Good Afternoon Good Evening and Good Night!

One of my all-time favourite movies (as in, in my top ten) is The Truman Show. If you haven't seen it, you really should. It's one of those movies that just blows your mind. For me, it was like the Matrix, or Inception... for others, not so much. What can I say? One man's junk is another man's treasure.

Those of you who haven't seen this movie, I will briefly describe what it was about. Basically, this guy Truman was adopted as an infant by a corporation to be the star of a reality TV show in which he would star. But he has absolutely no idea this is happening. He seemingly goes through life normally, unaware that every person he's ever met is an actor, and everything he's ever done has been seen by millions. The story follows his journey to discovering the truth, all the while questioning what 'real' really means.

I love this movie for so many reasons. One of the things I like is how it jabs at the way our culture is so transfixed with reality TV, and what that's doing to our outlook on life. The audience seems completely unconcerned with the fact that this man is being manipulated and controlled for his entire life without consent for their entertainment. Sure they might be distressed when Truman is being battered near death in his sailboat in the storm the producers made for him, but they show only as much concern as they would any other character from a movie or TV show. They don't stand up demanding the producers to put a stop to it, they don't cry out in outrage. They just watch. Glued to their screen, wondering "Is he gonna make it?"

Another reason I like it, is because the idea that everyone you've ever met is an actor is a profound idea. What if your entire life was a lie? How would you possibly know? I think the producer put it best when he said (forgive me if it's not exact) "We accept the world with which we've been presented." So what kind of world have you been presented with? Is there a possibility that it's all been a lie?!?

Like I said. Mind blowing.

One other interesting tidbit, is that this movie doesn't really fit snugly into a genre. At least not to me. It's kind of a love story, kind of a drama, kind of a comedy, but not a rom-com, and not a fluff piece...

It's just a story. And a darn good one at that.

Through the majority of the film, Truman is driven only by his own determination that something is not right with his world. Everyone is against him, and yet he cannot discern a single antagonist to act against. He's not really working to overcome some great evil, or right some terrible wrong, he's just searching for the truth. With everything he has in him. To me, that's really inspiring.

One could also argue that he's driven by his desire to see Sylvia again, and I would be okay with that interpretation. However, personally I think the search for truth is just as important to him as his potential relationship with the woman he loves.

So what am I trying to say with all this? That sometimes, a book is just a book. I think we do a disservice to many books when we slap a label on them. Now, I understand that we can't just not label books, because then, where would we put them in the bookstore? General? That would get crowded pretty fast. No. What I'm saying is, I don't think we should get so hung up on genre when it comes to what books we'll read.

I'll be the first to say that I write sci-fi, but I'm really not a hard-core sci-fi fan. Before you crucify me, let me say one thing in my defense. I have read many sci-fi books, and what I've found, is that the ones I like,  I really like. And it's because they have really cool ideas, or great characters, or plots that drive you to read on forever. What I don't like, is when either A. The book is so focused on the setting that it neglects to develop anything else, or B. When a book gets boring, or complicating beyond belief. What is my point in saying all that? Simply this.

I like good books.

I will not say I like sci-fi but not romance, or I like thrillers but not spy books. I'm just a fan of well written books. It really doesn't matter to me what kind of book it is. I just want a good story. So, bringing it full circle, I like the Truman Show because it's a great story. And on top of that, it proves that you don't have to be a stereotypical genre piece to be good at what you do. If you just tell your story the way it's supposed to be told without giving in to the gimmicks of the genre, you'll do far better in the long run in making a great piece of art.

Having said that, not many people know what The Truman Show is. Is that because I'm alone in saying it's great, or because it didn't fit into a nice little box that people could understand and gravitate towards? But I digress.

I'm gonna leave you with that. What do you think of genre? Do you think it's a necessity to fit a label, if only for convenience's sake? Should we embrace a new way in which we don't have to label everything? Or is this topic only relevant to the few books that actually have trouble fitting into specific categories?


PS. I didn't get to say goodbye to everyone here in Calgary yet, and I know my time is short. So in case I don't see you, good afternoon good evening and good night! :D

A Person's A Person, No Matter How Small

My absolute favourite Dr. Seuss story is "Horton Hears a Who".

"What?" You may ask.

To which I would reply, "No, a WHO."


While it's true, this probably isn't Dr. Seuss' most famous story, it has remained near and dear to my heart for many years. The recent re-make was one of the only movies I've ever watched twice in theatres. The reason why? Because in this story, we see two people fighting against everyone they know, and everything they've seen or heard to defend their belief in each other. To me, this is awe-inspiring.


For those of you who haven't watched/read Horton Hears a Who, SHAME ON YOU - I mean, that's okay. I'll give you a quick run-down of the plot. *Spoiler Alert* (You really should just read it on your own when you get the chance, if you haven't noticed I highly recommend it)


Synopsis

 One day, in the Jungle of Nool, Horton the Elephant hears a small noise, which he soon attributes to a small speck of dust - being the only thing around. Eventually he discovers that there must be very small people on this speck, too tiny to see. When a sour kangaroo hears of this, she says it's absurd, and tries to destroy the dust speck because it's obvious to her that there couldn't possibly be people that small. Meanwhile, on top of the dust speck, the scientist/mayor (depending on which version you watch or read) tries to warn the town of Whoville that they are in danger and that their whole world rests on a speck, but no one believes him. So both Horton and the mayor spend the better half of the book trying to convince the people around them that there is another world out there that they can't see, hear or touch. This culminates in an intense moment where Horton is tied up and thrown in a cage by the kangaroo and a few monkeys, and the speck is about to be dropped in a pot of boiling beezlenut oil. The whole town tries to shout out "We are here!" to stop this from happening, but no one can hear them until the smallest who of all lets out one tiny "Yop". When all is said and done, no one believed in the who's because they were so small, but their whole world was saved by the smallest of all - reinforcing the central theme that Horton states early on, "A person's a person, no matter how small."


It's incredible that cartoon characters can sometimes communicate themes like this more effectively than live-action actors.


Why I love it


For me, when I see Horton giving it his all, and never doubting the Who's existence for a moment, it just makes me that much more invested in the story, and makes the "roping and caging" scene so much more intense. I think that anyone with a strong sense of justice will always be more involved in a story when the main character is put through great trials through no fault of his own, or accused of wrong when innocent. Horton did nothing to deserve the sour kangaroo's wrath, but even when she did unspeakable things to him, he never once lashed out at her, or insulted her, or tried to get back at her in any way. In fact, when all was said and done, he readily forgave her.


Similarly, the who's did nothing to deserve being thrown in a pot of boiling beezlenut oil, and all their efforts to be heard seem completely in vain until the very last moment when the smallest who lets out that yop.


When I was watching this in the theatres, I remember the "We are here/roping and caging" scene very vividly. Watching the who's doing everything they can to make noise, and Horton doing everything he can to keep them safe is absolutely riveting. Granted, this story may fall under the category of "I watched it when I was young so I can't find any faults with it.", but I don't think that's the only reason why I like it.

In the end, this story is about belief. It's about believing in what you can't see regardless of what people around you think. Horton and the mayor were both made fun of, ostracized and rejected for what they believed, but they stuck to their guns, and kept pushing no matter what the cost.


Why this matters to me as a writer

As an writer, I'm always trying to think of ways to create compelling, likeable characters for my stories. Something that has recently come up through thinking about Horton Hears a Who, has been the aspect of belief. If a character is realistic, they're going to have some core beliefs that really mean a lot to them. I think a really powerful way to get people to care about a character is to portray that character as someone who will stick to what they believe, no matter what people around them say. Of course, this can become problematic when those beliefs prove to be erroneous, but at least for me, I hate a flip flopper.

I can't stand it when a character is tossed to and fro depending on the current thoughts of the time. I love to see dynamic characters that can change, but who don't just change because everyone tells them to. I want to see them change as a result of the story. As a result of what they've experienced, and from their own introspection. How can you respect someone's values if they're constantly changing them? How can you root for a character that's changing their motives every five minutes?

I love Horton because of his determination, and his guts. I honestly don't care much that he isn't all that three-dimensional. I'm okay with the fact that he doesn't necessarily have any character flaws, or anything to make him more 'realistic'. He's an elephant. He's a cartoon. He doesn't have to be some ultra-realistic person anyone could relate to. He's a likeable character that goes through a lot because he's loyal, kind, and he never gives up.

Why this matters to me as a person

In a way, even though Horton isn't a real person, he's someone I can look up to. There are times when I want to shrink into the background and not say anything about my faith for fear of what others will think of me. There are days when I really don't want people to ask me about what I believe. But is this because I expect them to really persecute me like some people are being persecuted right now in other parts of the world?

I'm not exactly about to get roped and caged for what I believe in. But I'm still hesitant to voice my opinions in some areas. Why?

Because at the end of the day, I want people to like me.

Really, that's what it comes down to, and to be honest, that's pretty selfish. There are people out there literally dying to share their faith and I'm sitting in the corner twiddling my thumbs waiting for the topic of conversation to switch back to the weather. I think that there are areas in my life where I really need to be more like Horton and just say it like it is. "This is what I believe, this is why, and like it or not that's the way it is!"
  
I could go on and on about this story, and about how I also see the connection between the theme "A person's a person no matter how small" and abortion, but that would probably at least double this already lengthy post, so I'll save that lovely subject for another day.

But I want to know, what are your thoughts about this? Are you annoyed by people who "stick to their guns" and don't budge on their beliefs? Or do you admire them?


I realize no one's infallible, and sometimes we need to be open to correction from others, but at the end of the day, are you just a people pleaser? Or do you really, really believe what you say you believe?