The good news is that my teen fantasy novel Shadow Walkers is finally released this week, and I’m pretty pleased with the result. Here’s the blurb:

Zach lives with his grandparents on a remote island in Puget Sound in Washington State. With only his little brother, Gilbert, to keep him company, Zach feels cut off from the world. But when Gilbert is kidnapped, Zach tries the only thing he can think of to find him: astral projection. Soon, his spirit is soaring through the strange and boundless astral realm—a shadow place. While searching for his brother, Zach meets a boy named Emory, another astral traveler who’s intriguing (and cute).

As Zach and Emory track the kidnappers from the astral realm, their bond grows, but each moment could be Gilbert’s last. Even worse, there’s a menacing, centuries-old creature in their midst that devours souls and possesses physical bodies. And it’s hungry for Zach.

Request it from your local library or buy it here.

The bad news? For the time being, we’re suspending publication of new content on TheTorchOnline.com.

Editing this site has been a labor of love — I love fantasy, and I obviously love sharing my (many) opinions. But it’s become a labor of love that has made it increasingly difficult to work on other projects — especially, ironically, as the site has grown bigger and ever-more-successful.

So we’re taking a break so that I and my co-Torchees can work on other things (including, in my case, more novels, and hopefully also some movie projects).

But I still believe in the concept of a website that is more than just content aggregation — more than just rewriting other people’s reporting. I’m proud that TheTorchOnline.com was devoted to original reporting and commentary, and I’m thrilled that we were able to do so many exclusive interviews (with Lucy Lawless, Dominic Monghan, Anna Torv, Morena Baccarin, Eddie McClintock, Lynda Carter, most of the cast of Legend of the Seeker, and many, many others), and I’m proud that we’ve been able to break many important stories (on Xena, Spartacus, Legend of the Seeker, Warehouse 13, Piers Anthony, and many other fantasy-themed topics).

I also think we helped, in our own small way, give the genre of fantasy some of the respect and credibility that it deserves (but still frequently doesn’t get. Did you notice that Spartacus didn’t even make EW’s recent list of the top ten shows on television? Ridiculous!).

With Heather Hogan’s hilarious “Facebook” recaps and my associate editor Tim O’Leary’s funny perspective on almost everything else, I also hope we sometimes made you laugh. (As much as I love fantasy, it’s possible that sometimes it takes itself a little too seriously…)

Will we ever be back?

We might be. As fantasy enthusiasts, we all know better than most how wonderfully unpredictable life can be. (Follow us on Facebook or Twitter for future announcements.)

In the meantime, thanks for reading and thanks for the support (one of my favorite parts of working on the site was the clever, insightful comments that often put my actual content to shame!).

Trust me, whether or not I’m editing this website, I’ll be carrying the torch for fantasy for many years to come.

Brent Hartinger, February 2, 2011

In person, Mark Pellegrino has both devils’ horns and vampire fangs.

Okay, not really. But you’ll forgive me for expecting them, given how incredibly effective he’s been in his roles as Lucifer’s vessel on Supernatural and Bishop, the leader of the vampires on Syfy’s Being Human — and also the mysterious Jacob on Lost.

(As much as I loved him in Supernatural, I didn’t think the producers gave the character of Lucifer nearly enough to do last year!)

The 45-year-old actor has been finding steady TV and film work for years, often as thugs and other meanies (in the cult film The Big Lebowski, he was the guy who stuffs Jeff Bridge’s head down the toilet).

But with break-out appearances on high-profile shows like Supernatural and Lost, and his bigger role on Being Human, Pellegrino’s career is currently hotter than ever.

Recently, I had a chance to sit down with him and chat about how he got so very good at playing bad:

TheTorchOnline: You’re so good at playing evil. Do you worry about being typecast?

Mark Pellegrino: I don’t because I feel like I let the audience judge who’s evil, and I try to play everybody, at least so far, as good. To me, Lucifer was somebody who had a real beef. He’d been betrayed by his father and his brother for lesser beings, and was angry about it and wanted to get revenge. I think anybody could to relate to that. So to me, that’s not necessarily a bad guy. That’s a good guy who’s been betrayed, who has a sense of justice, who’s been bamboozled.

TTO: What I absolutely loved about that Satan is that he was the one character who always told the truth. The Prince of Lies never lied!

MP: Regardless of how one religious one is, I think an amazingly coherent case can be made against God, so one needs to just tell the truth. And that’s what Lucifer did, to his credit. He was an angel of light before to the fall.

TTO: Was this a pre-existing belief you had or did you find it for the character?

MP: I was lucky in the sense that I’ve experimented was various beliefs all my life, so when I did that show, I had already probably read The Bible four times, studied it from a philosophical perspective. So I think my sensibility was already there. They did give me a book called The Book of Enoch [an ancient Jewish document] and I read that,but it didn’t inform me.

"Being Human"'s Sam Witwer (left) and Pellegrino

TTO: Any chance we’ll see Lucifer again?

MP: Not that I know of. I think Lucifer used up that vessel. But it is the supernatural, so anything is possible.

TTO: So how is being the leader of the vampires in Being Human the same as playing Lucifer, and how is it different?

MP: Well, it’s the same in the sense that I have a cause. It’s a same in the sense that I’m dealing with issues of deep betrayal and a family split.

But rather than trying to destroy and annihilate like Lucifer did, Bishop is trying to bring the elements back together again. He’s trying to be a uniting force. So he sees a little bit further than his desire for revenge. And I think that’s motivated by a real love and connection with Aiden, the main character, that I don’t think Lucifer would’ve allowed himself.

TTO: When you play these roles, do you find that the darkness stays with you? Is it ever difficult to shake off?

MP: I think things like that can [stay with you]. I think that’s more an issue with younger actors. It was definitely an issue with me for a few years. But after a while, you begin to understand the difference between what you’re doing on the set and life.

It can infect you a little bit if the emotions that you’re feeling are negative enough. But you can tend to shake it off. You learn how to supplement yourself with other stuff.

TTO: In your personal life, do you find that you’re drawn to these sci-fi/fantasy/horror roles?

MP: I’ve always been a big fan of science fiction and horror. It’s been sort of an accident that I’ve stumbled into my favorite genre. I’m glad about it. I think science fiction has been a place for people to explore taboo subjects in a safe atmosphere, because it’s fantasy. So they can really push the envelope in a lot of ways.

And horror is just great, because really well-done horror is really the realm of the heroic. The stories are deep. I’m not a big fan of the slasher flick. I like the “story” horror — The Exorcist, the story of a man losing his faith and regaining it. And Rosemary’s Baby, things like that.

And I think we touch that [in Being Human], in that way of telling a real story about souls.

TTO: When you were a kid and playing with your friends, did you play the bad guy then?

MP: I think we all kind of switched up! We did the natural acting thing. I spent a lot of years in acting class trying to regain the things we did when we were five.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.

Q: Why has it taken so long for V to show us what the Vs look like? I don’t remember the original series taking this long — and they didn’t even have CGI back then! — MAGPIE, Toronto, Canada

The Oracle Speaks:

If the network had had their way, it would’ve taken even longer still.

“When I took over the show [mid-way through the first season], there were some mandates from the people who pay my paycheck,” says V showrunner Scott Rosenbaum. “I was told I could not show what a visitor looked like, under any circumstances.”

Rosenbaum wasn’t happy.

“I reacted very negatively to that,” he says, “but I was put in a position where I couldn’t [show the Vs]. I fought that fight every day, every phone call, every [set of notes]. It was difficult for me, because I was reading this fan-stuff online [about the need to show the visitors], and I was thinking, ‘I agree with that!’”

Eventually, the network relented. “And it happened to coincide with what I think the fans wanted right from the start,” Rosenbaum says.

It’s hard to imagine what the suits were thinking, except to acknowledge that it had been a while since there’d been much sci-fi on broadcast television, and they may simply have been unfamiliar with what the audience wanted.

“Sometimes less is more, but this is a case where it definitely wasn’t,” Rosenbaum tells me. “I understood the fan frustration. Look, we know what they are [from the original]. It’s not a secret, so there’s no reason to hang onto it. There are a lot of other secrets to keep, but that was one that you owe it almost to show it to them. If it had been up to me, I would’ve showed them by the second episode.”

Q: Ever notice how Yoda’s words of wisdom are so often wrong?

The Oracle Speaks:

You have a point. Consider:

• “If you leave now, help them you could; but you would destroy all for which they have fought, and suffered.” [Not true: Luke saves them, but doesn't destroy all they have fought and suffered.]
• “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.’ [Not true: with help from Luke, Darth Vadar turns away from the dark path in the end.]

And then there’s the fact that Yoda and Obi-Wan totally lie to Luke about the identify of his father, shrugging it off with the condescending, “Not ready for the burden were you.”

And I’m not even considering any Yoda dialogue from the prequel movies (which I’ve only seen once and am now basically pretending don’t exist).

On the other hand, Yoda is also right more than a few times:

• “No. Try not. Do… or do not. There is no try.”
• “That is why you fail.”
• “No. There is another.”

The point is, when your wisdom is as wise as Yoda’s sometimes is (and when you’re performed by someone as bad-ass as Frank Oz!), you’re allowed a few blind spots here and there.

Plus, as Yoda himself points out, “When 900 years you reach, look as good you will not, hmm?”

I’d say the same thing also applies to his mental acuity.

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

If one chooses to believe the following notion, there are certain scenarios that have yet to be perfected in film.  Specifically, in the fantasy realm.  Now there has been admirable attempts at the below forthcoming points.  But it’s not quite there yet.

So without further delay — and worthless banter — here’s a look at six fantasy ideas that we desperately still need to see in film.

1.  A Fantasy Epic Where Evil Wins (Muhahaha)

What if Frodo kept the ring?  How cool would it be if Hades won?  Although I consider myself a film historian (on training wheels), it is tough to recall when something this monumental has taken place.  It probably has somewhere in random underground fantasy flicks throughout history.  Yet the recent mainstream products keeps their distance from this idea.

What scribes are blatantly missing in their storytelling is that just because it is a happy ending, that does not necessarily mean it is a good one.  Even though this will hurt my cool factor (although I’m writing for a fantasy site), this idea entered my gem-of-a-brain after completing a Star Wars videogame (losing female Facebook friends as we speak).  Specifically, Knights of the Old Republic.

After playing it through and being a good little Jedi, I took in the cinematic ending for my accomplishments. Then I went back and played through again — basking in pure evil.

Upon completion, the “dark side” movie and storyline was extremely better than the typical good guy celebration.  Why?  Because the writers embraced the evil themes instead of dabbling in it.  Being able to say, “WOW” is just as satisfying as leaving with a smile on your face after the good guys win.

Of course we ultimately cheer for protagonists such as Frodo.  Yet part of me kind of wanted to see Sauron appear and wipe out the noble heroes.  Curiosity and change is the spice of life and exploring a new side of drama couldn’t hurt.  So having said that — in an epic arena — how would that creative concept come off?  I believe there is a way to do this without disappointing the audience.  Have the good guys go down using the old western “blaze-of-glory” concept.

Although the odds are stacked against them, by depicting an “all-in” battle, where good does some damage — yet eventually loses — could be crafted to drive home the above mentioned “WOW” response from the viewer.  Because in the end, a filmmaker truly just wants to get a reaction from his viewers — and something this unexpected would definitely provoke.

Admittedly, the physical storytelling would have to be impeccable for this idea to work.  Plus, the filmmaker must resist all urges to avoid showing a silver-lining after the evil victory.  No coddling allowed, my friends.

2.  Satan vs. God

Now this has been attempted in subtle ways, but no one can seem to truly bring this up to a level it needs to be (South Park doesn‘t count).  People are fascinated with the end of the world and if there is an anti-Christ walking among us.  Problem is, there has never been a full-scale epic that tackles every angle of the biblical apocalypse.  End of Days made a feeble attempt with this theme.  It brought in the devil but couldn’t muster up a worthy opponent (sorry, Governor Arnie) or atmosphere.

What I truly want to see is a creative writing scenario that encompasses an audacious battle between two actual immortals.  I’m tired of seeing a mismatch where a human’s morals somehow always end up saving the world.  Complete horse-crap.  Let’s get to the part of the book where the anti-Christ is unleashed and a great battle happens on earth.

No more demons possessing people to do their fighting.  Create a workable demon character — with minimal human likenesses — and form an army to take on angels.  Now the image of an angel is fairly well known.  So dump the logic and take liberties with the character.  Make angels twelve feet tall.  Then usher in the leads — God and Satan — in their true form.  We all think we know what Satan looks like, so surprise the hell out of us.

As for God, unless you can create a tricked-out version of Keith Richards or Ozzy (who are convinced they’re immortal and God-like), drop the old-man with the beard stigma and go for the outrageous.  God is subjective, so even if the great being is in the form of an unusual creature, who’s to argue?

Now, the trick is to have them fight all over the world and stop working in ridiculous subplots.  Sure, we need a mankind perspective, but  maintain the focus on the two stars.  Spend at least $100 million on this sucker and do it right.  The definitive apocalypse flick that brings the meat instead of dancing around the idea and teasing us.  Have you noticed that all of the flicks that have tried to depict this subject matter are low-budget and go direct-to-DVD?  Time for a change.  Prophecy had its storytelling moments, but way too subtle in its approach.

Yes this sounds like a Clash of the Titans rip-off, but the one element that sets this idea apart is the actual characters being depicted (God and Satan).  Sometimes less is more, but this is film, dammit! Sometimes more is more too.

3.  Adapt the Fable Videogame

All one hears on comment boards is who will create a fantasy flick as memorable and sophisticated as The Lord of the Rings.  This past decade, so many second-tier fantasy novels have half-assed their way onto the big screen.  Judging by the endings of all them (The Seeker, Eragon, etc.), they were hoping to continue.  Not so much my friends.  The respective studios chopped up the story and refused to spend the money.  Yet strangely, they have no problem blowing a $100 million on another lackluster rom-com that fails to arouse any profits at the box office.

The Fable story is rich and already has legions of fans.  Scoop it up, drop a ton of money on it, and the people will come.  It’s not that complicated.

4.  Create the Next LightSaber

As in, who will create the next iconic weapon that all of us will dream about having?  Even at 31, I still wake up swinging my blue blade (or is it blue balls from my imaginary  lady friend?). Moving along, Harry Potter’s wand does zilch for me.  Susan’s Narnia bow is stale and overused.  He-Man’s sword in the ’80s cartoon was interesting, but in the end, it’s just a sword.  All the wizard’s staffs look fun if I was confined to just walking around New York City.  Seriously, imagine the fun you could have with that “walking stick.”

There was a time I began thinking the X-Men flicks would come up with some innovative device.  Although they are mainly armed with super powers, I was banking on Hollywood not sticking to the source material and inserting their arrogance within the product.  What better place than the weapon department right?  Instead, it is all super powers.  And even if I wanted a super power, it would have been Superman’s X-ray vision.  Yet that is now worthless to me.  Why?  A plane ticket to Amsterdam isn’t all that expensive and there are plenty of windows.  If you know what I mean. (For the younger audiences, Google Amsterdam Windows.  You’ll thank me later).

Where was I?  Oh yeah…Weapons.  Clearly I could not come up with anything myself.  Any thoughts, or did I miss a great weapon since the lightsaber?  Didn’t the Blade franchise have some cool gadgets?  I shall go watch those again.  And I will be doing a noble deed in doing so.  Heard Wesley Snipes is having some cash flow issues.

5.  A Dragon Movie…That Isn’t Pathetic.

Not sure if this is possible actually, for the character may not be workable in a feature script.  Definitely could see recurring patterns where the flick drags due the dragon is not being captured on camera.  Two flicks come to mind that were tolerable at the very least though.  1981’s Dragonslayer and 2002’s Reign of Fire.  Intriguing stories and the CGI work for their respective times was admirable.  Aside from those two, the only flick that looked pristine was How to Train Your Dragon.  An animated film.  That was a nice movie, but I’m looking for something gritty and dangerous.

Believe it or not, Dragonslayer was a Walt Disney Picture that brought in an element of danger.  In contrast, Reign of Fire was supposed to be dramatic and dangerous.  As it went on, though, it became a platform for the CGI nerds to have fun with the technology.  And the lead characters’ acting ability transitioned into something out of a bad porno (if there is such a thing).

Seeing complete trash such as D-Wars and whatever childish flick Sean Connery voiced the dragon (too lazy to look it up and still trying to repress the memories) is making my ass itch (it‘s just what happens).  I believe the dragon character could find a proper vehicle in cinema with someone who had the right vision and respect for the material.  Paging Guillermo del Toro…

6.  Torch’s Choice ________

Authors must be honest with their readers and vice versa.  And trust me, my readers have been very honest and graphically descriptive over the years, in my archive of comment boards.  Especially when I give Twilight just 3 out of 5 stars (my apologies milfs, but feel free to grow-up anytime now).

Coming up with other moments that need to be seen in an epic fantasy flick should  be relatively easy.  However, picking a final topic has become quite the task for yours truly.  I was thinking about giants.  Then I jumped to how a filmmaker needs to shoot an epic battle scene in Iceland.  The landscape just feels magical.  Looks a lot like Middle-Earth too.  Also started thinking about what not to do.  I have an extremely hard time grasping that escapism feeling when magical forces are on display in a present day big city such as New York or Chicago.  Just doesn’t have that same old feeling when executed in a period piece.  Felt that on the last Harry Potter flick (Deathly Hallows) and the recent Sorcerer’s Apprentice debacle.  Modern landscape fails to provide the appropriate atmosphere in pleasing us dreamers.

Anyway, rather than force the issue, let’s yap, Torch followers.  If that doesn’t sound enticing, feel free to rip on me below. Suggestions for blind dates are also appreciated — cause once the legion of females see my name on the byline for this article, I’m going to need all the help I can get.

Four Torches (Out of Five)

Warning: This review contains minor spoilers for the “Missio” episode of Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.

I’d gotten so accustomed to the insane, boundary-pushing shenanigans of the Spartacus series last year that I forgot there’s simply no other show on television like it. Period. Sure, shows have attempted to push the boundaries of violence and sex before, but have you ever seen things like decapitations, eviscerations, dismemberment, alongside open gay sex, public masturbation, and orgies handled so … well, nonchalantly?

Spartacus continues to be a show like no other, and I have no doubt that in the coming years we’ll see shows attempt to emulate it, but fall short, as mimics often do.

Anyway, onto this particular episode. While the first episode was understandably heavy on exposition — a season premiere requires a fair amount of world-building, after all — we’re back on track with an action-packed episode. After the sick beat-down Batiatus received last week, he was itching to get his revenge on his two assailants. After this episode, one is down with one to go.

An intriguing new character arrived this season: Gaia, an old friend (and a very close one at that) of Lucretia’s. In the first episode she seemed more like an older version of a naughty schoolgirl, but after the ingeniously crafted character of Ilithyia last season, I had my eye on her, and sure enough, she revealed herself to be  a web of ice-cold calculations under the beguiling smile and flighty facade.

The plot centers around a scheme by Batiatus to convince, through whatever means necessary, a wealthy patron named Varras to showcase Batiatus’ gladiators in his upcoming games, rather than his rivals’. Part of this scheme includes sending a gang of his new recruits — Ashur, the villainous scoundrel from Season 1 among them — to take out his rival, while Lucretia and Gaia are dispatched to seduce Varras into retreating from the sun to Batiatus’ villa. Lucretia, far from the willful femme fatale she becomes later on, is a bundle of nerves, while Gaia tells her to relax, and takes the lead.

Prequels are hard to pull off, because we know how the story ends, but one thing Spartacus is doing absolutely right is showing us virtually every character in a new way. Sure, we know what becomes of them, but this way, we enjoy the ride a whole lot more.

Once they succeed in luring Varras to the villa, the three of them work him over until he’s ready to choose one of Batiatus’ gladiators. The natural choice is Gannicus, the current champion, who impresses Varras with his defeat over Crixus, who will one day be the champion himself, of course.

And in a twist that only the writers of Spartacus would come up with, Batiatus then brings Gannicus to the chambers, clad only in a white tunic, and casually offers Varras an opportunity to have sex with him. Varras is certainly titillated, but drunk and under the influence of opium, would rather just watch Gannicus have sex with a nearby slave, who happens to be the wife of Gannicus’ friend.

Gaia, mind you, is interested in becoming Varras’ wife, social climber that she is, and yet she’s not put off in the slightest as Varras toys with having sex with a man, finally contenting himself to masturbate in everyone’s presence as Gannicus fornicates before his eyes.

To say this show is unique doesn’t even begin to do it justice. I’m pretty sure I never saw a scene like that in Two and a Half Men.

If there is a flaw in the series, it’s one of sad origin: without Andy Whitfield to anchor the show as a lead character, there’s a slightly meandering sense to the story, as though this is all subplot and we’ll eventually get to the A-story. Sure, Batiatus and Lucretia are delicious villains, but there’s a reason villains are seldom the protagonists, and while Gannicus is wonderfully cocky and full of hubris, the show doesn’t quite rest on his shoulders.

That having been said, I eagerly await the next installment.

When I wrote this article over a year ago, I meant it as a joke. But with the news today that Peter Jackson has a perforated ulcer, delaying The Hobbit yet again, I’m suddenly not so sure it is a joke.

First, there was all that bad blood between New Line Studios and Peter Jackson over profits from the Lord of the Rings movies. Then there was a lawsuit from the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien where they threatened to shut down the entire production of the movie version of The Hobbit. Now MGM is suddenly on the verge of bankruptcy, jeopardizing the production all over again.

Is The Hobbit cursed or what? Will this movie ever see the light of day?

Industry observers say it’ll all work out in the end — that there’s way too much money at stake for the movie to not get made.

I’m not so sure. Here are my predictions for what can — and almost certainly will — jeopardize The Hobbit next:

• A man who went to kindergarten with Tolkien will sue the producers for a share of the profits, claiming the Lord of the Rings author plagiarized his books from the man’s contributions to “storytime.”

• Andy Serkis will insist on playing the part of Gollum with the voice of Donald Duck.

• Swine flu will take out the entire New Line staff.

• Guillermo Del Toro, Peter Jackson, and Fran Walsh will become involved in a complicated love triangle which results in none of them speaking.

• Olaf Engelstad, a man of Norwegian descent, will sue the producers for a share of the profits, claiming his ancestors invented the concept of the “elf.”

• Director Guillermo Del Toro will be replaced by Eli Roth.

• Locusts will descend on New Zealand.

• The trend of big-budget special effects extravaganzas will come to an abrupt end as Americans suddenly develop an insatiable yearning for non-linear foreign film (without subtitles).

• The descendants of Eadweard Muybrid will sue the producers for a share of the profits, reminding them that Muybrid was the inventor of “film.”

• Peter Jackson will reveal that he’s become Amish and insist that no technology whatsoever be used in the making of the movie.

• The part of Bilbo will be played by Sofia Coppola.

• Unable to vanquish the locusts, New Zealand will also fall into eternal darkness.

• Ian McKellen will develop massive boils.

• Eli Roth will replaced by Rob Zombie.

• Actual Ents will be discovered in the Redwood forests of California, right before they go on a rampage, destroying Los Angeles.

• Still consumed by locusts and darkness, New Zealand will sink into the ocean.

• CGI green-screen technology will become impossible when God unexpectedly eliminates the color “green.”

• A meteor will crash into the planet, eliminating all life on Earth.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

DOES LOVING FANTASY MEAN I HAVE TO ROMANTICIZE THE PAST?

Can I make a confession? As much as I love fantasy, one part of the genre has always kind of bugged me:

The romanticization of the past.

I mean, I’m fine with romanticizing the past as, well, fantasy. In our era of media assault and cultural crudeness, who doesn’t smile at the idea of a simpler time, with sausages sizzling in the marketplace and a little stone cottage at the edge of a babbling brook with a pot of stew simmering over a roaring fire?

But, of course, that “past” never existed.

At all.

That’s pure fantasy. The reality is that, until just the last century and excepting for a lucky few — like royalty and people who lived in places of lush bounty like Pacific Islanders — human life has been a pretty miserable existence, at least by modern standards. The “past” had almost no safeguards or safety nets and, as a result, depended entirely on everything going absolutely right. Because if there was a famine or a war or an outbreak of disease — which happened a lot — things got really ugly really fast.

And even when times were good? The past was rife with ugly superstition, overwhelming bigotry, and plain old human ignorance. Who’s talking cultural crudeness now? And as for assaults, I’ll take a media assault over an actual one any day of the week.

I’m not saying anything particularly radical or extraordinary here. Talk to any historian, and he or she say exactly the same thing: for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of places, life was short and not-all-that sweet.

For the most part, I’m fine with pretending this isn’t true, or even simply agreeing to concentrate mostly on the positive aspects of the past — the stronger sense of community and, as a result, the accountability; the appreciation of tradition and cultural continuity; and the recognition that old people are not worthless and sometimes possess great wisdom and understanding.

But, of course, even here, all these “positive” aspects of the past had serious downsides as well: namely, a resistance to change and a lack of nimbleness, even in the face of obviously changing times. What if you want to argue that slavery is immoral, or that a women shouldn’t be consigned only to child-rearing and housework, or that gay people shouldn’t be burned at the stake?

Um, good luck with that.

But a lot of fantasy writers take it a step further even than this romantization of the past, and seem to be arguing that, with regard to human knowledge and understanding, the past was better too — that there is some great “wisdom of the ancients” or a “time of fairies” that has been lost, and that our current knowledge and understanding of the world just pales in comparison.

I’m so not down with this.

Okay, sure, I acknowledge that there is definitely some great wisdom in the past — especially in “advanced” cultures like the Ancient Greeks, the Chinese, the Islamic Golden Age, and the like.

And there is surely some “forgotten” wisdom too, perhaps in pagan peace-loving cultures that were tragically destroyed and suppressed by more war-inclined ones.

But superior to the modern world?

As bad as the present is — and I’m semi-convinced that corporations will ultimately be the death of us all — I still prefer it over the past.

It’s not even close.

Yes, there were surely some wise sages back then — but there are wise sages now. Read any Ursula Le Guin lately? And if we’re going to compare the “best” cultures of the past, isn’t it only fair to compare them to the “best” cultures of the present? Been to any Scandinavian countries lately? I defy you not to be impressed by their ingenuity, egalitarianism, and, well, civilization.

The past, meanwhile, was mostly an endless slog against superstition and ignorance.

Is it possible that there was a true “golden” age that existed before known civilization? A time of faeries?

Eh, maybe. But we haven’t found much evidence of it, and based on what we do know about the past, and about our species, it doesn’t seem very likely.

You know, I get that this isn’t necessarily a “literal” belief, that it’s all basically a wish, a metaphor for a particular world-view — the idea that “now,” that the modern world, is failing us all, morally and spiritually.

But I think it’s the metaphor that I’m most objecting to. When I look at human history, I see plenty to disgust and outrage me — just as when I look at the modern world.

But you know what? I also see a mostly steady, upward trajectory for our species: from blind superstition and ignorance, to increasing understanding and reason. From ignorance to enlightenment.

I know this is (very generally) the world-view of the science fiction genre, while fantasy tends to be much more critical of the present and suspicious of the future. Optimism in humanity and the future versus pessimism and a worship of the past.

And that kinda bums me out: I love fantasy, but my particular world-view seems to coincide more with sci-fi.

Is there a way to reconcile my two passions?

There is, but it’ll have to be the subject of another essay.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

This article was published in January 2010.

The end of the year means one thing for magazines: lists. Lists of bests. Lists of worsts. Lists of tops. Lists of bottoms. Lists of lists. Publisher’s Weekly caused an uproar when they released their list of Top 100 books for 2009. Only 29 female authors made the cut, and none of them cracked the top ten.

The Washington Post reacted with an article called “The key to literary success? Be a man — or write like one.” Salon.com responded in kind with “If you want to be a great writer, be a man.” Both articles were written by women, recalling advice from former college professors.

As I was reading both (valid) arguments that women get the shaft in publishing circles, I couldn’t help but compare the experiences of those women to the experiences of women in the fantasy genre. Sure, fantasy is full of epic male authors: Tolkien, Lewis, Jordan, Gaimen, Pratchett, Dahl. But fantasy also has its share of celebrated (and well-paid) female writers: Kurtz, Rice, Rowling, Weis, Bradley.

Is the fantasy genre simply more friendly to female writers?

I think so.

But why?

Let’s start by looking at the biggest bang (and bank account): J.K. Rowling.

By now, her personal journey is as well-known as that of of The Boy Who Lived. For example, that “K” in “J.K.” is not even her real name. When Bloomsbury bought Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, they feared that young boys wouldn’t want to read a fantasy tale by Joanne Rowling, so she adopted an androgynous “K.”

By the time Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire hit shelves, Rowling was the highest-profile author in the world, and everyone knew the “K” was for Kathleen. It didn’t matter that J.K. Rowling was a woman; what mattered was that she hurry back to her office and start writing about Hogwarts, Year Five.

Rowling also did another thing for female writers in the fantasy genre: she blurred the lines between children’s fiction and adult fiction. Women have always been trusted with cooking, cleaning and kids; so, the children’s publishing industry has historically been more accessible to females. During Harry Potter’s off-years, many adults went digging around in the children’s sections at their local bookstores, looking for an equally entrancing fantasy fix. And publishers paid attention.

But Rowling wasn’t the first woman to enjoy monetary success and critical praise for her fantasy writing. Before her, there were vampires — and three women who, er, brought them to life.

Marilyn Ross‘ Barnabas Collins series, Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles and Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s Saint-German series changed the vampire genre. Under their pens, vampires became brooding, tragic, poetic heroes. And unlike the implicit sexual themes in vampire stories before theirs, Ross, Rice and Yarbro made it overt.

What they did for vampires, Marion Zimmer Bradley did for Arthurian Legend. Her Avalon series boldly turned Camelot on its head and examined it from the perspective of female narrators.

And what Bradley did for Arthurian Legend, Katherine Kurtz did for Medieval fantasy lit. And what Kurtz did for Medieval fantasy lit, Tanith Lee did for sorcery.

I think fantasy is more receptive to women writers because it has a long, proud history of financially successful female authors in nearly every subset of the genre. While most writers will tell you they want to bring fresh, engaging concepts to print, they will also tell you that it is much easier to get published if there’s a record of success with what you’re writing. To that end, it would be disingenuous to tell a female fantasy author that men won’t read her books simply because she is a woman.

Of course, financial success and excitement from publishers isn’t synonymous with critical acclaim. Even with the accomplishments of the women I mentioned — and the dozens I didn’t — last year’s Hugo Awards were awfully slim on female nominees. [Editor’s Note: This year was better.) But I’m still not going to cry sexism.

If you want to be a great fantasy writer, they key isn’t writing like a man; the key is writing rich, textured, deeply-imagined stories. As women continue to do just that, it will only be a matter of time before full parity comes to the genre.

Or you could take a shot at writing your main characters sparkly genitalia.

Stephanie Meyer isn’t exactly celebrated, but she certainly hasn’t gone broke writing about vampires.

• The verdict is in, and Spartacus: Gods of the Arena is a hit, drawing 1.9 million total viewers for its 10 and 11 PM Friday airings — 77% higher than the debut of the first season.

• Speaking of ratings, Syfy’s Being Human was up in its second week — the strongest winter scripted debut since Battlestar Galactica in 2005.

• Meanwhile, BBC America has announced that season three of Being Human (their version) will begin sooner than was previously thought, on February 19th. Meanwhile, a new show, Outcasts, will debut the same day. Is it sci-fi or fantasy? From the website:  “With Earth no longer habitable, a group of courageous pioneers have traveled to another planet to begin again… As they continue to work and live together they come to realize this is no ordinary planet. Mystery lurks around them and threatens to risk the fragile peace of Forthaven.”

• It hasn’t been cast or filmed, but the movie version of The Hunger Games has a release date: March 23, 2012.

• A list of the actresses thought to be interested in playing Wonder Woman in David Kelley’s new TV version.
  

• Remember the reports that the production of HBO’s A Game of Thrones had damaged a nature preserve? A website investigated and found that those reports were exaggerated.

• I totally called this one! Leonard Nimoy hasn’t retired from acting after all, and may return to Fringe.

• Speaking of A Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin talks about wrapping up the book series:

• An interview with the new Spartacus, Liam McIntyre. He walks the fine line of paying homage to Andy Whitfield while also trying to establish his own identity in the part:  “Andy’s Spartacus is always going to be Andy’s Spartacus, and I would never try and emulate that. Or try to be him. I think that should stand alone as his legacy.”

• So after all the rumors back and forth about the new Matrix movies — they’re on! no, it was all a hoax! most of the story was false, but two new Matrix movies are still in the works! — what’s the truth? No movies are in the works, the studio says.

• An interesting point: when a girl becomes possessed by a demon, she becomes creepily sexualized.

• Ron Moore’s pilot about a world ruled by magic, not science (a “Harry Potter for grown-ups”), has been picked up by NBC.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.

Q: I’m curious how Jane Badler, who played Diana in the original V, came to be involved with the V remake. It seems like such obvious stunt casting (although she’s terrific so far). Was it planned from the start — or did they bring her in once the ratings started to flag? — MAGPIE, Toronto, Canada

The Oracle Speaks:

Neither, according to V producer and showrunner Scott Rosenbaum. Despite some reports to the contrary, Rosenbaum tells TheTorchOnline.com that the new character of “Diana,” Anna’s mother, was conceived without Jane Badler in mind.

Mother, daughter, grandmother

“I had this idea at the end of last season about what season two was going to be, and I thought it would be interesting to do a little back-story of the Visitors,” Rosenbaum says. “I started with Anna, and I thought, ‘Does she have a mother?’ I spent some time figuring out who that mother was, why there was conflict between them.”

At this point, Rosenbaum says he still hadn’t even considered Jane Balder for the role, but that he got a message that she was in town and wanted to meet him. “But we hadn’t even started casting yet,” Rosenbaum says. “She didn’t even know there was a role.”

It wasn’t until they were actually chatting that Rosenbaum put two and two together. “She was talking about her kid in Australia, and I was completely zoning out, thinking, ‘She could be Diana!’”

Rosenbaum says Badler auditioned for the role — something Badler confirms.

“There were sixty or seventy very well-known actors who auditioned for that role,” he says. “I was shocked by the names that came in. I didn’t think we’d have such a pool of recognizable actors — some who’d had B+ TV roles. But I chose [Jane] because she was the best. I didn’t do it at all because she was from the original.”

Rosenbaum acknowledges that it turned out to be something of a publicity coup for the show.  “But I didn’t do it because I thought the fans would be excited,” he says. “The thing is, they could’ve reacted the opposite way. You have to just pick the best person.”

Rosenbaum’s story strains credibility a bit — I’m assuming the character wasn’t really named “Diana” from the beginning — but he seemed sincere to me. And he did take over as showrunner partway through the first season, so it’s possible that previous producers were working on casting Jane as well, and Rosenbaum simply wasn’t aware.

Incidentally, why did Rosenbaum decide to make the next series story-arc about three women — Anna, Diana, and Lisa — in conflict?

“I felt like there needed to be more pressure on Anna,” Rosenbaum says. “And there’s an expression I heard years ago that stuck with me. The reason why grandparents and grandchildren get along is because they share a common enemy: the mother! That’s all you need to know about this three-women dynamic.”

Q: I agree with your opinion that prequels are really, really hard to pull off (e.g. Star Wars). So is Spartacus going to do it? How? — E.J., Lake Hope, OH

The Oracle Speaks:

I’ve only seen the first episode, so I can’t say how they’ll do it. But the producers have talked about what they learned from the first season, acknowledging that their storytelling grew stronger as the season went on. Maybe it’s just spin, but what they say is so in sync with how I perceived the first season to be that they’ve convinced me that they really do know what they’re doing.

“From the first episode on, we ratchet up the tension and the stakes,” writer-producer Steven DeKnight tells us in an exclusive interview. “There’s a lot of things that happen in the prequel that inform season one. You don’t have to have seen season one to know what happens, but in true Spartacus fashion, a lot of characters won’t see in the end of the prequel.”

What does DeKnight think of the finished product?

“Honestly, it turned out better than I had ever hoped,” he says. “We really got a chance to go back and flesh out so many of the characters and tell a story that I don’t think we ever would’ve ever been able to tell otherwise.”

In fact, DeKnight says that the existence of the first season, the events of which still lie ahead in the time-line, gave them the major theme of the prequel.

“Your actions will decide your fate,” he says. “It’s something that Batiatus’s father will warn him of, and we draw directly between what happens in the prequel and where it leads him in season one.”

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Update: This was reportedly a hoax. Keanu Reeves’ reps have denied this happened.

AintItCoolNews.com is reporting an email from a reader who supposedly heard Keanu Reeves give a keynote speech at a school in London. Afterward, he took questions from the audience and spoke about his passion for a third Bill & Ted movie, as well as early work on two more movies in the Matrix trilogy, possibly in 3D:

Says he [Keanu] met the Wachowski’s (no emphasis on the word brothers), for lunch over Christmas and stated that they had completed work on a two picture script treatment that would see him return to the world of the matrix as Neo. Says the brothers have met with Jim Cameron to discuss the pro’s and con’s of 3D and are looking to deliver something which has never been seen again. keanu stated that he still has an obligation to the fans to deliver a movie worthy of the title “The Matrix” and he swears this time that the treatment will truly revolutionise the action genre like the first movie. Wachowski’s are working on a movie called “Cloud Atlas” at the moment, once that concludes they will talk again.

• Remember when David E. Kelley said that his new Wonder Woman TV project wasn’t dead yet? He wasn’t kidding: NBC just picked it up for pilot. The bad news is, Kelley’s other current series, Harry’s Law (not fantasy), is so bad it’s unwatchable (and I like Kathy Bates!).

• The early buzz is that Dragon Age 2 delivers. Can’t wait!

• All the differences between the Fringe alternative-universe and our own. Of course, they forgot the fact that their Olivia smiles.

• What do superheroes do when they’re not fighting crime? A short film — funny, impressive, and very much worth watching:
  

• I’ve said I’m already sick of this trend, but Variety looks at upcoming fairy tale reimaginings.

• If you care, spoilers for Tron 3.

• The film version of Deadliest Warrior moves forward.

• A preview of the other Battlestar Galactica prequel in the works.

• I was a little underwhelmed by Riese, Syfy’s first web series, but The Mercury Men (an homage to the 30s and 40s serials that Raiders of the Lost Ark also paid tribute to) sounds kinda cool.

• Question: does anyone really care about this weird internet trend of sites posting these single-photo-stills from upcoming movies? I mean, the other sites go nuts, and I don’t quite get it. Maybe — maybe! — if it’s the first time we’ve seen a new superhero in costume. But other than that…? Are they just trying to get into the search engines? Anyone?

• Peter Dinklage, who plays Tyrion in the upcoming HBO series A Game of Thrones, discusses his character. (P.S. Peter, you don’t need to apologize for fantasy! In fact, that’s a turn-off):

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.