League of Superheroes: The Reilly Factor 2

Ansric: Yesterday I asked Tom Reilly, or Darklight, about a few oddities in League of Superheroes. I'll continue that line today, though in a different direction.

To begin with, you say in LoS that you decided to write the story based on what you knew at the time. I can understand your reasoning, but it does lead to some contradictions. At one point you will clearly state one thing, but then a book or two down the line you say something else.

Tom: I had no choice. If I started out with the truth, or anyway with what I know and think now, it would be really hard to follow. This way, the reader should hit the changes gradually. I bet most readers won't even notice.

Ansric: But there are times when you'll make a remark that only makes sense in light of something that happens later. I edited out a few of those, but I left quite a number in. I sometimes think I should've tossed them all.

Tom: I bet Frank Creed would've left them in.

Ansric: Actually, he advised me to take a few out. Still, he's more a writer than an editor, and you definitely need an editor. Anyway, to clarify the change in situation, when you wrote this was near the beginning of the final story arc of the League of Superheroes series--"Heirs of Excalibur."

Tom: I thought we were going to call that "The Excalibur Solution." It sounds better.

Ansric: Perhaps readers can vote on it. Anyway, my point is that you're writing this well after the fact. You're in your twenties, recently married, contemplating possible children and a world that looks like it's about to explode. You're beginning to realize the magnitude of the solution, and you have to leave some kind of explanation behind.

Tom: That's where it went. At first I was just trying to make sense of it all and give our kids something to think about. That's also why I had to write it the way I would've originally.

Ansric: Some people have asked me why you don't go into your school life much.

Tom: I mention classes and tests, but we were home schooled, more or less: our parents pooled their talents to teach us. So our group is more important than our school. I guess we stay to ourselves. I'm closer to Rod than to any of the guys from church, much less school. And I'm not that close to Rod. I also wanted to avoid distractions. Some of our school-based adventures show up in short stories, but the timing was awkward. Like the time we stumbled into a group of half-wit thugs--it was a good story, but it would've interrupted the narrative at a bad point: during the last chapter of League of Supeheroes, in fact.

Ansric: Let's see... I can think of various questions and comments that would go well beyond the current story. Oh, the "Mad Scientists" bit: That's a reference to The Mad Scientists' Club, by Bertrand R. Brinley.

Tom: Dad came up with a copy of it when we were looking for comics or science-oriented fiction. There are various books, but the first one's the best, even though it's really dated. We liked it because the science is real and the guys act like real teens.

Ansric: And there's considerable similarity between your group and the kids in Secret Agents Four, by Donald J. Sobol.

Tom: That sounds more like your hangup than ours.

Ansric: Both books are worth reading, though they are dated, as you said.

Tom: Maybe I'll check out Secret Agents Four, then.

Purchase League of Superheroes at Writer's Cafe Press, Barnes and Noble or Amazon.

Check out these other member blogs this week for more info.

League of Superheroes: The Reilly Factor

Ansric: I thought I'd start off this week's blog tour of League of Superheroes with an interview featuring the story's narrator, Tom Reilly. As I often say, he never shows up for appointments.
Tom Reilly/Darklight: As I often say, you need a new joke. At least a new invisibility joke.
Ansric: I'd like to concentrate on a few obscure points in the story and beyond--some things that bothered me a bit.
Tom: In the story is okay. I'm not sure about going beyond it.
Ansric: All right, I admit I don't care for "absolutely (in)correct" and "delete that." Would you mind explaining them?
Tom: I've always said "absolutely correct." Anyway, I don't know where I got it. Dad doesn't do it. "Delete that" was something Allen said a few times, but then Rod started saying it all the time just to bug him. I guess I caught it from him. He doesn't do it anymore, but I still do, though not as much.
Ansric: Most polyglots are mimics, and sometimes it gets out of hand. Next point: you don't bother translating your Spanish, French, or whatever most of the time.
Tom: Most of the time it doesn't matter that much, or you can figure it out in context. My opening chat with Genie just involved my asking her what language I was speaking at the moment, and she'd identify it and start in with a comment of her own.
Ansric: Which you would interrupt.
Tom: I sometimes forget my manners when I encounter a polyglot who's supposed to be a little girl. In Spanish, she says she hadn't considered something, probably having a chat in something other than English. In Japanese she said I was a splendid something; she didn't get to the noun. And I should mention that originally the second language was Russian, not Japanese, but you despise the look of transliterated Russian.
Ansric: Transliterated Japanese doesn't look bad, but transliterated Russian is an abomination. Related point: I admit I'm surprised that some people don't know what "pantsing" is. I thought it was clear in context at least, though I don't use the term myself.
Tom: It means you pull someone's pants down, usually from behind and at a really embarrassing moment. We don't actually do it, but any threat against Rod's pride is worth making.
Ansric: Near the end of the story, you look back at the whole affair and say "We had not completely failed." Why not just "We had not failed"? The other is awkward.
Tom: Awkward but true, as a lot of true things are. Do you realize how many people died--people who weren't ready to die? We should've done better.
Ansric: You did reasonably well for amateurs. And some of what happened was beyond your control. But then, you tend to blame yourself a little too much sometimes.
Tom: Most people blame themselves too little. But that goes beyond the current story, doesn't it?
Ansric: Just as well. You also have an annoying habit of saying things that only make sense later. For example, when you mention looking down on Clarice's prayerful approach to the suits and then call yourself a fool. That's a reference to the third story, Unity Six. And what happened then wasn't entirely your fault.
Tom: It was mostly my fault.
Ansric: And you saved Clarice's life twice in about a thirty-second interval to make up for it. And the second time you believed you were throwing yourself on a live grenade, so to speak: you didn't expect to survive.
Tom: It was my fault that her life was in danger to begin with.
Ansric: I'll disagree, but we should wrap this up. Tomorrow: a bit about the writing of the series--why Tom finally took it up and wrote it as he did.

Purchase League of Superheroes at Writer's Cafe Press, Barnes and Noble or Amazon.

Check out these other member blogs this week for more info.

Donita K. Paul Interview

I usually just review books, but I thought I'd break over and do an actual interview. But first, an overview based on the interview:

Donita Kathleen Paul was born November 20, 1950 in Lawrence, KS to Arthur Norman and Elnora Evelyn Foster Paul.

My father was an industrial, mechanical, and civil engineer. If WWII hadn’t interfered, he would have had a doctorate. Instead, he designed airplanes that wouldn’t fall out of the sky, even when riddled with bullet holes.

My mother taught and taught teachers how to teach for the Methodist church. My mother was a farm gal who furthered her education through fiction. She had an astounding vocabulary, a knowledge of many cultures, and ended up being a world traveler.

I had three older brothers, David, Stephen, and Jon. That meant there was a brother to hold my feet, one to hold my arms, and one to tickle.

Every one of us and many of our extended family were storytellers. Swapping tall tales at a family gathering was normal. One of my brothers was an oil executive and went to cocktail parties all over the world. He was known for what amounted to a stand-up comedy routine about his perception of his childhood. If you ask other members of the family, these accounts were fiction, or fictionalized truth, or out and out fabrication. At his funeral, his business associates were astonished to meet his seemingly normal family.

I graduated from High School in 1968. University of Houston in 1973 with a BS in Elementary Education.

I taught elementary grades in public and private schools until I retired in 1996.

Married, divorced, with two children.

(In case anyone wonders: I asked about all that because I couldn't find it online. And I'm nosy.)

The regular interview questions:

I was mildly surprised that you never commented on using dragons. Despite Bryan Davis' arguments to the contrary, the Biblical image of dragons is overwhelmingly negative. I can think of only one positive reference--Psalm 104:26. Do you consider this an issue? (For what it's worth, I can think of a possible defense; I just wonder about your views.)

I do not think the use of dragons is an issue any more than talking teapots or bears of very little brain. This is fiction!

I use many elements in my story to be allegorical. With all allegories, you must be careful not to carry them too far. They represent something that they are not. The minor dragons represent gifts God has bestowed on people: healing, music, ability to read and retain, providing light in the darkness, to name a few.

When the characters sit down for tea or a meal, that is allegorical as well. It signifies resting in the Lord and refueling from His Strength.

Why don’t I get called on the carpet for tea?

A dragon is a symbol for something evil in the Bible.

A fish was a fish until the symbol evolved as a sign for Christians.

A cross was a symbol of shameful death.

I have dragons who are good and some who are not.

The business of the Principles is also puzzling. I admit I haven't read the earlier books, just the last one for an upcoming blog tour, but it's almost like the local Bible consists only of Proverbs and the Psalms. Is there more?

The principles are mostly from the Proverbs. In DragonSpell there is mention of a story of how Wulder rewarded the generosity of the urohm people. And at another time, someone says that the Tomes are filled with guidelines for life and the history of how Wulder has worked in His creation. My intention was not to rewrite the Bible, but to use principles from Scripture in a fictional setting. Hopefully, the reader picks up on Truth that applies universally.

For that matter, has there been an Incarnation, or is that handled differently? Or has it perhaps not yet come up?

I admit to steering clear of recreating Christ. I feel Lewis did that with Aslan. He did it well, and I don’t feel the need to try to capture the essence of the Greatest Story in my fiction. Maybe God will impress upon me at a later date to do so, but I have no inclination now.

The Dragon Keeper Chronicles are about the Christian walk, how a person relates to God through acceptance of oneself, relationship to others, and glorifying the Creator in all he/she does.

There is no salvation message. As it turns out, it has been an evangelical tool in that readers have said to me, "I didn’t know being a Christian was like that. I’m going to learn more about Christianity."

That is gratifying, but certainly is not my work, but that of the Holy Spirit.