, and the video game Hitman, I have perhaps an unhealthy appreciation for anti-heroes of the darkest sense. I do recognize, however, that my sensibilities are subjectively mine — and only mine. Which is why I was curious how Dexter’s creators would make a serial killer sympathetic to a wider audience.

They’ve done a great job. Not just because he kills people who deserve it: other killers, rapists, pedophiles. But because they do a great job of also portraying his lack of proper social emotions and justifying his moral compass through flashbacks with his father. Dexter is an excellent example of making the extreme anti-hero into a likable and even humorous character. You might glean a few characterization tips from watching the show, and it’s just plain enjoyable viewing to boot. Give it a try.

New Amsterdam

John Amsterdam is an immortal. He cannot die unless he finds his true love. Oh, the tragic irony. Being a child of the 1980s, I can’t help the unavoidable comparisons to the movie and TV series Highlander. New Amsterdam holds a few interesting twists.

First though, let me be honest in saying I probably wouldn’t have moved forward on this concept without at least a few more unique elements. I’m much more fascinated to watch this series by finding out where and how the creators differentiate from Highlander or any number of vampire movies. Immortality is a pretty narrow theme to explore, and I think doing so without being immediately compared to the most obvious familiar works is downright impossible.

That said, New Amsterdam differentiates in some interesting ways. One of them is that the main character (also named Amsterdam) doesn’t seem to care all that much about keeping his immortality a secret. In fact, the world is so harsh and uncaring that nobody believes him anyway. This becomes a source of humor, with character interactions such as;

Amsterdam: “This nightclub used to be a speak-easy during the prohibition.”
Partner: “How do you know?”
Amsterdam: “I used to drink here.”

*Cue baffled reaction shot of partner.

There’s such a high level of plausible deniability in the idea of immortality, that the main character doesn’t have to hide his nature at all. This is a refreshing take, and avoids the obvious cliche of hiding a secret identity. It also adds a lot of humor.

It’s too early to say whether the show has legs, but I’ll keep watching for a little while out of creative interest alone.

There’s a fascinating interview with Heroes creator Tim Kring on the Entertainment Weekly site. In it Kring admits they made mistakes with season two, which many fans have been complaining about.

It’s funny because people don’t remember the first season having a slow build up, but it did. I’ve been willing to cut the creators a little slack in season two because I thought they were repeating the pace of season one. Turns out I was right;

”We assumed the audience wanted season 1 — a buildup of intrigue about these characters and the discovery of their powers. We taught [them] to expect a certain kind of storytelling. They wanted adrenaline. We made a mistake.”

Bless the information age. Can anyone imagine a TV show creator making an admission like this thirty years ago? This has been spreading around the web. What I think is most fascinating about this article is how everyone can learn from it. I’d say this applies to novels too. If you’ve got a slow introduction to the first novel in a series, there’s no reason to repeat that slow introduction for the second novel.

These are core lessons about crafting any kind of series, whether it be TV, movies, novels, comics, or games.