I just chedcked out a fifty-year-old book from the library. It hasn't been checked out in 39 years! How cool is that. I love the forgotten treasures hidden in the library. :)

The lady that checked me out gave me a funny look. I can only hope it's because the book hadn't been checked out in so long and she wondered why I was getting it all of a sudden.

It's Moss Hart's ACT ONE, which I heard about on NPR and I want to see if it can give me any insight to my playwriting.

So, after a couple of false starts, I finally finished the first novel of the Black Company. There are some things I really enjoy about the story, most importantly was the naming conventions. I love the name creation for the company. For some reason this ended up applying to most everything in the north as well, and I don't quite understand how that works. It actually diminished the choice for the company, in my mind, but not so much that I would have stopped reading. (I have stopped reading a book before because of the naming conventions--The Darkness That Comes Before by Scott Bakker comes immediately to mind.)

I enjoyed the interaction between the company men and that they didn't harbor any illusions as to what types of people they were. It was strange that Silent was described as the most evil in the company yet so frequently engaged in good acts. Given that he was only ever declared evil in one sentence, it seems unnecessary. It wouldn't have been a contradiction of character if not for that one sentence. I was certain he was going to be a tool of the Dominator but in fact never did anything evil at all.

I also liked the politics of the Taken and the layers upon layers of backstabbing. For as omnipotent as they often were, I'm actually surprised so many deceptions were possible. I was a bit confused when the Lady was talking about the dominator turning the female taken against her since two of the three women at that point were already dead and the new women she had taken and seemed wholly loyal to her.

That's kind of the mark of the book. There are a lot of internal inconsistencies. I picked up quickly that it was originally written as a series of short stories (or at least written in a serialized manner). The end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3 say the same things, but chapter 3 presents them as if it were the first time the reader had seen that information even though it had appeared only a couple pages before. It's what you would do if you were writing a sequel, which clearly he was. Likewise, some of the sight gags Goblin and One-Eye use repeated themselves yet elicited reactions from the company as if they were something new.

The book reminds me a lot of fiction that I and so many other people often are inspired to write: stories of or derived from our gaming experience. The north continent seems a foggy mirror of the Bandit Kingdoms, the dominator Iuz, and the taken his Bonehearts. Even the circle of Eight...teen make an appearance. If the story hadn't been written so long ago, I would be certain that at least part of the setting came from his role play experiences (even some of the early action in the book has classic DM obstacles painted all over them). Given its age, I'm hesitant to make that claim with any certainty. If I did, I'd say that at least some of the Taken had been PCs. Cook spends way too much time describing things like Soulcatcher's dagger which is NEVER seen again in the rest of the story. That's something someone does when they're writing about a beloved character. And so many of the tropes are represented. Dressed in all black. The focus on one particular skill set or magical trick (Bonegnasher had 26th strength even though the chart only went up to 25. He was that strong!). Some of the Black Company often felt like PCs. Much like my group with Bad Ken, once we took our original characters as far as they could go, we then turned them into NPCs and ran new characters in their world. I can see Raven, Silent, One-Eye, and maybe Goblin as PCs. I could see Croaker in that list as well, but PCs as main characters are a tricky thing.

Overall I enjoyed the book and will be continuing on to the second novel. This book also reaffirmed my self-confidence, something that's been taking a pounding during revision (compounded with it being "revision season" at work). The Black Company has weaknesses but is still a good time. I don't have to fret so much over my own weaknesses if I can be equally engaging (though, like always, I want to be better, so using this as a benchmark isn't enough). :)

Last question for the day and then I'm going to bed. I'm continuing to read Pat Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind, and a comment I posted on a semi-private list (where both Pat and our circle of friends converse) I'm going to repost here as a question.

What is the attraction of a protagonist who has the answer to everything? It's a recurring theme in fantasy novels (and mainstream novels for that matter), and one that consistently turns me off. I've always chalked it up to the author having self-esteem issues and overcompensating through his own character (living vicariously through the dashing hero, etc.). This is derived mostly from my experiences with my ex-business partner who proved this theory time and time again. But it seems to broad a generalization for all the authors that create these books.

So for those of you who enjoy these types of characters, what's the appeal? What interest do you have in them knowing that they already have the solution to any problem they might face? What's the risk? What's the challenge?

And if you don't find these characters appealing but have wondered on the topic yourself, you should also feel free to weigh in (I know my mocking the New York Times Crossword Puzzle has yet to elicit an avalanche of replies).

Good night Yacko, Wacko, and Dot.