Sections of TWC
Ad
Article Categories
Let me start with something from the old times. When you were first interviewed in the Critic's Quill (Issue 35), I called the ongoing Takeda story a masterpiece. Now you really made it - Takeda is the first AAR to be reviewed in the new Masterpiece collection of the Quill. The praise is just as well deserved today as it was then. How much do you think Takeda defines you as a writer?
First of all I should thank you for allowing me this opportunity. Your original review was magnanimous to say the least, and considering the many great pieces I've read over the times, I'm immensely honoured for Takeda to be featured like this.
Takeda is the longest thing I've ever written by a factor of multiples, so it's probably safe to say it defines me as a fiction writer. When I started I had little idea it would evolve into the mammoth project it would eventually become, but looking back it does bring me considerable pride.
What makes a masterpiece a masterpiece?
This is going to be a subjective assessment: there are obviously many aspects to a story that need to be right for it to be called a masterpiece - e.g. an interesting backdrop, colourful characters and their interactions, plot twists, etc. But for me a masterpiece is something which captures the imagination - a piece which creates a realistic world, brings the reader inside this world, and where the plot and characters connects with the reader on a personal level. The characters must think and behave in realistic but interesting ways. Plot twists need to invoke emotions in the readers. Without that connection between author and reader the story becomes dry and uninteresting. I actually think Joeffrey Baratheon in GOT sums this up perfectly - the fact people hated him so much makes the character - and that part of the story - a massive success.
What was on your mind when you started to write Takeda? What was the trigger for the story?
I might have mentioned this in the after thoughts of Takeda, but in the very beginning it was really just boredom between jobs. I'd read a number of AARs including yours and Skantarios', and I'd decided I would try my hand at doing something similar. I'd always liked the Takeda as a faction to play with in S2TW, and decided quickly that was going to be the basis of the story.
What have you learned from that writing experience? Is there anything you would do differently?
I genuinely think I learned so much it would take the length of this interview just to talk about that. On doing things differently - I think I made Takeda too straightforward as a story. Yes there were various diversions but on the whole the Takeda clan became this massive meat grinder that bordered on the invincible. It's partly what motivated me to make the ending a more melancholic affair. If I was to write Takeda again (or indeed currently writing Wings) I'd probably try to make it less predictable.
There are some who would be hesitant to start a new AAR, and others may lose interest after a few updates. What encouraging advice would you give to new writers?
It's somewhat understandable that folks can be reticent to start an AAR, and/or abandon a story after some time. Writing an AAR is generally a massive undertaking - something not many readers or budding writers realise. When you set out on a new AAR the author is faced with a huge amount of uncertainty, and it's generally a fairly lonely experience to start off with. To me the biggest inhibitor of AARs is a lack of feedback. Most folks who start AARs are keen to test themselves or want to create something interesting, but it can be fairly dispiriting if after some updates (and considerable time committed) there is little in the way of attention or comments.
Lack of feedback can be an issue for the best of us. Having Takeda under my belt didn't necessarily mean I was brimming with confidence starting Wings, and the combination of a busy schedule in real life and lack of activity forum wide at the time caused me to take some time out. I came back when my offline life eased up somewhat, but for a first-time AARtist that initial downer can be a real deal breaker.
What makes a good character in an AAR? Do we need standard protagonists, antagonists or even female leads?
I think the most important thing is to have identifiable characters with some clear traits readers can associate with, and to have a lively repertoire of thoughts and dialogue attributable to each main character. Sometimes it's easier to deal in well established types - the valiant hero, the damsel in distress, the evil stepmother, that kind of thing. But it can get rather cliche. Another thing I would perhaps do differently in my next AAR (e.g. Wings) is maybe have more moral greyness in my characters. Having clean cut heroes and villains can be quite dull!
On the subject of female characters - I remember a period when they were all the rage and everyone started including them in their AARs, myself included. So far in the AAR's I've read they've mostly been secondary characters, most often either the target of the protagonist's affections, or as some kind of scheming uber-
(or both at the same time!). There's definitely unexplored territory here. A female lead would be interesting - particularly if she's not in the Joan of Arc mould, i.e. where the character is basically still the warrior hero type albeit with added lady-bits.It is often said that a writer needs to know a lot about the period or at least the general history of the setting of the AAR. This may help us understand why there are writers specialized in certain titles. How much of the immersion should come from real life knowledge?
I think it's important to get the basic facts right and to set the scene for the period. Failing to do so destroys realism - e.g. you would never have a S2TW AAR where the characters start saying "howdy" to one another. Things like honorifics (particularly important for Asian cultures), titles (military titles, social titles for a Rome setting for example) and even curses and exclamations (e.g. "by the grace of Jupiter!", "bakamono!") can also add to the immersion of the period if used appropriately.
On the other hand I don't think it's necessary to be completely period accurate. The whole point of an AAR is fiction and writers shouldn't feel completely boxed in by historical events, for example. Judgement is needed here on how much history can be stretched if the AAR is heavily story/history based - for example some readers might not take too kindly at the idea of a Rome-Carthage friendship, for example, or Shingen being allies with Kenshin (err...).
How important are gaming skills or play styles for an AAR?
I think this depends on the AAR - and what the author is trying to showcase. If it's a "show and tell" type of AAR where the main objective is to show off what the game can do (as can be common when a game is first released) then obviously that becomes more important. For the more descriptive AARs it can range from being less important to completely irrelevant. I recall SeniorBatavianHorse saying his Lost Legion epic was based on all of four(!) turns in game. In my Takeda AAR I basically abandoned the game after realm divide - I could have remained faithful to the craziness that followed, but decided going my own way using custom battles made for better storytelling.
AAR writers are often either writers in RL and storytelling is already in their nature or do not write at all and use AARs as the means to do something completely different. Which group would you be closer to?
I write professionally IRL - but what I do there is very fact/analysis-driven, pretty technical on the most part, and completely different from AAR writing. AAR writing for me is a welcome break and an opportunity to do something different.
How do you see the future of AAR writing? Do you think there will be any fundamental changes in this genre (such as the emergence of video-based AARs) or writing AARs remains the same and only the story changes?
I am optimistic. One of my personal goals in writing Takeda was to liven up the S2 AAR section - that didn't really happen while I was writing it, but there has been a pleasing influx of S2 writers more recently, which I've enjoyed. Evolution is inevitable - I dabbled in video making and others are far more successful at it. But fundamentally there will always be room for the narrative based AAR, in my view. There's ultimately something quite attractive about reading a good story in text, I think. In the context of TWC, activity will probably always ebb and flow based on what new game CA releases. Rome isn't my thing, but others have excelled. I think the WS has done very well in recent times so kudos to the staff there.
vBulletin Message