The Trailer For Every Covid Movie

Choose your fighter!

A: Uplifting, life-affirming cash grab

B: Dramatic medical-thriller cash grab

C: Docudrama science-thriller cash grab

D: Actually good Covid movie

A: Uplifting, life-affirming cash grab

Scenes of the characters going about their daily lives, stressed and unfulfilled. They live in a suburb in Illinois, or maybe Georgia.

Smash cut to a montage of real news footage from January through March 2020. End with a series of increasingly close shots of Wolf Blitzer’s face as he says something like “everything…is locked…down.”

Fade to black.

Caption: Sometimes it takes a disaster…

Scene of the main character making a decision: during the pandemic, they’re going to (reconnect with their family/get the band back together over Zoom/cook meals for all the seniors in their neighborhood).

Caption: …to find your way

Main character’s spouse expresses skepticism that they can pull this off. Main character responds with a winning smile.

Smash cut to a local news reporter: “(Main character) is really doing it. They’re (solving 100 jigsaw puzzles with their kids/topping the Billboard charts with a song recorded on Zoom/running a massive soup kitchen for every grandma in the state).”

Cut to a previously unseen character, who introduces a complication: “Do you really think you can (make up for all the little league games you missed/win the top prize at the VMAs/cook Thanksgiving dinner for Hungry Bertha, the Grandma Who Devours Time)?”

Starring (comedian cast in a slightly dramatic role for shock value)

Exactly two bars/one lyric from a Top 40 song.

A montage of increasingly brief scenes of vigorous celebratory motions, accompanied by a V.O. explaining how important it is to have a dream in troubled times.

Title: Locked Down…But Not Out

In theaters August 2021 (started filming as soon as the director got vaccinated)

B: Dramatic medical-thriller cash grab

Scenes of the characters going about their daily lives while engaging in light banter. One of them is wearing medical scrubs.

Smash cut to the exact same news montage as before, only this time with a dramatic strings soundtrack, and Wolf Blitzer is saying “hospitals…are…overwhelmed.”

Cut to the character wearing scrubs tearfully telling their spouse that they won’t be able to come home tonight. Cut to the spouse holding the phone and staring at a point just below the frame as sirens wail in the background.

Montage of dramatic hospital scenes: doctors running down hallways, scrubs-wearing character pushing a gurney, top-down shots of intubated patients. V.O. of clipped phrases like “Get her to the ICU!” and “We need oxygen!”

Starring (Academy Award-winning actor or actress)

Scrubs character: “If we don’t do this, people are going to die!”

And (Academy Award-winning performer of another gender)

Child, speaking to non-scrubs character: “Is (mommy/daddy) coming back soon?”

Non-scrubs character, hugging child: “We have to be strong for (mommy/daddy) now, OK?”

Caption: In the darkest of times

The same local news reporter as the first trailer: “Cases are rising across the board…”

Scrubs character, who remains beautiful despite a 24-hour ICU shift: “We don’t have a choice!”

Caption: They made us hope again

Montage of increasingly illegible hospital scenes, intercut with at least one shot of the leads kissing, as the strings reach an orgasmic crescendo.

Title: Unprecedented, Surging, or possibly just Covid

In theaters June 2021 (scheduled two days of filming every time Pfizer made a press release)

C: Docudrama science-thriller cash grab

Scene of the main character going about their daily work at a lab. There is still light banter.

Cut to the same news montage as the first two. There are no changes, except the soundtrack is now vaguely electronic and minimalist, and Wolf Blitzer is saying “a vaccine…could be years…away.”

Scenes of the main character stressing out at home, with an elderly voice-over talking about how much they loved doing science as a child. They might say something folksy like “Oo-wee, you played with that chemistry set all Christmas Day!”

Caption: Sponsored by Pfizer

Cut to the main character on a Zoom call with their boss: “I know how we can do this.”

Boss: “Dammit, (main character), mRNA is completely untested technology.”

Main character, with a smile 85% as winning as the ones from trailer A: “Gotta start somewhere, right?”

Starring (actor or actress who would really like an Academy Award)

Scenes of the main character looking into microscopes and fiddling with test tubes. A colleague complains: “Nobody’s done this before. What makes you so special?”

Main character: “(witty quip to establish that they’re not like a regular scientist, they’re a cool scientist.)”

Smash cut to the Boss pointing at a computer model of a DNA helix: “Our positrons are completely negated. We’re down to a Zaroff Score of less than 37 percent. Can you fix this by Monday?”

Cut to another Zoom call, where the elderly mentor from earlier is revealed to be played by a beloved performer from the Royal Shakespeare Company doing a passable Southern accent. Main character: “I don’t know if I can do this.” Elderly mentor: “You ain’t never given up on nothin’ in your life.”

Caption: When the world doubted him/her

Main character and skeptical colleague are striding down a corridor. Colleague: “If we try this, people are gonna die.” Main character: “People are gonna die if we don’t!”

Caption: S/he proved them wrong

Completely silent scene of a vaccine being administered to a patient’s arm as the main character watches intensely over a livestream.

Title: The Vaccine

In theaters April 2021 (filmed illegally in Chad’s mom’s basement during the first lockdown)

D: Actually good Covid movie

Any content

Any title

In theaters any time after April 2031

Join us next week for The Trailer for Every Movie About the Capitol Insurrection.

The Definitive Ranking of Every Super Mario 64 Level

We’re all choosing to celebrate the Fall of Trump in our own way. Some people are dancing in the streets. Some are shouting from the rooftops. For my part, I’m writing an entire blog post about Super Mario 64, because it feels like the world has once again become just friendly enough that I can waste time on stuff like this.

Super Mario 64 was my first video game. It holds a special place in my heart because it seemed like I was always fighting someone for the controller — no matter where the Nintendo 64 was located, it was forever someone else’s turn. Until it was re-released as part of a collection on the Switch this year, I never once got to play it all the way through.

Now, 120 stars later, I’ve decided to tackle a long-standing question: which of Super Mario 64‘s 15 levels is the best, and which is the worst?

Prepare yourself, dear reader, for some controversial statements.

15: Dire, Dire Docks

Dire, Dire Docks - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Dire, Dire Docks is a clone of Jolly Roger Bay, which already isn’t great. There’s nothing above the water in the first section, and hardly anything below it in the second. Most of the stars involve just sort of swimming around until something happens.

I’ve ranked some levels low on the list because they’re frustrating, but Dire, Dire Docks is the only one that’s out-and-out boring.

14: Tiny-Huge Island

Tiny-Huge Island - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

I remembered hating Tiny-Huge Island as a kid, but couldn’t remember why. As an adult, it all came rushing back to me.

Every single moment in this level seems to be some manner of godawful precision challenge. From trying to step on tiny Goombas, to inching along narrow planks, to that one jump where you have to hurl yourself into a pit and hope the wind blows you the right way, Tiny-Huge is all pain, no fun. It’s a shame, because the gimmick is cool.

13: Jolly Roger Bay

Jolly Roger Bay - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Look, it’s time to face facts: swimming in Mario 64 just isn’t fun.

Trying to control Mario underwater is sluggish and stressful. It’s baffling that Nintendo decided to hang not one, but two entire levels on this mechanic. You’re constantly drowning, you can never move fast enough to avoid anything, and if you make a mistake and get hit, you’re that much closer to doom.

Jolly Roger Bay does, at least, manage to nail the atmosphere, with its pirate treasure and iconic music. But I’ve still never figured out what the hell gets that eel to leave its cave, other than just swimming right into its teeth.

12: Tall, Tall Mountain

Tall, Tall Mountain - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Beyond this point, all the levels are fun to play. However, they don’t all have that Mario 64 x-factor — the sense of being a joy to explore despite being built on ancient technology.

Tall, Tall Mountain is a perfect example of a course that’s competent without being enchanting. It does nothing new or exciting. Instead of thinking “What’s around the next corner?” the player’s reaction is more likely to be “Haven’t I been here already?”

11: Cool, Cool Mountain

Cool, Cool Mountain - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

If you’re going to build an entire level around one mechanic, sliding is a better choice than swimming. At least sliding is entertaining. But it’s hard to escape the fact that no less than 4 of Cool, Cool Mountain’s stars are 90% slip-n-slide (and 2 of them occur in the same featureless void).

Also, if that baby penguin doesn’t shut up, I swear to Miyamoto I’m going to leave him in the snow.

10: Wet-Dry World

Wet-Dry World - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

It would be easy to write off Wet-Dry World as just another swimming level, but in truth, it’s more like the Water Temple from Ocarina of Time — except less of a headache.

Yes, the scenery in this stage is as dull as it gets, but the gimmick makes up for it. Changing the water level using switches must have given players in the 90s a dazzling sense of control over the environment. While we’re all jaded today, it still makes for fun puzzles, and the discovery of “downtown” retains the power to thrill.

9: Tick Tock Clock

Tick Tock Clock - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

We have to admit, collectively, that Super Mario 64 is not ageless. Far too many of its challenges come not from the smart level design, but from fighting the clunky controls.

On some level, the team seems to have been aware of this. For the most part, there’s not much difficult platforming in this game…until course 14.

Tick Tock Clock is where Mario 64 finally lets down its hair and allows the platforming to get freaky. And it works. While the controls and camera get in the way from time to time (pun intended), it’s by and large a smooth, exciting challenge. The only reason I’ve left it at #9 is because of stiff competition, and because it doesn’t feel like a cohesive world the way some of the other stages do.

8: Snowman’s Land

Snowman's Land - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

I predict this one is going to court controversy. Some people hate Snowman’s Land, and I do see where they’re coming from, especially when you have to hide behind that penguin to get across the ice bridge.

It’s always been a personal favorite of mine, though, because of its sheer density. There’s so much going on in a relatively small space: secrets, tricky jumps, cool uses of the wintry theme, and great opportunities for shell surfing. The only thing it’s missing is a decent boss fight.

7: Rainbow Ride

Rainbow Ride - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

This level might be responsible for more broken controllers than any of the others, but I can’t resent it for the same reason I like Tick Tock Clock: it’s ambitious.

Rainbow Ride goes all the way and then some. Every star involves exploring a completely new section of the stage, and soaring through the air ramps up the epic factor. It’s challenging, but unlike Tiny Huge Island, the frustration feels earned.

What could move it higher? Perhaps one or two more chances to take a breath. Being required to stay with the magic carpet lest it disappear means you’re constantly sprinting — you never get time to luxuriate in the setting.

6: Lethal Lava Land

Lethal Lava Land - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Mario 64’s only lava level that isn’t a Bowser course, Lethal Lava Land is where the game starts to get serious. If you’re looking for opportunities to set Mario on fire, you’ll find them in spades here.

My biggest gripe is that it’s a bit linear, but unlike Rainbow Ride, being on rails complements the theme instead of diminishing it. Rainbow Ride should feel freer than it does; Lethal Lava Land feels exactly as dangerous as it needs to.

5: Bob-Omb Battlefield

Bob-omb Battlefield - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

The very first level of Super Mario 64 is hard to rank objectively, given how steeped in nostalgia it is for so many of us. It’s bigger than it needs to be, and has some stretches that don’t add much value. However, nostalgia goggles or no, Bob-Omb Battlefield hits its one job out of the park: making us excited for what’s to come.

There is SO MUCH to play with in here — cannons, koopa shells, wing caps, teleporters, a boss fight, Chain Chomp, giant rolling death orbs, and more. It’s an absolute Disneyland of 3D platforming goodness, and never fails to get me hyped for the rest of the game…even when I know that game contains Dire, Dire Docks. Now that’s a feat.

4: Big Boo’s Haunt

Big Boo's Haunt - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

This sinister mansion shows a strong grasp of horror conventions. Some rooms are completely empty, building suspense for what’s to come. Others seem quiet and tranquil, until a haunted piano comes to life and shortens your lifespan by 10 years.

Fine, it’s not exactly Resident Evil. But it’s a serious accomplishment to achieve any chills at all with graphics that look like a Windows 95 screensaver.

Want more proof? Big Boo’s Haunt left such an impression on gamers that it spawned an entire spin-off series. The Luigi’s Mansion games are clearly direct sequels to this level.

3: Hazy Maze Cave

Hazy Maze Cave - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Along with Big Boo’s Haunt, Hazy Maze Cave foreshadowed the levels of Super Mario Sunshine, the direct sequel to 64. The tropical destinations of that game strove to feel like functional worlds, as opposed to just playgrounds for the protagonist.

Big Boo’s Haunt felt like a real haunted mansion. Arguably, Hazy Maze Cave does an even better job of feeling like a legitimate abandoned mine shaft — all without sacrificing any traps, secrets, or platformy goodness. There are hastily-scrawled warning messages, rusting machines, hazardous rockfalls, and poison gas. And like all good labyrinths, there’s even a monster at the center.

2: Whomp’s Fortress

Whomp's Fortress - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

There’s a reason Nintendo chose this level to recreate for the Throwback Galaxy in Super Mario Galaxy 2. Whomp’s Fortress is the absolute essence of Super Mario 64.

It’s a blast to explore, with a fun level design that packs big events into a small space. Pushing walls, moving platforms, Whomps, Thwomps, and sleeping piranha plants are crammed in nuts-to-butts with other unexpected goodies.

Tighter than Bob-Omb Battlefield, more eventful than Jolly Roger Bay, and more varied than Cool, Cool Mountain, Whomp’s Fortress is an early fireworks show that guarantees the staying power of Mario 64.

1: Shifting Sand Land

Shifting Sand Land - Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Just grab a wing cap and fly over Shifting Sand Land, and you’ll see why I’ve named it the pinnacle of Super Mario 64 level design. It’s simultaneously a sprawling wonderland and an action-packed thrill-ride. The quicksand pools are threatening, Tox Box obstacle course is heartstopping, but the mysterious structures, oasis, and pyramid are enchanting.

Then you get inside the pyramid, and there’s basically a whole other level in there. Add to that my personal favorite star in the game, “Stand Tall on the 4 Pillars,” and a “secrets” star that actually manages to be a puzzle, and you’ll understand why this is the only course where I always, without fail, play all 7 stars straight through.

So that’s my list — I’d love to know yours! I probably won’t be doing Sunshine, because I don’t like it very much, or Galaxy, because the levels there can’t really be compared. Next post, as usual, coming whenever!

Is it Time to Give Up on Harry Potter?

There’s nothing like Harry Potter. Literally nothing.

With the possible exception of Star Wars, I can’t think of a single fiction that has made more of an impact in the past 100 years. The four Hogwarts houses, “muggle,” and “death eater” are English dictionary terms now. J.K. Rowling’s work has birthed sports, religions, and entire genres of literature.

And yet, over the past couple of years, I’ve noticed a marked shift in the way people talk about Harry Potter. Maybe it’s because the people who grew up with the series are adults now, and are beginning to look at their childhood passions with a more critical eye. Maybe it’s because of the relentless bad behavior of Rowling herself, from trying to retroactively add diversity to the series to blithely appropriating Native American myths to openly endorsing gender essentialism.

Or maybe it’s all because Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was so bad. I don’t know for sure, but it’s clear to me that it’s time to have the discussion about whether Harry Potter deserves the influence it wields. I thought I’d throw my two cents into the debate with a few reasons the Potterverse deserves to remain relevant, and a few reasons it should be consigned to the literary dustbin.

Why We Still Need Harry Potter

1. It’s a relevant political and social allegory.

Is there ever going to be a time when battles between good and evil aren’t relevant? Only when we run out of evil, and that’s as unlikely to happen as us running out of good.

So Harry Potter doesn’t map perfectly onto any real-world struggles. Who cares? It was never trying to. Instead, the books teach kids an important truth: that a few people in the world straight-up suck, and that makes it all the more crucial for the rest of us to stick together.

As ridiculous as it is to claim that Harry Potter is Holocaust literature, it is true that Voldemort and the racist fifth column he leads are the first form in which many children encounter evil. I particularly remember the scene in which Dumbledore explains to Harry what the protection of his parents’ love really means, and how important it is when fighting Death Eaters that you not start thinking like them.

With an ever-growing menu of hateful ideologies out there to corrupt young people, prioritizing love is a non-trivial message. In the U.K. where Rowling started to write, with Margaret Thatcher barely in the rearview, the idea of caring for people regardless of their origin was even more relevant — and has proven prescient in the Brexit era.

Harry Potter expresses its positive values in other surprisingly prescient ways. Harry never demonstrates a whiff of toxic masculinity. The fact that his signature spell painlessly disarms his enemies makes him something of a precursor to Steven Universe. The use of Dementors as an allegory for clinical depression also holds up, with Harry seeking out therapy from Professor Lupin rather than toughing it out.

Also, it works. Research shows that people who read Harry Potter display more empathy and less prejudice than those who don’t. Basically, it’s the opposite of Fox News. Isn’t that reason enough to keep it around?

2. Rowling’s behavior should not influence how we read the books.

The concept of “death of the author” is controversial, but it applies here. To avoid getting too jargon-y about something I don’t fully understand myself, “death of the author” is the idea in postmodern literary criticism that the author’s intentions are irrelevant to the meaning of a text. Instead of trying to decode what the author was trying to do, we should look only at the words themselves.

Yes, J.K. Rowling has repeatedly espoused colonialist and trans-exclusionary views in public forums. But the whole basis of modern literary criticism is that books can hold meaning not imbued by their authors. Jane Austen probably never intended for anyone to apply Marxist theory to her books, and Shakespeare didn’t write Twelfth Night as queer lit, but both of their bodies of work are elevated by those interpretations.

Fuck J.K. Rowling. She may have written Hogwarts as a TERF utopia for magical aristocrats, but she can’t make any of us read it that way.

3. They are still really good books in a lot of ways.

It’s easy to forget that it’s been 13 years since a mainstream Harry Potter book was published. In that time, the Discourse surrounding them has grown so fervent that it often eclipses the actual events in the story — which is a shame, because it’s well-told.

Each Harry Potter book combines a dramatic plot with charming slices of wizard life, featuring a cast of characters that leap off the page. There are hair-raising twists (who can forget the first time they read It was Quirrell?), boo-hiss villains, stomach-churning setbacks, and plenty of humor. The installments are anything but formulaic: after realizing that Chamber of Secrets hewed a little too closely to the story beats of Philosopher’s Stone, Rowling never repeated the same plot twice.

What I mostly remember about Harry Potter, though, is the detours. The books don’t have dramatic, tightly wound plots that race toward the finish line, and I am completely OK with that. It’s the little things that make them unforgettable to me.

The magical closet filled with the garbage of a thousand years of Hogwarts students. The Weasley Twins spending all of Goblet of Fire blackmailing a magical gambling commissioner. The Three Amigos having a casual conversation while firing pillows across a classroom. Everything about Quidditch. Everything about Luna Lovegood. The scene from the Prisoner of Azkaban movie with the Gryffindor boys popping chocolates that make them roar like wild animals.

It’s imaginative. Gloriously so. It doesn’t always make sense, but that’s imagination for you. I see too few books like that in today’s brutalist publishing world.

You can argue that the prose is a bit workmanlike, but I didn’t notice that on the first read-through, and neither did you. The very fact that we’re still talking about Harry Potter proves that the books are damn good. Good books should have a place in society.

4. Harry Potter is proven to get kids reading.

A blog post featured on Potter fansite describes in detail how Harry Potter almost single-handedly reversed a decline in the world’s readership. Prior to the Potter phenomenon, reading books had become a niche hobby, with children and teens especially almost never reading unless forced to by school.

After Potter hit, that trend was reversed. Reading was cool again. Teens were racing home after school to pick up books. Once they’d read the covers off their Harry Potter books, they went to libraries and bookstores and looked for other stories that would make them feel the same way.

For so many of us, this series opened the door to the entire world of books. It happened to me too. I remember I didn’t enjoy reading as a child because I thought Roald Dahl was the only author in existence, and his weirdly gruesome kiddie revenge fantasies failed to grab me.

Hogwarts was different. It felt like a world that was mine, even though I knew it belonged to millions of other kids too. For a kid who shared a room with his brother until the age of 16, that was not a small thing.

5. It’s possible to acknowledge that a work is problematic and still get positive things out of it.

When I was editing the opinion page of the Whitman College Wire, one of my regular contributors wrote an excellent column about her complicated relationship with Gone With the Wind. It was her favorite book as a teenager, and despite now understanding how deeply racist and sexist it is, she found herself unable to let go of her happy memories of the story.

I agree that, as you grow older, it’s proper to re-evaluate the things you loved as a child. It’s rare, though, that anyone can let go of those things completely, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. A book you read and love when you’re young is part of you. You can no more negate its influence than you can forget a memory on purpose — it’ll only come back stronger in the end.

Instead, it’s best to critically interrogate how the story influenced you, and keep the good lessons you learned while casting off the bad. Many of us Potter fans are learning to do that in real time, thanks to Rowling’s ever-escalating personal shittiness. In fact, it’s because we internalized the Potter saga’s messages of tolerance and love that we’re now able to understand the coldness of some of its other messages.

6. The Potter fandom is bigger than J.K. Rowling or the original canon.

If I had to pick only one reason we shouldn’t cancel Harry Potter at the same time we cancel its author, it would be this.

The Star Trek fandom invented the modern art of fanfiction, but the Harry Potter fandom perfected it. There are concepts for Potter fics that have evolved into entire genres of their own. There are what-ifs, do-overs, time-travel fics, missing-moment fics, and every imaginable ship.

Once, my brother, my cousin, and I got on (this was in the days before AO3) and tried to find the most outlandish Harry Potter slash on the internet. After wading through the usual suspects — Harry/Hermione, Harry/Draco, Neville/Luna, Dumbledore/Grindelwald, James/Sirius/Remus — we discovered an imagined letter sent from Professor McGonagall to Hagrid’s brother Grawp, begging him to satisfy her animal lusts. That’s when we decided to back off and read some HP/Super Mario Bros crossover fic instead.

Potter fics have taken on lives of their own. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality spawned a radical fanbase and a new movement for “rational” fiction (while I hate that story with an intense passion, I can’t deny its influence). Dumbledore’s Army and the Year of Darkness showed how a different tone can have an enormous influence on the basic Potter tropes. The Draco Trilogy launched the career of another famous YA author, Cassandra Clare. And who could forget My Immortal, a sprawling, nuanced epic famous for its unflinchingly real portrayals of teenage sexuality?

I’ve met people who’ve read so many Potter fics that they can’t even remember what happened in the original books. That’s as it should be. Stories, once sent out into the world, don’t belong to their authors anymore. By desperately trying to remain master of her universe (see point #3 below), Rowling is only making that more clear.

Storytelling is not about devotion to a canon — it’s about how we make these tales our own. Harry Potter now belongs to too many people to cancel outright. It’s those fans, not J.K. Rowling, who will build us a better Hogwarts.

Why Harry Potter Should Be Forgotten

1. The politics in the story are vastly oversimplified.

While it’s now popular to interpret it allegorically, Harry Potter was never written as an allegory, and it shows. Saying “Voldemort is Donald Trump!” misses the fact that Trump came into power due to a perfect storm of social and political factors we still don’t fully understand. Meanwhile, Voldemort came to power because he’s the child of rape and therefore incapable of love (Yeah, that’s not great either, but we’ll get to it in a minute).

Remus Lupin claims that “the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters,” but in Harry Potter, it is. Every time a character is opposed to the protagonists, you can count the chapters until they join the wizard Nazis: Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy, Walden MacNair, Umbridge, Snape…by the end, the only reason the Dursleys aren’t Death Eaters is that they don’t have wands.

To be fair, there are a few characters with moral complexity, but on the whole, everyone who was good at the start is good at the end. Same with the bad — Dudley and Narcissa are the closest things we get to a heel-face turn.

What’s worse than that: everybody who disagrees with Harry is ultimately proven to be, if not evil, then at least wrong. Schoolmates, teachers, government officials…across seven books, I can count on one hand the number of times someone is allowed to have a legitimate grievance against Harry (to give Rowling some credit, one of those times is when Ron calls him out for being blind to the privilege Harry derives from his enormous Gringotts account).

Even worse: Harry himself is a staunch defender of the status quo. He sees no problems with the way the wizarding world conducts its affairs, save that the Ministry isn’t aggressive enough about dealing with terrorists.

It’s just not possible to meaningfully apply this black-and-white world to the hairy snarls of modern politics. The good and bad guys in our world are not as clear-cut. To pretend they are is harmful and reductionist.

2. Several plot and world details are downright troubling.

There are too many to list all of them, but something probably popped into your head when you first read this section heading. Perhaps the entire enslaved race of sentient creatures that’s portrayed as happy and carefree in their enslavement, while Hermione wanting to free them is treated as a character flaw? Children as young as 11 being allowed to play a sport that regularly kills adults? Umbridge getting raped and her PTSD being played for laughs? Fred and George not being called out for openly selling magical roofies to teenagers? Literally everything about goblins?

Lately, the one that’s been most troubling for me is the secrecy angle. Wizards could solve most muggle problems, but refuse to, because they don’t want to talk to muggles. Canonically, they can cure every muggle disease, so no wizards are getting COVID-19 (Hogwarts has to close for basilisk attacks, but not pandemics).

But they don’t distribute the potions to muggles. Why? The only explanation we get is from Hagrid: “Blimey, Harry, everyone’d be wantin’ magic solutions to their problems.” And…yeah. People do like getting their problems solved. Not exactly a hot take, Hagrid.

It’s later suggested that witch-burnings and religious persecution were to blame, but that point is relegated to supplemental material like The Tales of Beedle the Bard. In the main series, it’s just taken for granted.

They don’t even have to reveal themselves to make the potions. They could just Imperius a medical researcher and have them come up with a brilliant new treatment. Now that I’m a radicalized adult, it really chafes me that Harry never calls the wizarding world out for its callousness. How can you preach tolerance while still believing that 99.99% of the population are hopeless sheep who can only be guided and protected, not taught or valued?

You might say that grand structural change is beyond the scope of the series, but it  wouldn’t have been hard. The first Percy Jackson arc ends with the heroes standing up to the gods themselves and demanding they stop treating certain demigods as second-class citizens. How much more thrilling would it have been to have Harry defeat Voldemort by dramatically destroying the International Statute of Secrecy?

Come to think of it, after reading Rowling’s sickening essay in which she tries to pass off her bigotry as love — seems, on some level, to genuinely believe it is love — her wizards’ patronizing opinions of muggles now feels like ominous foreshadowing. “We should love and protect these people, but without helping them, or changing any of the things that are hurting them.”

3. The author is far from a revolutionary.

When J.K. Rowling came out with her infamous “sex is real” tweet, many of her longtime fans took it as a personal slap in the face. Rowling publicly took the side of people who think transgender women are not women, building on a perspective she’s endorsed before by retweeting transphobic accounts.

Travis McElroy memorably tweeted that all of Rowling’s characters would be ashamed of her. Ashly Perez reminded Rowling that she put the words “Never be ashamed” in Hagrid’s mouth.

But perhaps the most heartbreaking tweet came from an account called @notafootstool, who said that Harry Potter got her through her difficult childhood as a trans woman, and that its author’s support for gender essentialism had brought her to tears. “Why. Why?” she asked.

This opinion article in the New York Times goes some way toward answering that question. In the column, Dr. Sophie Lewis argues that American social justice movements, while far from perfect, have done a much better job of becoming intersectional and inclusive than their British counterparts. In the UK, upper-middle-class white activists have used their privilege to advance their narrow concerns, while crowding other voices out of the room.

That’s how you get people who complain that trans women are just forging their identities so they can invade the ladies’ room (the exact argument used by American right-wing evangelicals), and still call themselves “feminist” without seeing any irony. That’s how you get J.K. Rowling. She’s a firm believer in women fighting for an equal position in society, but only in a way that challenges gender roles, not gender itself.

The idea that humanity is composed of nothing but cis men and cis women is a foundational axiom for a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF). TERFs consider people who were assigned male at birth but identify as women to be no different from Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who infamously “identified as black.” They see trans women as “men in dresses” who want to steal their achievements, de-legitimize their movement, and invade their spaces, and trans men as “women in trousers” who want to betray their gender and join the patriarchy.

This philosophy is wrong. Understanding where it comes from doesn’t make it any less wrong. This is only meant as an explanation for who J.K. Rowling has always been: a writer whose beliefs might once have been radical and empowering, but who has chosen to cling to her privilege rather than evolve with the times.

All of this wouldn’t be as much of a problem if she was able to step back from her creation, but J.K. Rowling refuses to let Harry Potter go. She wrote a play. She wrote screenplays. She presides over Pottermore, which tweets out unwanted worldbuilding information, like that wizards spent untold centuries crapping themselves constantly. She’s a lead weight keeping the story locked firmly in the past, and any more positive fan interpretations have to compete with her infallible word. It’s too much to bear.

4. The franchise is becoming bloated and unnecessary.

In her video about Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Jenny Nicholson points out that you can spoil any of the Harry Potter books in a single line. Voldemort comes back. Sirius dies. Snape kills Dumbledore. Harry is a horcrux.

To spoil that movie, though, you’d need about 20 minutes, a flowchart, and a copy of the Lestrange and Dumbledore family trees, and by the time you were done nobody would care. Same with Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, unless “the Hogwarts Express food cart witch is an immortal god-like being” counts as a spoiler.

I get why Bloomsbury and Warner Brothers won’t let Harry Potter go. It’s a golden goose. I was even a fan of the first Fantastic Beasts movie. I thought it was exciting, perfectly cast, visually stunning, and refreshing as a Potterverse story without any Potters or Dumbledores.

That’s what I wanted the franchise to turn into. I wanted a trilogy of books about the Hogwarts founders. I wanted stories about wizards in China and South America who didn’t even hear about the Voldemort incident until after it was over. I wanted A Knight’s Tale but for Quidditch.

Instead, I just got Star Wars again, a universe where everything important happens to two families in three locations. If the people who own the Potter IP don’t want to take any risks with it, they should either give it to someone who will, or let it die.

(Imagine a Wizarding World film by Taika Waititi, or Rian Johnson, or Guillermo del Toro, or Danny Boyle. Or Alfonso Cuaron — oh wait they already did that and it was the best one. Maybe learn something from that, WB.)

5. Even considered on their own, the books have a lot of flaws.

Remove all the troubling political and cultural implications from Harry Potter, and the books still have some issues on the literary level. This Business Insider article lists several plot holes left unaddressed by the end of the series, including:

  • Why James and Lily couldn’t have made each other the secret-keepers for their Fidelius Charm;
  • Where non-prefects bathe at Hogwarts;
  • The fact that the Marauder’s Map could have revealed most of the twists ahead of time, including the true identities of Scabbers and Mad-Eye Moody, if anybody had bothered to use it;
  • The incredibly convoluted plot to bring Harry to Little Hangleton in Goblet of Fire, when Crouch Jr. could easily have just grabbed him in Hogsmeade and disapparated;
  • How Sirius got his wand back after escaping Azkaban;
  • Why Voldemort doesn’t require an Unbreakable Vow as a condition for being sworn in as a Death Eater, especially since no less than three of them later betray him;

And on, and on, and on. Once you start thinking about these, you’ll keep coming up with them all day, and half of them will relate to stupid decisions made by Voldemort. A lot of them seem to stem from Rowling having a cool idea for her universe, and throwing it in there without considering its broader implications on either the story or society.

Then there’s the often-suspect characterization. In her first appearance, Ginny is a nervous waif who can hardly speak; she then disappears for two books and comes back as an outspoken dude magnet and Quidditch champion who specializes in offensive hexes. Neither version of her is a bad character — what’s jarring is the lack of any intermediate stages.

There’s more. How the hell are we supposed to feel about Slytherin? Are we meant to feel sorry for Snape because he’s a victim of bullying, when on the next page he shouts the wizard equivalent of the N-word at the woman who’s supposed to be his closest friend? What are we supposed to make of the fact that Harry’s very real child abuse at the hands of the Dursleys is treated as comedy? Or that Dumbledore is objectively awful at his job?

None of these things would be dealbreakers if Harry Potter wasn’t the most culturally significant work of art from the last 50 years. Since it is, flaws we could otherwise forgive should be held up to a lot more scrutiny. When we examine the series in light of its later impact, we find a few slight stories that were never intended to bear such a load.


It’s obvious, and perhaps not surprising, that I still have a lot of feelings about Harry Potter. Watching J.K. Rowling reveal herself as a bigot in real time, I understand how my parents’ generation felt after learning from Go Set A Watchman that Atticus Finch was a patriarchal racist — although worse, since Rowling is a real person with real power.

With all that said, it’s impossible to “cancel” things. If it didn’t work in Ancient Rome, when they tried to damn the memories of hated leaders by destroying all their statues, it definitely won’t work now that we have the internet.

Not only that, but very few people (certainly nobody I’ve met) actually want things “cancelled.” They just want the components of our culture not to be worshiped uncritically. Can you still read Harry Potter? Absolutely. Will it ever be the same? Absolutely not. We’ll never again have that feeling of benevolent Auntie Jo reading us a magical story of wizards and curses, of evil people and the good people who fight them.

But I, for one, don’t think that’s all bad. There comes a time when every generation has to take control of their own stories. Oppressed groups are now standing up and demanding that stories include them, and if authors refuse, those groups write their own damn books.

On that note, I’d like to close by sharing this list of new speculative fiction books by black authors. Happy reading, and stay angry.

The 10 worst Britons in history — and what they can teach us about writing villains


Now that I’ve got your attention, let’s talk about baddies.

Scroll through r/writing or any other writing-focused forum, and you might be struck by the number of questions people have about how to write their villains. I don’t find this surprising, given how many kinds of stories are only as good as their bad guys — murder mysteries, spy thrillers, superhero smash-ups, and fantasy epics all come to mind.

Villains are tough to get right. Make them too evil and they’re boring. Make them too sympathetic, and they’re not villains anymore. Too weak, and there’s no conflict; too strong, and the audience might roll their eyes at anything your heroes do to defeat them.

By far, the most common piece of advice I see people giving new writers is some variation on this theme: “A good villain should think that he’s the hero.” Yet while this is useful advice for some stories, it isn’t always true.

Think about the most iconic villains in history. Does Darth Vader think he’s the hero? Does Iago? In the final episode of Breaking Bad, doesn’t Walter White admit that his noble reasons for becoming a meth kingpin were a sham, and that it was all about his own ego?

This is not to say that it’s bad advice to give your villain understandable motives and a reason to behave the way he does. I’m only saying this isn’t the only way to write a good villain.

Enter a surprisingly helpful resource: BBC History’s official list of the ten worst Britons of the last millennium. UK historians nominated their favorite utter bastards, and the BBC chose one from each century to honor above (or perhaps below) the others.

How can this help you write better villains? Truth is stranger than fiction, so studying true stories is a great way to get story ideas. Once you dive into the characters of these horrible Brits, you’ll find each of them has a different lesson to teach about ways villains can be made interesting.

After all, if they weren’t interesting, would we be talking about them a thousand years later?

1000-1100: Eadric Streona

Lesson: Sometimes a villain is interesting because of the sheer brazenness of his evil.

Eadric Streona was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman who advised three kings of England: Aethelred the Unready, Edmund Ironside, and Cnut the Great. I say “advised” charitably, because the proper term is “betrayed every single one of them, sometimes more than once.”

Eadric, whose cognomen streona means something like “the grasper,” was obsessed with gaining power by any means necessary. Starting as a thane — little more than a prosperous farmer — he murdered, lied, fled battles, and switched sides until he ruled a huge swath of England.

He’s a fascinating figure who teaches us that one way to write a great villain is to create a character who’s so evil, we keep watching just to see how bad he can get. While we hate him on one level, on another, we love to see his schemes and conspiracies unfold. There’s nothing good about him except how good he is at being bad.

A word of warning: a character like this needs to be smart. You can’t get the same effect by making everybody around them dumber instead.

1100-1200: Thomas Becket

Lesson: Villains are often the most compellingly evil when they have good publicity.

It’s a testament to Thomas Becket’s villainy that I was shocked to even find him on this list. I had only ever known him as a saintly martyr who was unjustly murdered by a wicked king — mostly due to Ken Follett’s The Pillars of the Earth, which portrays him as an out-and-out hero.

I had never been introduced to the opposing perspective that Henry II was trying to create a more equal England, and resented Becket and the church constantly meddling in his affairs. According to the Worst Britons list, Becket was an embezzler and a hypocrite who was in love with the temporal power he gained from his position as God’s representative on Earth.

How did a man like this achieve sainthood? Apparently, through a magnificent gift for PR. While Eadric Streona’s genius lay in convincing powerful people that he was on their side, Becket mastered the art of always looking like the good guy to a public that only saw him from a distance. And when is a villain more frustrating and compelling than when only the reader, and a few heroes, know what a douchebag he really is?

1200-1300: King John Lackland

Lesson: Your villain doesn’t have to be boring just because they’re in a position of authority.

Lots of people might find King John familiar as a recurring villain in the Robin Hood mythos, where he usually plays the grasping, tantrum-throwing foil to his noble brother Richard the Lionheart. While Richard was also pretty crappy (a truth understood by the pinnacle of Robin Hood fiction, Robin of Sherwood, comments are closed), he was never directly crappy at home. It’s easy to see how his abusive neglect of England has aged better than John’s abusive abuse.

John murdered his nephew to keep him from the throne, lost all his family lands through mismanagement, bullied his own subjects, and was generally such an ass that his nobles forced him to sign the Magna Carta to ensure he’d never happen again. He was, in every way, a real-life Evil King.

What can we learn from him? The Evil King is a much-maligned archetype, lambasted as a stock villain lacking depth or originality. But John proves he doesn’t have to be. Try creating an evil ruler, but fill him with surprising anti-charisma, relatable insecurities, and a fanatical drive to make everyone’s life worse. That’s much more exciting than having him just sit on a black throne telling people not to fail him a second time.

1300-1400: Hugh Despenser the Younger

Lesson: “Thinking you’re the hero” can involve a lot of cognitive dissonance.

As I said: I don’t think the advice “the villain should think he’s the hero” is bad. I just think it can lead to some limited ideas of what is “allowed.” It’s often nice to see an antagonist with such a believable motivation he could easily be the hero in a different story, but to me, that doesn’t manage to express all the ways that people can be evil in real life.

Hugh Despenser the Younger was not the hero. He was a court favorite of Edward II who wielded tyrannical power, and mostly used it to increase the size his own lands. Torture, unlawful imprisonments, unlawful executions, and violence against women were all in a day’s work for him.

However, like Thomas Becket and Eadric Streona (though less like John Lackland, whose evil seems to have expressed itself mostly in the form of Trumpian tantrums), it’s easy to see how he could imagine himself as the good guy. “I was just living according to the values of my time!” one might imagine him screaming as he’s dragged off to the gallows. “Great men have great possessions! Mighty lords need mighty lands! Any of you would have done the same!”

Hugh’s lesson is all about how to apply the advice that the villain should think he’s the hero. It’s not synonymous, in any way, with the villain being a good person.

1400-1500: Thomas Arundel

Lesson: One of the best ways to make a compelling villain is to have them make life difficult for the good guys.

Thomas Arundel is almost certainly the least evil man on this list. He didn’t kill anybody, personally or otherwise (though Terry Jones — yes, that Terry Jones — believes he was at least responsible for the death of Geoffrey Chaucer). He probably didn’t have anyone tortured, he didn’t profit from horrific crimes, and he doesn’t even seem to have been a hypocrite like Titus Oates or Thomas Becket.

What Arundel did, instead of committing horrific acts, was spread around an enormous amount of low-level misery. As Archbishop of Canterbury, his most prominent stand was refusing to allow laypeople to read the Bible in English, which cemented religious interpretation as a magical power allowed only to a select few. He subjected free thinkers, who only wanted to find faith on their own terms, to a campaign of inquisitorial harassment, banishing many of them from the religious schools at Oxford.

In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, who do you hate more: Voldemort or Dolores Umbridge? Yeah, Voldemort’s out there, being all creepy, doing a few murders, but it’s Umbridge who’s actively making life hell for our protagonists. In The Name of the Wind, the Chandrian may be the source of all evil, but it’s Ambrose Jakis who’s putting in the hard work of being a persistent prat. In Pride and Prejudice, Lady Catherine de Bourgh might be responsible for more of Elizabeth Bennet’s suffering, but oh my god will you shut up, Mr. Collins.

There are endless examples, but one last incidence I’ll point out is the sinister gentleman with thistle-down hair from Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. In a lesser book, he would have been responsible for killing Strange’s parents or something. But that’s no lesser book. He’s in the weeds, every day, rolling up his sleeves to ruin the lives of as many characters as possible. The gentleman has serious Thomas Arundel energy.

1500-1600: Sir Richard Rich of Leighs

Lesson: Let your villains act without moral restraints.

Why is it that so many writers claim they enjoy writing villains more than they do heroes? Personally, I think it’s because villains are more free to act. Heroes tend to be bound by morals, or at least to have some kind of code. Villains do whatever they want.

I strongly believe this doesn’t mean heroes have to be boring. You can have standards without having restrictions. I prefer to write heroes who are trying to change the world, with my villains tending to defend the status quo. But here’s the catch: while my villains’ actions are restricted, their ethics are not.

Lord Rich of Leighs was famous for his lack of moral principles. He was the archetypical slimy lawyer, and in the Tudor conflict between Catholics and Protestants, he switched sides enough times to make Eadric Streona jealous. He also had a taste for torturing people and burning them at the stake.

Lord Rich was a perfect example of what D&D calls “lawful evil.” Working within the establishment of his time, he perpetuated countless crimes — and while everyone from his contemporaries to later historians hated him, he died in bed at the age of 70. His example teaches us that it’s not social rules but moral rules that mark the difference between a villain and a hero.

1600-1700: Titus Oates

Lesson: There’s nothing worse than a talented liar.

Many will debate whether or not this century’s baddie should have been Oliver Cromwell (I personally do, on the grounds of his ravaging of Ireland). But there’s one thing all sides of that argument can agree on: Titus Oates was a real piece of shit.

Oates was a failed scholar who had only two real assets in life: an eidetic memory, and a knack for making false accusations for personal gain. His memory made his accusations more believable, especially when he perpetuated his greatest con, fabricating — out of whole cloth — a plot to assassinate King Charles II. His claims of “uncovering” the plot he himself invented won him praise, influence, and financial gain, while innocents were gruesomely executed on his testimony.

If you were stuck for an idea for your antagonist, you could do a lot worse than a gifted liar who upends your protagonist’s world with his endless supply of silver-tongued falsehoods. There’s no reason to believe Titus Oates “thought he was the hero,” except in a twisted Hugh Despenser sort of way — what makes him a compelling villain is not his motivations, but his powers.

1700-1800: Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland

Lesson: A lack of principles makes a villain, but hatred can make one just as easily.

Many of the Brits on this list are there because of their moral bankruptcy. That charge can’t be leveled so easily against Prince William Augustus. Instead, the question surrounding “Stinking Billy” is that which must be asked of every genocidal maniac from Cato the Elder to Adolf Hitler: was their hatred a power play, a deeply held personal belief, or a mixture of both?

Not that being truly committed to genocide makes it less of a crime against humanity, but these questions are the bread and butter of history. William Augustus despised the Scottish Highlanders so much that he punished his own officers for not persecuting them enough. His aim was nothing less than the total destruction of Highland culture, to the point where he argued for deporting entire clans for the crime of being related to Jacobite rebels.

Villainy is a vast spectrum. Giving a villain no true beliefs beyond their own personal gain is a great way to create a threatening enemy. But another way to make your antagonist truly frightening is to give them a goal to fight for other than their own aggrandizement — a goal with far more terrible ends.

1800-1900: Jack the Ripper

Lesson: Your villain doesn’t always need a face.

I’m a big fan of “force of nature” villains. These antagonists either have no complex motivation at all, or have one that’s impossible for the other characters to understand. They never seem to eat or sleep, being stabbed just pisses them off, and the fears they invoke are utterly primal. The implacable man is a figure that shows up everywhere, from Stoker’s Dracula to Jon Hamm’s character in Baby Driver.

Jack the Ripper is the one figure on this list who needs no introduction. He’s the original serial killer. While many fictional stories about Jack focus on attempts to unmask him, he’s endured in the popular imagination — despite many more prolific killers following in his wake — precisely because in real life, he’ll never be caught (and no, the Daily Mail‘s opinion doesn’t count).

Jack the Ripper is more a feeling than a person. He’s inseparable from the fear of being alone in dark city streets. Some of the best villains follow that example: we don’t need to know who they are, or why they kill, only how to stop them.

Side note: Hallie Rubenhold’s The Five is a fantastic work of nonfiction that takes the focus off Jack to tell the stories of the women he killed. It’s great to see the often-anonymous victims regain their voices, and I highly recommend it.

1900-2000: Oswald Mosley

Lesson: Control the ways that your heroes react to the villain.

According to the article, English fascist Oswald Mosley once displayed a Nazi salute in Parliament. An anonymous member of the crowd shouted out, “Yes, you may go to the lavatory.”

Much has been written on the effectiveness of ridicule as a weapon against fascism. As a movement that relies on grandeur and myth-making, nothing punctures its balloon like mockery. But as Mosley grew into a greater threat, it took more than jokes to answer him: the good guys also needed fists, stones, batons, and the gun, as listed in the absolutely banging anthem “Ghosts of Cable Street” by The Men They Couldn’t Hang.

Just as important as your villain’s character is the ways that your heroes react to their presence. In Redwall, Cluny the Scourge is made to look ridiculous several times, but the heroes’ laughter at him also expresses their growing desperation at his siege. In Master and Commander, Lucky Jack Aubrey toasts “confusion to Boney!” but takes the threat of a French warship incredibly seriously.

Any character is drawn through others’ reactions to them, but an antagonistic force most of all. Oswald Mosley is all the scarier for being a figure of both menace and ridicule. Plenty of people were probably making jokes about Jack the Ripper during his reign of terror. As cool as your baddie — Lord Deathstrike, Commander of the Imperial Star Ravagers and Wielder of the Proton Sword — might be, plenty of people would surely refer to him as Baron von Capeface.

A realistic reaction makes a realistic threat, and that’s the sort of villain people remember.


Don’t sweat villains. There’s only one kind readers most often complain about: ones that don’t seem to have anything to them, who sit around and bark orders and twiddle their thumbs. These rules aren’t meant to tell you what you can and can’t write. On the contrary, I hope I’ve encouraged you by illustrating how many different ways there are to do villains right.

Happy writing!

The Stupidest NaNoWriMo Hot Take


I was recently unlucky enough to come across what must be one of the most egregious examples of the unfortunate “Actually, X Is Bad” genre. Published on, it boasts the highest level of patronizing, classist wrongheadedness of any writing outside the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. It’s called “Better yet, DON’T write that novel,” by Laura Miller, and while it is from way back in 2010, terrible assumptions must be challenged whenever and wherever they are encountered.

The article’s thesis is that NaNoWriMo, the annual event where people join a global community to write an entire novel over the course of a single November, is a waste of time and energy because people should be reading novels instead of writing them. Despite the fact that book sales are increasing, the author purports to sound the alarm about a looming crisis in the book world, where so many people will be writing books that nobody reads them anymore.

The fact that Miller stitches evidence of this crisis together from scraps of anecdotal evidence is, surprisingly, not the worst thing about this column. That title has to go to the way she misunderstands every aspect of NaNoWriMo with such willful antagonism that she manages to insult everybody who’s ever participated in it. So for this week’s post (and in the interest of procrastinating my own NaNo project), I want to take her argument apart quote by quote.

I am not the first person to point out that “writing a lot of crap” doesn’t sound like a particularly fruitful way to spend an entire month, even if it is November.

It may come as a surprise to people like Miller who assume that all great art is produced by a tiny circle of muse-touched geniuses, but as everybody else knows, writers are anxious people. We always have been. From Marcel Proust taking 20 years to write a single book, to the Bronte sisters publishing under constructed masculine identities, to Franz Kafka begging his friend from his deathbed to burn all his work, to George R.R. Martin being driven to madness by the desire to please his fans, most writers wield a command of insecurity that would make their most screwed-up characters tremble.

The result of this is that most writers, whether unpublished or wildly successful, have a really hard time finishing things. We burn out. We get distracted by other projects. We procrastinate with endless worldbuilding and character sketches. And underlying all of it is the belief that if we never finish anything, we never risk anything. Procrastination is a security blanket.

NaNoWriMo forces us to shove that blanket in the closet. By emphasizing the freedom to write first drafts that aren’t perfect, NaNo teaches us to take chances with our writing. The result is that more people finish more interesting stories.

“Big deal,” Laura Miller might say. “The stories are just going to be crap anyway. If it’s so hard for them to finish anything, why don’t they quit bothering and read something instead?”

I will concede that this article does make at least one good point: people finishing their NaNo projects and immediately querying agents with them is a real problem. I do sympathize with agents who dread the flood of unrevised, 50,000-word manuscripts people try to sell them in December.

However, assuming that the people who send those queries represent all NaNoWriMo participants is one of this hot take’s grandest acts of missing the point.

Why does giving yourself permission to write a lot of crap so often seem to segue into the insistence that other people read it?…But even if every one of these 30-day novelists prudently slipped his or her manuscript into a drawer, all the time, energy and resources that go into the enterprise strike me as misplaced.

I thought this was obvious, but apparently it needs to be said out loud: not everybody who writes stories is trying to publish them.

What Miller doesn’t seem to understand is that she’s oozing distaste for thousands of personal passion projects. Would she visit a friend’s house, see a pillow cover they’d crocheted, and scoff, “Well, that’s garbage. Why did you waste time making that when you could have supported somebody who’s good at crochet?” When they sit down to dinner, would she taste the meal and say, “Ugh! You really just made this for a few of us to enjoy? It’s not even perfect! Why did you bother?”

Of course she wouldn’t. Outside of my distaste for one family of her opinions, I’m giving Laura Miller the benefit of the doubt by assuming she’s a kind, intelligent person who loves her friends and doesn’t get kicked out of dinner parties. But she clearly doesn’t have any friends who write fanfiction, or homebrew RPG campaigns, or work out their feelings with poetry, or are writing their memoirs for their families to enjoy.

In this column, the idea of literature having value if it isn’t commercialized doesn’t even seem to occur to her. Somehow, she’s completely missed the idea that writing can be just a hobby, which mystifies me: how can an author responsible for two separate books about falling in love with fictional universes not understand that some people survive by creating their own paracosms?

The reason I’m spending so much energy on this is that I’ve met so many lovely people through NaNoWriMo, and I’m afraid that one day, one of them will find this column and see an established writer telling them that all they’re doing is churning out unnecessary crap. I want to make sure their spirits don’t get broken.

When I recently stumbled across a list of promotional ideas for bookstores seeking to jump on the bandwagon, true dismay set in…It was yet another depressing sign that the cultural spaces once dedicated to the selfless art of reading are being taken over by the narcissistic commerce of writing.

It’s possible the column is aiming to be self-deprecating here, but in light of the previous paragraphs, it misses the mark. Widely. I’m left asking whether Miller knows she’s writing right now, and how she thinks books get written.

“People would come up to me at parties,” author Ann Bauer recently told me, “and say, ‘I’ve been thinking of writing a book. Tell me what you think of this …’ And I’d (eventually) divert the conversation by asking what they read … Now, the ‘What do you read?’ question is inevitably answered, ‘Oh, I don’t have time to read. I’m just concentrating on my writing.'”

For now, let’s leave aside the fact that one author having a couple of bad experiences at some parties is not evidence of an overwhelming trend. There are a couple of reasons somebody might have said this to Bauer: either they write as a hobby, as described above, or they are misguided.

If the latter is true, so what? There’s nothing mutually exclusive about reading and writing. Quite the opposite: you can’t be a good writer if you don’t read, any more than you can be a musician if you never listen to music. I just fail to see how it’s NaNoWriMo’s fault that some people don’t get that.

If somebody who never reads wants to try and publish a bad book, let them. Either they’ll learn their lesson or they won’t. It’s not our place to try and save them from error by lambasting hobbyists who are just trying to do what makes them happy.

Frankly, there are already more than enough novels out there — more than those of us who still read novels could ever get around to poking our noses into, even when it’s our job to do so. This is not to say that I don’t hope that more novels will be written, particularly by the two dozen-odd authors whose new books I invariably snatch up with a suppressed squeal of excitement…Furthermore, I know that there are still undiscovered or unpublished authors out there whose work I will love if I ever manage to find it. But I’m confident those novels would still get written even if NaNoWriMo should vanish from the earth.

In this paragraph, Miller at last takes the cover off and shows us the machinery inside. She objects to NaNoWriMo because she doesn’t believe that most people deserve to put pen to paper. It’s a sadly common worldview: some people are geniuses, most people aren’t, and if you’re in the latter group, tough luck, your only role in life is to squeal at the people in the former.

Genuinely talented people use this argument to put themselves down so often that it enrages me when anybody uses it to denigrate others. Miller gives no credence to the role of practice, dedication, and perseverance–all critical traits for an author, and all skills that NaNoWriMo teaches. None of that matters to her. Two dozen people, and maybe some others hiding in the shadows, are good at writing. The rest of you can fuck off and start squealing.

Hard work has written more great novels than natural talent ever will. It’s also painted more great paintings, cooked more great meals, made more great scientific discoveries, led more great governments, raised more great children, and landed on approximately infinity percent more moons.

So I’m not worried about all the books that won’t get written if a hundred thousand people with a nagging but unfulfilled ambition to Be a Writer lack the necessary motivation to get the job done. I see no reason to cheer them on.

This was the part where, on first reading, I had to step out on my balcony and listen to the sounds of the city until my anger subsided.

When it did, I was left scratching my head and wondering why any art lover would denigrate a trend of more people participating in the art they love. Yes, if you’ve constructed a false dichotomy where every person is either a writer or a reader, then more writers means fewer readers–but there’s no proof this is accurate in any way.

One other thing I will agree with Miller on is that people who want to “be a writer” more than they want to actually write can be obnoxious. Yet that’s the beauty of NaNoWriMo: it forces all those people to shit or get off the pot. If you prefer telling people you’re going to write that novel someday to writing that novel now, you will lose. That’s the only rule of the game.

Consider turning away from the self-aggrandizing frenzy of NaNoWriMo and embracing the quieter triumph of Kalen Landow and Melissa Klug’s “10/10/10” challenge: These two women read 10 books in 10 categories between Jan. 1 and Oct. 10, focusing on genres outside their habitual favorites. In her victory-lap blog post, Klug writes of discovering new favorite authors she might otherwise never have encountered, and of her sadness on being reminded that “most Americans don’t read ANY books in a given year, or just one or two.” Instead of locking herself up in a room to crank out 50,000 words of crap, she learned new things and “expanded my reading world.” So let me be the first to say it: Melissa and Kalen, you are the heroes.

Writers take a lot of crap. People tend to assume we’re unpublished, unemployed, living in our parents’ basements, plinking away at unreadable works that will never be finished (when I’m clearly semi-professionally published, self-employed, living in my own apartment, and plinking away at an unreadable work that will be finished).

November is our month to destroy those stereotypes by coming together. Far from “locking ourselves up in a room”–which seems like a weird complaint given that this column was just grousing about how writers are taking over public spaces–we all take joy in gathering and lifting each other up. Nobody is claiming to be a hero. We’re just happy to be together.

Yesterday, at a “write-in” event, I met a woman who was writing an alternate-universe fanfic of Pride and Prejudice. The Bennett sisters are the five baristas at a coffee shop, and Darcy and Bingley are tech bros trying to found a startup in the same mall. I was floored by the implications. Here, two centuries later, an intrepid modern author was finding new ways to appreciate Jane Austen’s masterpiece. Writing was how she showed her love for the people that wrote before her.

This is the kind of adventure we miss out on when we turn writing into an aristocracy. Art isn’t about standing in awe of a few perfect gems. It’s about blind alleys, bad ideas, slurrying inspirations together with no clue how it’ll turn out. That’s what NaNoWriMo is about, too.

While it is sad that most Americans won’t read a single book this year, the truth is that most of them won’t write one either. Blaming a (nonexistent) decline in book sales on amateur writers is illogical, insulting, and harmful. The bottom line here is the golden rule of internet discourse: for gods’ sake, let people enjoy things.

Best Non-Scary Movies for Halloween

It’s no secret we’re in a golden age of horror movies right now. From Jordan Peele to Ari Aster, every month seems to bring a new vision of terror from a new auteur of fright. If you’re a fan of being terrified at the movies, and contemplating the depths of the human experience while you lie awake that night for fear of getting existentially murdered, it’s a great time to be alive.

If you aren’t a fan of that, it kind of sucks.

Horror seems like the only genre where you’re allowed to be creative anymore, but my annoyance at that is a whole separate post. Put bluntly, I don’t like scary movies. Every one I’ve seen has been either excessively cynical about human nature, needlessly gory, or weirdly Puritan, and half the time they don’t even end.

And yeah, I’m a wuss about jump scares, but I don’t feel that “dislikes paying for the privilege of being ambushed by nameless horrors” is a character flaw I need to apologize for.

Despite my dislike of horror in general, I love Halloween. It’s not a contradiction — I just find mysterious spirits of the night to be enigmatic and cool, rather than scary. In fact, that’s pretty much my religion.

Movies, much like the holiday itself, can be themed around paranormal, supernatural, and chilling motifs without being focused around terrifying the viewer. So, in case you’re looking for a season-appropriate film that you can actually watch without having to hide behind the couch, I thought I’d list out ten of my favorites.

1. The Mummy (1999): Everybody fondly remembers the movie they wanted to watch as a child whenever they were sick–this is mine. Starring Brendan Fraser as one of cinema’s most believable action heroes, and Rachel Weisz and John Hannah killing it in supporting roles, this ’20s-set monster flick is still the bar I measure all other action-adventures against.

2. Over the Garden Wall (2014): Technically a 10-episode miniseries, but clocking in at almost exactly movie length, this is one of the most original, daring, and beautiful works of animated fiction ever. Following anxious Wirt (Elijah Wood) and blithe Greg (Collin Dean) as they try to find their way home through a world inspired by old Americana postcards, Over the Garden Wall is just like Jason Funderbirker–it’s the whole package.

3. The Shape of Water (2017): Romantic sorts have it very good on Halloween. The Shape of Water won the Oscar, so you don’t need me to tell you how captivating this tale of fish-meets-girl is. But if you somehow missed it, tonight is the night to catch up. Afterwards, check out Guillermo del Toro’s equally season-appropriate Hellboy and Pan’s Labyrinth.

4. What We Do in the Shadows (2014): Recently adapted into a TV series, Taiki Waititi’s loving parody of all things vampire gets funnier every time I watch it. From the Circle of Shame to Vlad the Poker doing his dark bidding to Stu the actual real-life IT guy, this mockumentary did half the work of making vampires once again cool.

5. Let the Right One In (2008): And here’s the film that did the other half of the work. Swedish import Let the Right One In is very different monster love story than The Shape of Water, but no less lovely–in fact, it’s the most heartfelt movie about murder and blood-drinking you’re ever likely to see. Bonus points for having an American remake, Let Me In, that’s actually good.

6. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003): “You best start believing in ghost stories, Miss Turner. You’re in one.” There’s a reason Hollywood can’t let the Pirates franchise go. This first installment is a note-perfect blockbuster: the iconic music, the thrilling action, the endlessly quotable script, and Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa deep-throating the scenery every moment he’s onscreen. It’s enough to make me not mind having to deal with Johnny Depp for two hours.

7. ParaNorman (2012): ParaNorman isn’t a horror movie, per se, but it is definitely a scary movie. This “PG” film about social outcasts, persecution, and mob violence manages to be even darker than Coraline. For me, it’s also a movie about the spirit of Halloween itself: learning to process fear and discomfort in a healthy way, rather than lashing out at things we don’t understand.

8. Ghostbusters (1984): I don’t really need to convince you to watch Ghostbusters, do I? Come on. Bustin’ makes everybody feel good. Nobody is afraid of no ghosts. We all know who we gonna call. Pop the damn thing in already.

9. Shaun of the Dead (2004): If you aren’t sold on Shaun of the Dead by the time Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are going through their record collection and deciding which ones are bad enough to throw at zombies, we’re just never going to agree on comedy. This is also probably the goriest movie on the list, but the graphic moments are usually easy to see coming.

10. Young Frankenstein (1974): Who said movies can’t be both atmospheric and funny? Just because your movie is primarily a comedy, that’s no reason to water it down. Mel Brooks gets that–his movies are both hilarious and surprisingly competent genre pieces in their own right (Men In Tights is one of the top three Robin Hood movies, prove me wrong). Young Frankenstein is almost certainly his magnum opus, a ludicrous gothic masterpiece.

If you’re in the midst of a ghastly movie night and at a loss for what to watch, I hope my list helps you out. Have a spooktacular evening!

5 things I loved and 5 I did not about The Secret Commonwealth

This post contains spoilers for every volume in His Dark Materials and The Book of Dust.

Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy is one of my life’s most enduring obsessions. The Amber Spyglass in particular has an awful lot to answer for when it comes to my future career choices (damn you, Pullman, if you’d just let Lyra and Will stay together, I could have my student loans paid off by now).

So you can imagine how excited I was when I learned that Pullman was planning to revisit his best-known work in a new “equel” trilogy called The Book of Dust. Or maybe you can’t imagine, because the answer was “not very.”

See, I get invested in the stories I love, but I’ve never been the kind of fan who constantly needs new content to keep my attention from wandering. I’ve always believed that when something is finished, it should be left alone, lest later installments tarnish the memory of the original. And in recent years, franchise after franchise after franchise has proven me right, with the rare exceptions–like The Heroes of Olympus and The Last King of Osten Ard–coming more as pleasant surprises than anything else.

When La Belle Sauvage, the first installment in The Book of Dust, came out in 2017, it lived up to my mixed expectations. The book centered on two supremely lovable new characters, but wasted time with fan-service cameos from the original trilogy. Its two halves–a tense spy thriller set at a riverside pub, and a mystical, symbolic river journey–were each great on their own, but didn’t fit naturally together at all. The villain was effectively frightening, but the book didn’t give any reason for his actions. And perhaps most damning of all, it didn’t feel like it added anything to His Dark Materials.

That said, with some distance, I’ve learned to appreciate La Belle Sauvage more. If I forget that it’s supposed to be connected to His Dark Materials and approach it as Pullman trying his hand at writing a fairy tale, it’s far more enjoyable. It was using that approach that I walked out of Powell’s with a copy of the second installment, The Secret Commonwealth, and a sense of cautious optimism.

Turns out that was exactly the right attitude. I tore through the 600+ pages of The Secret Commonwealth in a weekend, relishing almost every one, yet by the end was left frustrated, confused, and more than a little sickened. Now I’ve turned to the blank digital page to work out my feelings about this hair-tearingly inconsistent book.

Before I begin, let me warn you that this post will discuss sexual assault and related tropes that might be upsetting (as does the book itself).

Also, I will be spoiling The Secret Commonwealth and all its predecessors here. If you learn the ending of any of the five books from this post, it’s your own damn fault. Let’s dive in.

5 things I loved

1. Further exploration of daemons

If Philip Pullman is remembered for only one thing, it will be daemons. His best idea–giving each character a bonded animal companion that is at once a part of them and a separate entity–not only defines his series but has taken on a life outside of it. Daemons are an excellent alternative to “spirit animal” that avoids cultural appropriation, and are a popular fanfic trope, seen in works like Welcome to Night Vale crossover “He Says He Is An Experimental Theologian.”

The original trilogy explores the reality of daemons to some extent, but mostly as a metaphor for growing up. In The Secret Commonwealth, we get a lot more mileage out of daemons as both metaphors and real social phenomena. What does it mean, for example, if a person doesn’t get along with their daemon, something which never happened in His Dark Materials?

This last question kicks off the entire plot of the latest book. Seven years after the end of The Amber Spyglass, Lyra is now 20 years old, studying at Oxford instead of just being underfoot in the kitchens. Like too many undergraduates, she is–as a Redditor brilliantly puts it–“going through an Ayn Rand phase.” She’s been so influenced by a smug, trendy rationalist movement that she’s in danger of starting her own YouTube channel (“Lyra Silvertongue DESTROYS a fundie with FACTS and LOGIC”), and Pantalaimon can’t stand her anymore. Convinced she’s under a spell, he sets out to find a cure, leaving Lyra alone.

Though there’s plenty of detours into Magisterium politics, secret agent follies, and world-destroying essential oils, Lyra’s quest to reunite with Pan is the central thread of The Secret Commonwealth. As she travels across Europe and Asia in search of a rumored sanctuary for misfit daemons, she meets others who have lost theirs, each one forming a different heartbreaking metaphor for the ways we can be at odds with ourselves. One woman’s daemon fell in love with someone she couldn’t stand. Another man’s was transformed into something that would utterly destroy him. Several people have literally sold their daemons in exchange for physical subsistence, in a metaphor any professor of Marxist studies could teach a whole semester on.

It’s a fascinating series of beats. However much we can debate whether The Book of Dust needed to be written, one thing nobody can dispute is how much mileage remains in the concept of daemons.

2. The new villains

As I mentioned above, I found villain Gerard Bonneville to be one of the weakest aspects of La Belle Sauvage.

He was definitely scary: a snarling, relentless, nigh-unkillable madman, the hate child of the T-1000 and Reverend Harry Powell. What he wasn’t was believable or interesting. His only motivation was a rabid desire to get his hands on baby Lyra, for no clear reason, and his only hobby appeared to be rape. By the time Malcolm kills him in a dramatic confrontation at a flooded cemetery, we don’t know any more than we did at the start about what this guy’s deal is.

The Secret Commonwealth introduces two new villains: Bonneville’s son Olivier, an ambitious Magisterium lackey who matches Lyra’s skill with the alethiometer, and Marcel Delamare, Lyra’s uncle, who consolidates his power in the church while dealing with severe mother issues.

Neither one is that scary–Olivier is kind of a doofus, reminiscent of Prince Zuko’s early years, while Delamare never even meets any of the protagonists–but they do feel much more appropriate for their surroundings.

One of my favorite tropes is when a long-running series, realizing that it can’t keep upping the stakes forever, changes things up with a more intimate, worldly, petty threat (Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney is one of my favorite examples of this). After all, Lyra has fought armored polar bears, ghosts that eat your soul, witches, angels, and there was that one time she helped assassinate God. No human, no matter how stabby he gets, is ever going to measure up.

The Secret Commonwealth understands that it’s a much more earthbound story. It’s about a broken person trying to find out if she can ever be whole again. A book like that demands antagonists who are driven by prosaic concerns, and so, Olivier provides none of the jarring tonal dissonance we got from his dad.

3. Inching away from rationalism

It’s easy to see why Pullman decided to revisit the world of His Dark Materials. It’s not because he needed the money, or missed being on the bestseller list.

As The Secret Commonwealth makes clear, it’s because he saw readers taking His Dark Materials the wrong way. Readers took his fiery denunciation of organized religion to mean that they should abandon all faith and imagination and trust nothing but logic and reason.

One of the books responsible for stealing Lyra’s imagination is a thinly-veiled version of His Dark Materials itself: an epic saga that culminates in the protagonist killing God. Unlike with the real books, though, there aren’t any good intentions here. It’s as though Pullman has conjured in fiction the book he’s afraid he accidentally wrote in real life. The novel-within-the-novel The Hyperchorasmians renounces metaphor, condemns art, and does its best to show real-world readers how absurd a work of total logic would be (its in-universe author is in due course revealed to be a whimpering fraud).

Pullman is clearly a man with a great appreciation for the emotional, mythical, and irrational, up to and including the faeries and ghasts of the titular secret commonwealth, who can only be seen out of the corner of one’s eye. Over the years, he must have become immensely frustrated by fans “thanking” him for opening their eyes to the folly of everything but reason. Having famously attacked organized religion, he’s now wheeling around to pick a fight with its opposite–which it’s clear he holds in equal contempt.

4. Mental health representation

One of my favorite genres of fanfiction is stories about how the characters in an epic saga are doing, several years after that saga concludes. They’re usually getting along all right, but still scarred, marked by what they went through in ways they’re still working out how to live with.

The Secret Commonwealth is essentially a canon version of this, and it’s on this level that it works best. Lyra is extremely not OK from the very first page, even before Pan leaves her. She’s able to show flashes of her old self, especially when somebody else needs help, but on the inside, she’s feeling adrift, directionless, and confused. As hard as she’s tried to get over Will, she still hasn’t managed it, and as her feud with Pan makes clear, Lyra’s at the point of hating herself–she feels as though she should have become something better after her adventure across the multiverse, but has experienced a failure to launch. Who can’t relate?

The central metaphor of the book, that of going on a long journey to rediscover a missing part of yourself, lands beautifully–helped, of course, by the endlessly resonant metaphor of daemons. The regret and inner conflict that Lyra and Pan experience leaps from every page they’re on, to the point where it becomes oppressive, though not in a bad way. This is a book about quietly desperate people trying to understand how things changed so quickly.

In my opinion, this is what really makes a book “adult”: not gratuitous violence or sexual assault, but the acknowledgement that happy endings aren’t endings.

5. The refugee crisis

One thing I didn’t expect, but was excited to see, was Philip Pullman tackling Europe’s defining cultural issue of the last five years: their treatment of African and Middle Eastern refugees.

Of course, this being a parallel reality, things are a bit different. The cause of the crisis is simplified: instead of a complex melange of climate change, colonialism, and extremism, Pullman’s crisis is caused by the Magisterium secretly funding a Daesh-like organization to destroy rose gardens and kill growers. Much like the real crisis, it affects all levels of Syrian and Levantine society.

Lyra, who’s traveling the opposite direction of the tide of refugees, runs into them several times, and every time is forced to reckon with her powerlessness. She takes the opportunity to help the one little girl she can, an act of kindness that reverberates throughout the rest of the book, even while it forces questions I never thought this book would make me contemplate.

As we learned from La Belle Sauvage, Lyra herself was once a refugee in a boat. For much of her life after, though, she’s been extremely privileged. However, does it invalidate her suffering that other people are suffering much worse? How do we value the mental and spiritual anguish of a first-world citizen against the mental, spiritual, and physical anguish of the displaced peoples? How can we create a value system that empathizes with both, without diminishing the greater pain of the refugees?

The Secret Commonwealth offers no easy answers. Neither does life. Once again, this is the correct way to guide a universe from childhood to adulthood.

5 Things I Did Not Love

1. The gang rape scene

Now let’s talk about how not to do that.

There’s no sugar-coating this part. The third-to-last chapter, “Little Stick,” left such an acrid taste in my mouth that I’ll never be able to imagine this book without remembering it. There’s no excuse for this scene. It’s going to baffle and enrage me for a long time.

I’m already committed to spoilers, so I’ll come out and say it: in this chapter, Lyra is groped and nearly gang-raped by a group of Turkish soldiers in a train car. The actual rape does not occur, as Lyra fights back long enough to be rescued by the soldiers’ superior officer.

But that’s immaterial. It’s still assault. And it’s still incredibly unnecessary.

You could remove this scene entirely without losing anything from the plot–its only purpose is to give Lyra a chance to use the Gyptian weapon she was given earlier, which could have been employed in any number of better ways.

Why the hell is this in here? Did Pullman think nobody would believe his book was for adults if he didn’t include a graphic sexual assault? Or did he just think he needed an action scene before the ending? I can’t possibly imagine the author of The Amber Spyglass believing either of these things, but I literally have no other answers.

This isn’t the first time The Book of Dust has done this, either. The climax of La Belle Sauvage also involves rape, this time an assault on Alice by Gerard Bonneville. Again, there’s no reason for it, and again, it’s insanely gratuitous.

Male authors, no matter how distinguished: just stop using rape, or attempted rape, to increase the drama. We’ve lost that privilege. It’s gross, it’s lazy, it co-opts female voices, and it never accomplishes anything. Stop.

2. Everything about Malcolm

Malcolm Polstead was the best thing about La Belle Sauvage. In a prequel often dragged down by references to the original trilogy, here was a fresh face at the heart of everything: inquisitive, devoted, brave when he needed to be, frequently clever. His ability to implicitly trust people was presented as strength of character rather than naive bumpkinhood. As an ordinary English boy caught up in an extraordinary situation, he couldn’t have been more likable.

In retrospect, though, the signs of trouble were there. Malcolm didn’t really have any flaws. He was beloved by everyone except sinister villains, always equal to every task, and surprisingly capable of fighting fully-grown men.

In The Secret Commonwealth, this has only gotten worse. Malcolm is now a professor of history at Oxford who moonlights as a secret agent. He’s able to separate from his daemon, Asta, but unlike Lyra and Pan, this doesn’t seem to have caused them any problems whatsoever, and they still get along famously. He can row a yacht across Lake Geneva without getting winded, flawlessly interrogate a mark, shrug off knife and bullet wounds, turn the tables on someone who’s following him, and break a man’s neck in less than a second. He has a magic aurora in his head that tells him what to do next.

What I’m getting at is that Malcolm is too damn perfect, and it makes him a bit dull to read about. He has no flaws like Lyra’s impetuousness, Will’s social anxiety, Iorek Byrnison’s self-pity, or Pan’s tendency to be a condescending prat.

To be fair, Pullman has created other characters that run this risk. Both Lee Scoresby and Mary Malone from His Dark Materials could be accused of being unrealistically perfect.

The difference, though, is that they were both interesting. Lee is a devil-may-care Han Solo type that fits perfectly with the flavor of the universe, and Mary is intimately connected to the original trilogy’s myth arc. Malcolm is just an amazing guy who runs around beating up fools on what amounts to a sidequest.

None of this is helped by how obviously he’s being set up as Lyra’s second love interest. Malcolm’s only “flaw” in The Secret Commonwealth is that he’s in love with Lyra, but since she appears to be falling for him too–and a character all-but verbatim says that a 12-year age difference is not weird if they’re both adults–this doesn’t appear to be a flaw at all (never mind the enormously strange power imbalance involved in wanting to bone down on a former student you’ve known since she was a literal baby).

Maybe Pullman thought we’d never accept Lyra paired with anybody but Will unless he was the perfect man. That’s possible. But I wish he’d spent less time setting up how great Malcolm is and more time actually making sure the two have chemistry. As it is, I’m starting to get Anthony Caine flashbacks.

3. Lyra’s lack of agency

This is a very difficult one to complain about, because it’s the other side of the coin to one of my favorite parts of the book–the portrayal of Lyra’s “melancholy.”

But a huge issue I had with the mental health themes in this book was the equation of depression with helplessness. It’s great to portray a character struggling with her own mind. It’s even better to reify that struggle into a physical journey. Where Pullman falters is in deciding that Lyra won’t be able to handle that journey without being repeatedly bailed out by other people.

From the time she sets off from Oxford to her arrival at what is probably the Blue Hotel, I can think of maybe three things Lyra does entirely for herself. Other than that, episodes in her adventure tend to follow a formula: she goes to a new place, gets into some kind of trouble, gets bailed out by either an Oakley Street agent or somebody else who doesn’t have a daemon, gets directions from this person to her next destination, and keeps moving.

Again, it’s hard to be certain whether this is a bug or a feature, as part of Lyra’s arc in this book is about letting herself trust hunches and rely on providence. But neither that nor her depression require her to be so passive. Where’s the Lyra who once deceived an armored bear? Who broke into a lord’s mansion to steal back her alethiometer? Who led the exodus from Bolvangar? Who cut open the Authority’s tomb?

It’s only natural that Lyra’s changed. But melancholy doesn’t erase everything about who a person is. Lyra is the character that first taught my young self that girls could be badass–even leaving aside the horrible “Little Stick” scene, it’s sad that she doesn’t get more to do.

4. The side characters

The supporting characters in His Dark Materials are all-time greats in children’s literature. Lord Asriel. Mrs. Coulter. Lee Scoresby. Iorek Byrnison. Serafina Pekkala. Farder Coram. Mary Malone.

The Book of Dust hasn’t yet given us anybody who can match these people. Instead, as Sarah McCarry writes on, we get a parade of “practically interchangeable academics and administrators with sensible haircuts.”

She’s referring to the women there, but the men are almost as dull. And the ones with character, like Gottfried Brande or the furnace man, are usually gone within one chapter. Even the few recurring characters, like Coram and Ma Costa, seem to have had the life sucked out of them. It’s a severe disappointment.

5. There is no ending

I don’t mean “the ending is ambiguous.” I don’t mean “it ends on a cliffhanger.” I mean “it literally ends in the middle of the manuscript.” Nothing that’s set up is resolved, no new information comes to light, there’s no sense of a climax or turning point. The Secret Commonwealth does the literary equivalent of cutting to black in the middle of a scene.

I’m aware that The Book of Dust, like its name implies, was originally written as a single volume, and I sympathize with Pullman and his editors not being able to find a natural cutoff point. But as an armchair commentator, I think he should have just written the whole thing and published a 1,200 page novel. I still would have bought it.

The Subtle Knife ended on a cliffhanger as well, with Will’s father dead and Lyra in the clutches of Mrs. Coulter. But plenty of plot threads, including Will’s bleeding hand, were tied off, and Scoresby’s death provided dramatic closure. My hope is that, like that volume, The Secret Commonwealth is concerned with putting all the pieces in place for everything to go completely bonkers in book three. Right now, The Book of Dust could use a little bit more bonkers.

Final Thoughts

I’m sure I’m being unfairly demanding here.

His Dark Materials is an absolute masterwork, an all-time great: at once wildly imaginative and tightly controlled, a feat of worldbuilding, its message married as perfectly to its action as a human to their daemon. Its protagonists explore a dozen universes, witness the most enormous set-piece battle in written fantasy, upend the politics of heaven, redefine the nature of death, and ultimately save the entire multiverse by making out. Perhaps it’s unreasonable for me to assume any author could align the planets like that more than once in their lifetime.

I do understand why Pullman thought he had to write The Book of Dust: he had more to say, which is the only reason anybody should ever write a sequel or a prequel or an equel or whatever. But the amount of unforced errors made in the first two books is just aggravating, and it’s making me worry that one of my all-time favorite authors has lost his muse.

There’s so much greatness in La Belle Sauvage and The Secret Commonwealth, but it feels like it’s tied to lead weights. And foremost (and this can’t be said enough times) is the reliance on sexual violence against women at every climactic moment, which has changed my entire opinion of this trilogy from cautious excitement to conflicted emotional distance.

I will read the third volume, whenever it comes out. But I will request that it have no rape scenes, turn the Malcolm knob from a 10 to a 6 and the Lyra knob from a 2 to a 7, include a more exciting supporting cast (sorry, Bud Schlesinger, whoever the hell you are), and provide some kind of resolution. Otherwise, I’ll have to settle for rereading His Dark Materials, and remembering when Philip Pullman knew what being an adult actually means.

#BoostMyBio: 5 top 5s

This year, I’m competing in Pitch Wars, a contest set up to help connect aspiring authors with mentors and agents. Before the contest goes live, I decided to take a break from frantically revising Traitor’s Bones to participate in the #BoostMyBio blog hop–just a fun way for some of us contestants to get to know each other.

First, the basics.


I’m Samuel Chapman (Sam is fine!), writer, fencer, tea-drinker, RPG-lover, and daydreamer living in Portland, Oregon, USA. I live in an apartment overlooking the Willamette River with my girlfriend, a neurobiology research assistant and crafts wizard, and pay the bills as a freelance writer and technical sourcer (I help a startup help other startups hire engineers to build their products).

When I’m not writing, you can find me trying new taprooms, crossing rapiers with the local SCA as Rhodri of Anglesey (5th-century Welsh), playing board games (Scythe is my favorite, but I’ve lately been obsessed with Aeon’s End and Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective), hiking in Forest Park and the shadows of Mt. Hood, or reading. A quick rundown of some of my favorites:

Authors: Annie Dillard, Ursula K. Le Guin, David Mitchell, John Crowley, Guy Gavriel Kay, Robert MacFarlane, Philip Pullman, Katherine Arden, Naomi Novik

Movies: The Seven Samurai, Shakespeare in Love, Hot Fuzz, Master and Commander, Castle in the Sky

TV Shows: Lost, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Stranger Things, Great British Bake-Off, Babylon 5

Video Games: Final Fantasy IX, Psychonauts, Civilization IV, Sly 2: Band of Thieves, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

My WIP: Traitor’s Bones

I was casting around for my next book idea in the fall of 2018. I’d just abandoned a project I didn’t think I was ready to write yet, and was at a loss as to what to write next. I’d been tossing around the idea of a fairytale retelling, but all the well-known ones–Cinderella, Snow White, Rumpelstilskin, even The Twelve Dancing Princesses–had been done a million times.

Then I remembered a weird story from the back catalog of the Brothers Grimm: “How Six Made Their Way in the World.” It’s the tale of a soldier who fights in many battles, but at the end of the war, his commanders refuse to pay him. Outraged, the soldier sets off for the capital city to demand what he’s owed, and along the way meets five men who each have a strange superpower: one can run like the wind, one can shoot any target, one can even cause a blizzard by straightening his hat. Together, the six men steal the king’s gold and live happily ever after.

I love this story. It’s a superhero team-up from way before superheroes, a heist where nobody breaks into anywhere, a swashbuckler about sticking it to unfeeling authority. But I didn’t just want to rewrite it, I wanted to retell it. How?

I realized that if you swap the genders and make the story about six women, whole new dimensions appear. Women are underpaid for the same work men do. Often, women are never guaranteed a place in the world, instead forced by society to exist in relation to men. I thought, what if I could write a story about six women–each brutalized in a different way by the system they live in–banding together to demand the world acknowledge them?

A year later, here I am with Traitor’s Bones.

The Pitch


All Sovay Martingale wanted was the chance to die as herself.

After three years fighting King Jerome’s wars in disguise as a man, 18-year-old Sovay reveals herself as a woman–right before leading the army to a smashing victory. But instead of rewarding her for her valor, Sovay’s commanders strip her of her medals and discharge her from the army, leaving her only three coins to buy her passage home.

Humiliated, but refusing to lie down and take it, Sovay sets out toward the bustling port city of Eastfall to demand her salary from Jerome himself. On the road, she befriends Alyssa “Lys” Glastonbury, a highborn bandit with a superpowered prosthetic leg. When she learns that Lys was once a playmate of Prince Malcolm, Jerome’s eligible bachelor son, Sovay devises a plan: have Lys propose to marry Malcolm, then force Jerome to pay them off to avert the undesirable match.

With the help of four other magically-enhanced misfits–sharpshooter Eden de Falaise, woodswoman Beth Sternridge, cryomancer Frances Hartigan, and airship pilot Miranda van Talleyrand–their goal might just be within reach. But when two unexpected romances and a palace uprising interfere, and a terrifying secret rears its head deep beneath Eastfall City, Sovay and her new friends will need all their wits and courage to make their way in the world.

Aesthetic (be gentle, it’s the first one I’ve ever made)


Top 5 Top 5s

I thought I’d go a bit deeper into who I am by tossing together five “top 5” lists to paint a picture of who I am as a writer, or at least of my preferred methods for being annoying on the internet.

Top 5 favorite things I’ve written

1. Daniel and Lauren’s conversation in Mammoth Cave toward the end of The Valley of Steel. It contains what I’d call the thesis statement for my body of work. “When we get desperate, when we get cornered, we don’t lash out. We look to our friends. That’s what makes us the good guys.”

2. The whole short story “Span of the Sky.” It’s the first thing I’ve written that came to me in a dream in near-complete form, and though you’d expect that to be a disaster, I was shocked by how well it turned out.

3. The Codex Codicum sequence in Rafter’s Rats, the first time the misfit crew battles their way through a dangerous escape together.

4. The sequence in the first short story I ever sold, “The Foaling Season,” where Reynard calms a panicking gryphon.

5. Honestly, the whole third act of Traitor’s Bones. I love this book and I love writing it.

Top 5 meals of my life

1. A dinner with a slow food collective in Wallowa County, Oregon, featuring freshly grown vegetables and elk

2. A shockingly good Full Irish in the Shannon airport

3. A pig roasted in an outdoor oven with homemade BBQ sauce and cornbread, at a Trackers Earth staff party

4. A plate of pineapple rings on Gunung Rinjani, Lombok, Indonesia

5. Feasting at the Whitman Renaissance Faire, April 2012 (there’s nothing like your first time)

Top 5 poorly-reviewed movies I genuinely love

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

2. The Mummy Returns

3. Cowboys & Aliens

4. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

5. The Three Musketeers (2011)

Top 5 go-to stories about myself

1. The time I made the evening news in Yonkers for being stuck on a malfunctioning tall ship with a class of fourth-graders

2. The time I haggled my way across the entire nation of Dominica in one evening

3. The time I served as a second in an actual literal duel

4. The time I witnessed a total cloud inversion in the North Cascades

5. The time I urinated in the North Sea

Top 5 time travel destinations

1. The Swahili Coast, 1400 CE, before the arrival of the Portuguese

2. Rome, 125 CE, during the controversial reign of Hadrian

3. Tenochtitlan, 1500 CE, at the height of its urban sophistication

4. Tang China, 740 CE, to hear Li Po recite poetry

5. Eastern North America, 1550 CE, founding date of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy

That’ll serve as my bio for now. Back to revising! Good luck to all Pitch Warriors!

Thanos and the Night King Have a Beer in Heaven

Contains spoilers for Avengers: Endgame and Game of Thrones up to season 8, episode 3. You have been warned.

EXT: A beautiful seaside landscape at sunset, with no sound but the wind and the gentle wash of the waves. Two Adirondack chairs sit facing the ocean, with a cooler in between them. In one chair, sipping from a Heineken and occasionally sighing, sits the Night King from Game of Thrones.

Enter Thanos, the villain of Avengers: Endgame, from a path that leads inland over low, grassy hills.

THANOS: Hey, Night King. Mind if I join you?

NIGHT KING: Yeah, sure. I’ll just be thinking in circles all night otherwise.

Thanos sits and fishes a coors out of the cooler. Night King hands him a keychain bottle opener. They drink for a beat in silence.

THANOS: What’s eating you, N.K.?

NIGHT KING: Man. Tons of things. First of all, how are the two of us even in heaven? We both did some pretty terrible stuff.

THANOS: It’s theologically shaky, but I was just asking St. Peter and Gautama about it, and they said that by being a fictional character, you bring joy to millions even if you’re the bad guy. Since stories need villains, villains get to be in heaven because we let them have stories. And this place is so big you don’t have to see anybody you don’t want to anyway.

NIGHT KING: Joy to millions. Yeah.

He takes a long swig. Thanos sets his bottle down.

THANOS: Oooo-kay. I know what this is about.

NIGHT KING: It’s not what you think.

THANOS: Don’t hold back, bro. We’re gonna talk you through this funk. Let it out.

NIGHT KING: It’s just that everybody loved watching you get defeated! Like three critics on Earth didn’t like the movie where the Avengers finally killed you. But when I get my death episode, which was built up to for at least as long as yours, by the way, everyone’s all ambivalent about it. All I saw the first time I checked Heavenbook up here were a bunch of thinkpieces about whether it was “narratively satisfying” or “underwhelming” or “why was a seemingly immortal zombie lord being treated as less of a threat than Cersei.”

THANOS: It can’t have been that bad.

NIGHT KING: I met Ned Stark, Thanos! He apologized to me!


NIGHT KING: I’m sorry. I raised my voice there.

THANOS: It’s cool. I know you’re feeling a lot of emotions right now.

NIGHT KING: But you get where I’m coming from, don’t you? We’re two of the scariest bad guys in 2010s pop culture, and we both got defeated on, like, the same weekend. People should have been losing their minds. We had such a great last episode where everyone talked about their backstories and stuff to make you care. And, you know, I thought it was really dope when Arya stabbed me using the same sword move she demonstrated on Brienne last season. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that while it paid off Arya’s arc really well, it didn’t actually pay off the show’s.


NIGHT KING: Also, the only guy I personally kill is Theon? Really? I couldn’t even take out Jon Snow? The guy doesn’t have any superpowers! He just has a sword and a wolf he keeps forgetting is there! All the people you killed had superpowers!

THANOS: You want to know what I think?

NIGHT KING: Totally. Please. You know I value your opinion.

Thanos takes one more drink while he figures out how to phrase this kindly.

THANOS: So the first thing I should mention is that I didn’t actually manage to kill any named characters in my final installment either. Natasha and Tony both sacrificed themselves, and Steve literally died of old age.

NIGHT KING: Yeah, that sorta violated the established rules of time travel, didn’t it? Also it’s kind of weird that Black Widow didn’t get a funeral.

THANOS: Minor black marks on an otherwise excellent film.

NIGHT KING: Yeah. (sighs deeply) I know.

THANOS: Also, I was personally against the “fat Thor” subplot. But we’re talking about you, not me. Have you thought about the fact that maybe people just appreciate our two universes differently?

NIGHT KING: How do you mean?

THANOS: Well, like Pete and Sid said, we both provide viewers with catharsis. But people go to superhero movies to get a particular sort of catharsis: they want to laugh and cheer and experience eucatastrophe, with moments like Captain America finally wielding Mjolnir.


THANOS: That’s not why they watch your show, though. Game of Thrones is all about morbid realities and deconstruction and pyrrhic victories. If it’s got one unifying theme, it’s the idea that human nature makes a better world impossible, which is the exact opposite of what Avengers stands for.

NIGHT KING: Wait a minute. Do you think that’s why nobody really cared that the Avengers undid the Snap through time travel, but everyone felt sort of cheated when Jon came back to life?

THANOS: Yeah, that’s exactly it. Every story makes a contract it has to fulfill. Your show won its place in the cultural conversation by killing off characters like Ned, Rob, Catelyn, Oberyn, and Shireen when it made sense in the story, even if it was shocking to the viewer. You took risks in the name of building a narrative that felt meaningful and lived-in.

NIGHT KING: It’s actually Robb.

THANOS: Whatever. Point is, you were all about tearing down something I played perfectly straight. A Song of Ice and Fire even has the character of Sansa to show how romantic “knights of the round table” tropes are attempts to sanitize much of what went on in the real European medieval period. And what are the Avengers if not the modern-day knights of the round table?

NIGHT KING: I think I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying I should have gotten to kill more important characters. Shit, I really wanted to take out Jaime.

THANOS: No, that’s not it, man. What I’m trying to say is–it was never actually about who got killed. It was about why. It was about showing that you were going to try and tell a story that had never been told before. People felt like you didn’t follow through on that promise.

Night King raises his beer, then puts it down without taking a sip.

NIGHT KING: You know…

THANOS: Take your time.

NIGHT KING: I’m starting to think it was a mistake for a show about human flaws and failures to have an unstoppable supervillain in it at all.

THANOS: That might be going a little too far.

NIGHT KING: It’s not, though! We were supposed to be painting in shades of moral gray, but there’s me walking around as the ultimate evil that you can’t understand or reason with? I force the whole show onto a moral spectrum that’s totally at odds with its themes! And if I’m supposed to be a metaphor for climate change or the inevitability of death or whatever, how does it make thematic sense that you can kill me a dagger? God, I’m such an idiot!

THANOS: Look, N.K., I appreciate that you’re going through a rough time right now. But I’m not trying to make you feel worse. I’m trying to build a place we can heal from, together.

Thanos pats the Night King on the back while the Night King cries it out. Eventually, Night King gets a Kleenex from his pocket, blows his nose, and gets another Heineken out of the cooler.

NIGHT KING: Thanks. That helped.

THANOS: I’m glad.

NIGHT KING: I did want to know why people liked your death so much more than mine.

THANOS: So then have you considered–

NIGHT KING: Can you imagine me in one of your movies? I bet I could have taken out the Hulk, easy. (shadowboxes)

THANOS: C’mon, bro, I’m trying to make a point.


THANOS: Have you considered that your presence in the story had the potential to add a whole new thematic dimension, but you were just poorly used by your writers?

NIGHT KING: What do you mean?

THANOS: One of your writers came right out and said he thought themes were for eighth-graders. It’s pretty clear that they don’t have anything profound or meaningful to say about power, mercy, war, love, or any of their other themes, and that for at least a season they’ve just been writing whatever lines will look best superimposed on a moodboard. But you’re different. You represent something your show has never been willing to say outright…

Thanos gestures to the whole beach scene.

THANOS: …that we’re all going to wind up here one day, and therefore there’s literally nothing more pointless than spending any time killing each other even faster. Resisting you represents the hope of a better world, of burning a torch against the night–this season’s billion-dollar chiaroscuro budget should have made that clear enough. But none of the characters in Game of Thrones have any clear idea of what a better world looks like, because their writers don’t either.

NIGHT KING: So the problem isn’t that I was dispatched too easily, or that I didn’t kill enough characters on the way…

THANOS: Go on, you’ve almost got it.

NIGHT KING: Or even that I was a poor tonal fit with the rest of the show…the problem is that I was treated as an obstacle to the fight over power, when I represent something so much more important than who gets to sit in a pointy chair! That’s why people didn’t like my death as much as yours!

THANOS: Yes! Nailed it! (chugs the rest of his Coors)

NIGHT KING: It all makes sense now. It would be like if Iron Man survived after he killed you, and then went to find Captain America and said “hey, fucker, we’re still having a civil war. Put up your dukes.”

THANOS: If there’s one thing I’ve learned from dealing with heroes all the time, it’s that when things get bad, people help each other. They realize they need each other. When everything is the worst, that’s when people’s ability to hope for better things charges into overdrive. Game of Thrones could have been a show about characters building a better world from the ashes of one that had become unsustainable. Instead they decided to roll around in the ashes and wallow.

NIGHT KING: Like the endless struggle over power is the only thing that’s ever going to matter. Can you imagine spending eight seasons and millions of dollars just to say that?

THANOS (shrugs): Some people like the sound of their own voice so much they’ll scream into the void just to hear it.

NIGHT KING: Heh. Sounds like a line from my show.

THANOS: You deserved better, buddy.

NIGHT KING: Thanks, Thanos. Good talk. I think I’d like to be alone now, if you don’t mind.

Thanos crushes his can and gets up.

THANOS: No problem, man. It’s getting dark anyway. I know that’s more your thing.

NIGHT KING: But hey, at least there’s one thing we can always agree on…

THANOS: What’s that?

NIGHT KING: Fuckin’ Starks.

THANOS: Fuckin’ Starks indeed.

Thanos turns to walk back along the shore.

Fade out.

On Spoilers

When I say that I don’t care about spoilers, people seem to think I’m not telling the truth.

“He claims he doesn’t care if we talk about Game of Thrones before he’s seen it,” my family thinks, “but Sam has a long and annoying habit of staking out intentionally contrarian viewpoints, so this is probably one of those. In actuality, he is riven by the fear of spoilers. Consumed by it. As are we all.”

It’s true. I do have that habit, and I’m working on it, because it is annoying. But this isn’t one of those times. I would never violate somebody else’s right not to be spoiled because of my beliefs that spoilers don’t matter, but for me personally, I really, literally don’t care if you tell me about the plot beats of new books, movies, TV shows, or video games before I’ve read them.

A recent Vox article about spoiler paranoia has inspired me to expand on my opinion here. That piece’s thesis is pretty simple, if you don’t want to read the whole thing: as evidenced by the bizarre filming process of Avengers: Endgame, bending over backwards not to spoil things leads everyone to jump through hoops that make movies worse.

The idea that fear of spoilers is changing the way movies get made is especially galling to me, and I can express why in five simple words: to me, ruining stories doesn’t ruin them.

The Potter Example

Let me set a scene. It’s July 20, 2007, and you’re standing in line to get your copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when it gets into the bookstore at midnight (as long as we’re time-traveling, you might as well imagine it’s a Borders). As you’re leaving the story with your copy under your arm, a guy drives by with his window down.

“Harry is a horcrux!” he yells. “He dies but gets better and then he marries Ginny! Fred and Hedwig don’t make it! Snape wanted to bone Harry’s mom!”

And other such charming phrases. For maximum visual irony, his car has a spoiler on it. Before you can shoot out his tires, he’s screaming onto the interstate to spread chaos elsewhere.

Here’s my question. At this point, knowing many of the book’s major reveals, do you toss it in the garbage?

Of course you don’t. Below, I’d like to list the reasons why.

1. You can’t be sure the spoiler is telling the truth

You probably aren’t in the habit of believing everything people scream at you from moving cars. But you also don’t believe everything you read on the internet, or even that you hear in person–you may love your friends, but you still tune out Dave when he starts talking about chemtrails.

Spoilers, though, are granted a weird exemption from skepticism. We’re so annoyed that somebody has ruined the ending for us that we don’t stop to ask whether they know what they’re talking about. This is important wisdom not just for enjoying pop culture but for navigating the entire world in 2019: a statement is not automatically true just because it is upsetting to hear.

When we get to the story ourselves, we can actually preserve a lot of the suspense and surprise by remembering that it’s still an open question whether the spoiler was at all correct. Fans who saw The Empire Strikes Back in its original theatrical run frequently reported that when Darth Vader claimed to be Luke’s father, they straight-up didn’t believe him. Now, it’s our generation’s turn to cultivate the spine to tell Darth Vader he can shove it.

2. There are other reasons to experience stories than to find out what happens next

Yes, I do understand this is a major source of enjoyment for readers and viewers. It is for me too. And I also understand how many people identify with the Russian scientist who stabbed his colleague for telling him the endings of books, even though that was likely a product of madness from the Antarctic isolation. This point, though, is really critical, and I believe everyone gets it, even if we don’t talk about it much.

Harry Potter and his friends are beloved characters. We enjoy spending time with them. We like luxuriating in their magical world. We cheer for the themes of protecting the helpless, fighting for equality, and living meaningful lives. All of these are things that are not damaged, in any way, by knowing beforehand that Harry is a horcrux.

Some of the greatest works of Western literature, including the poems of Homer and the tragedies of Shakespeare, ruin their own endings in the first lines. By line 15 of the Odyssey, we know that Odysseus’s crew will be killed after slaughtering cattle belonging to the sun god; by the same point in Romeo and Juliet, we know that the title characters will die and thereby end the fighting between their families.

Similarly, nobody who buys a ticket for an action movie is in any doubt about whether it will end with the protagonist bringing the villain to justice. You know the ending of the story going in, and you still sit down, because there’s so much more in a good story than a few major plot beats, and it’s all so much harder to ruin.

I’ve harped on this before, but I’m going to keep repeating it whether anyone likes it or not. The difference between a story and a surprise is the difference between a Vegas magic show and your friend who does card tricks when they’re drunk. The reason we all stopped caring about M. Night Shyamalan movies is that nobody gave a crap about anything that happened before the reveal.

To really beat this into the ground, if the best value to be gotten from stories was from the steady reveal of plot beats, nobody would ever reread books.

3. Being spoiled does take something from the experience, but it adds more than it takes

A series of studies conducted at UC San Diego suggested that people actually derive greater enjoyment from a story when they’ve been spoiled. The researchers theorized that knowing the plot beforehand allows a reader or viewer to appreciate everything else in the story more, because they aren’t distracted by waiting to find out what happens. In other words, watching a movie again to appreciate all the subtle hints at the twist ending is just as pleasurable if it’s your first viewing.

There is definitely a thrill that can’t be replicated that comes from discovering new twists as they happen, but to me, that’s a very small part of the experience of being told a story. That’s what makes it so frustrating that spoiler culture privileges it above everything else. If you love something, says spoiler culture, what you care about is what happens next. And so, the natural connections people forge around things that should be beloved cultural touchstones–the very foundations of nerd culture–are limited by the necessity of tiptoeing around what should be the least important part of those stories.

4. Even so, don’t spoil things for people

I want to be absolutely clear about this. If what people want is not to be told what happens at the end of the next installment of their favorite story, nobody has the right to decide otherwise–I don’t get to decide what’s good for someone else against their will, ever, and I don’t have the right to decide what beliefs do and don’t count as legit.

I’m just hoping that, eventually, spoiler culture will die down on its own. It’s frustrating and limiting, and in a small but real way, devalues what I love.