Category: story structure

OSR Arrietty

Last summer, we watched the fifteenth anniversary screening of The Secret World of Arrietty, Studio Ghibli’s adaptation of Mary Norton’s novel The Borrowers, a film I’ve seen twice already, and one that was incredible to see on the big screen. What stood out to me during this screening was how very OSR-ish the film is in its presentation of Arrietty’s world and adventures.

She’s a dungeon crawler. A problem-solver. The world is big and full of dangers and she’s just an ordinary borrower, looking for treasure, watching out for traps, avoiding giants and monstrous cats.

The spaces under the floorboards, the heights of the kitchen countertop: Arrietty and her father have to make their way through these environments using their tools and their wits, and the creativity of their solutions reminds me a lot of how players have to navigate the “dungeons” and fictional worlds of an old-school RPG. The answers aren’t in “stats” or magic spells but in one’s inventory and the creative use of the fictional environment. It’s about clever solutions to problems that don’t have one “correct” answer.

And most of all, it’s about the bigness of an environment that encompasses merely a country house and the fields and gardens that surround it. Arrietty’s world is huge to HER, and that’s all that matters. Her adventure doesn’t have to span continents or involve saving the world. It’s the opposite of “epic.”

And yet it has incredibly amounts of tension and high stakes because the world matters to Arrietty. She’s fighting for her home and her family. The stakes aren’t “big” but they are deeply personal.

This is a good reminder for OSR-style gaming. The stakes don’t have to be earth-shattering, but they have to matter to the lives of the characters. Saving one’s village from destruction can be enough to drive an entire campaign. Finding a way to survive against giants in your midst can be enough to tell a wondrous tale.

And the characters don’t have to wield great magic or be mighty warriors. They can survive on courage and cleverness and kindness too.

The other movies we watched with the kids this summer were Labyrinth, a film close to my heart, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, my favorite of the Potter films. Both of these movies also speak to the OSR sensibility, to the idea that growth comes from in-world experiences (Harry learning the Patronus charm) and magic items (the Marauder’s Map) and that “dungeon crawling” is more about “player skill” than what’s on the character sheet (after all, Sarah is merely a human from our world, and yet she solves the puzzle of the Labyrinth and gets her brother back).

Think of how Sarah works her way through the Labyrinth using problem solving and non-combat skills. She can’t rely on a Strength stat or a special power to get her through doors and around obstacles. She has to use her own wits, her own ability to form relationships with the denizens of the Labyrinth.

We also played Mausritter, an OSR game that uses rules similar to Into the Odd and Cairn. My kids had to use clever ideas and the physical tools available to them in the environment or their traveling packs to solve problems and get past the Ded Ratz gang. They rolled dice occasionally, but they soon figured out that making those rolls meant a pretty high chance of failure. Wits and creativity mattered much more to their success than straight-up fighting (just like it did for Arrietty and Sarah and Harry Potter).

I also ran a one-shot of Cairn 2e, and the same OSR principles applied. We only played one session, but already, per the rules of the game, I could see ways in which the characters’ interaction with the world, their in-game choices and actions, changed them. Using experience points and other metrics to advance characters is totally fine (and many games I love use those procedures), but there was something really bold and exciting in the way Cairn 2e eschews XP or levels for advancement and embraces a fiction-first process: Characters grow and change based on what they do in their adventures, the alliances they form, the daring-do they perform, the knowledge or items they discover, the people and creatures they interact with along the way, just as Arrietty, Sarah, and Harry grow and change because of what they do in their adventures. No “levels” or “XP.” Just choices.

I think what I love most about OSR-style gaming is the way that it makes me feel like I’m a slightly more capable version of myself, going on adventures in a dangerous but living world, and that my choices impact that world; my ideas can lead to clever escapes, daring adventures, and meaningful outcomes. Things are smaller-scale, but they’re not without thrills or real danger. Sarah in Labyrinth isn’t saving the world, she’s saving her brother. She isn’t traveling over vast continents, she finding her way through the maze. Harry Potter saves more than one life in his adventures in the third movie, but he does it within the confines of Hogwarts.

I’m not against grand, sweeping epics, or stories with world-saving stakes. But there’s something to be said for the smaller-scale drama, for the tension and excitement of navigating the space beneath the floor boards.

Many children’s adventure films understand this kind of drama and adventure. In some ways, they are closer to the OSR spirit than adult adventure films. And if nothing else, they’re a great place to gather ideas for OSR gaming.

Kings of Paradise by Richard Nell (TBRindr review)

kingsparadiseAny book that can make me feel sympathy for a cannibalistic child-killer is obviously doing something profound. Richard Nell’s first book in his Ash and Sand series is nothing if not ambitious. Which I love. I love when writers try to actually say something with their work, when they try to find deeper truths. Exploring the inner workings of a broken sociopath while also delving into big questions like, “Why is the world unjust?” and “How are we called to respond to that injustice?” is a feat unto itself. Most writers satisfy their ambitions by trying to write a good plot with good characters; few writers seem up to the challenge of writing a great story, great characters, and powerful themes. Nell attempts that here, and I find that immensely exciting.

As soon as I read the first few chapters I knew that Kings of Paradise was trying to do more than just tell a ripping good story. It was trying to say something, to explore themes, to offer meaning, to stick to the bones in a way that had me immediately hooked. It also helps that Nell is a gifted writer with an amazing knack for creating characters that are dynamic, rounded, and utterly engaging. Whether it’s in the story line of the aforementioned sociopath, Ruka, or in the idealistic survivor Dala, or in the struggles and heartbreaks of the fundamentally-decent Kale, Nell’s characters feel fully alive, and I wanted to join them in their journeys of revenge, self-discovery, and enlightenment.

The world of Kings of Paradise is a neat little twist on the usual geography we residents of the Northern Hemisphere usually get in our fantasy settings. The Ascom, with its vaguely Norse-inspire names and culture is actually an Antarctic-type continent where South is colder than North. And the island kingdom where Kale lives and is prince is modeled on South East Asia (it’s a great economic power in the region, so maybe we are meant to see nods to the great Malacca trading empire of the Middle Ages). I’m not familiar with many fantasy epics that take place in a S.E. Asia-inspired setting, so for that alone, the book is intriguing.

What’s also intriguing is how Nell creates a matriarchal society in the Ascom, a place where a theocratic regime of women priestesses rules the land, and where families are known by their mothers’ names. One of the things I find most exciting about this world is the tension between the different religious beliefs: the old ways which seem to be more pantheistic and which favor traditional manly values like strength and feats of arms, versus the priestess-religion which focuses on one god (actually a goddess) and its values of law and orderliness. The dichotomy is set up between a might-makes-right/Chaos belief system and a follow-the-laws-and-conventions-of-society/Lawful system. Of course, as we discover, the matriarchal Lawful society is actually brimming with corruption, so we also get to explore themes related to dealing with a corrupt system and what to do when the laws and conventions of a society break down. This stuff: I LOVED.

And I also loved the journeys the characters went on — at least through the first 3/4 of the book. Ruka and Dala’s journeys were my favorite — not because they were good people, but actually despite their not-good-ness. They are each crusaders, fanatics in their own ways, and yet I was sympathetic to them and to their brokenness. Kale, despite being the nicest guy in the book, was actually my least favorite of the three major story lines. While the Ruka/Dala stories felt original and startling, the Kale story felt a little bit like a hodge-podge of other stories (a little Kaladin and Bridge Four at times; other times I felt like I was reading the “Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei” sequence from Kill Bill vol. 2). The Kale story isn’t bad by any means, but the lessons he learns and the themes that get explored felt a bit trite, especially when contrasted with the stories set in the Ascom.

For three-quarters of the book, I was entranced. Unfortunately, that last quarter was a bit of a disappointment. All of the thematic questions raised earlier in the story seemed to get dropped by the end. One of the characters deals with his “goal” at about the 70% mark, and then from that point forward switches into a much more straight-forward villain. He goes from having a complicated and twisted motivation — something that I both wanted him to achieve and also not achieve at the same time — to having a simplistic “Let’s go conquer stuff” motivation that I found uninteresting. It moves the plot forward, I guess, but it’s not as rich as what was happening earlier in the book.

The other characters, as well, end up being less interesting when the final chapters roll along. I don’t want to spoil things, but one character gets dropped from the narrative almost entirely, and the other turns into something from a video game. Almost everyone goes from being multifaceted to being one-or-two-dimensional by the end.

EXCEPTION: One of the female characters does something so deliciously soap opera-y at the very end that I was immediately hooked to read the next book. So that’s a good thing. Ending on a crazy high note cliffhanger is always good. And what’s great about the gonzo ending is that even though it’s outrageous in some ways, it also makes some kind of crazy sense too. Now I’m fascinated to discover more about this person and her inner motivations and desires. Again, Nell has a way of hooking us with great characters who have hidden depths.

I know I am in the minority in finding these kinds of flaws in the book, but the last quarter of the story really left me disappointed, especially in comparison with what came before. The pacing was perfect up until about the 70% mark, but then during the last 30% new POVs kept getting introduced, events happened at a breakneck speed, and it felt very “off” compared with the earlier sections. All of this rushing about meant that the themes suffered, the characters grew flatter, and the promise of early greatness felt a bit dashed.

All of these criticisms aside, Kings of Paradise is a very good book. The writing, at a craft level, is stellar. Nell knows what he’s doing with language and it shows throughout. He also knows what he’s doing with character (for the most part), and I am excited to see where things go in the next book. I cannot say this is a book I will reread, but it is a book I will heartily recommend.

4.5 stars

Revision Process, Phase 1

I’m in the midst of revising my second draft of The Thirteen Treasures of Britain.

Confession time: I’m not going to pay a professional editor. The reason I’m not is because I can’t afford it. Perhaps in time, once I’m selling oodles of books a day, then I can hire a professional copy editor. For now, I must rely upon my own skills.

(Side Note: I’m a high school English teacher during the day — and have been for five years — so I spend most of my time offering revision and editing suggestions to student-writers. I feel like I’ve got a pretty good handle on critiquing other peoples’ writing. Hopefully, I can transfer this skill to my own writing.)

But even if I were paying a professional copy writer, I’d still do a lot of revision myself. Copy editors are going to help with cleaning up the prose and the continuity of the text, but they can’t help with the structure or characterization. Of course, a structural/developmental editor may help with those things, but that kind of editor is even more expensive than a copy editor, and I think at this point in my writing life, I know what needs to be done structurally to make a story work. I’ve had a lot of training in screenwriting, and my teachers hammered structure, characterization, and dialogue into me with repeated force.

Maybe I will hire a copy editor for this book, who knows. The more I think about it, the more I think I could scrounge up $500 for one. But if I can’t manage that amount, then I’ll just make sure to go over my manuscript with incredible attention to detail. It can be done; it just takes a lot of patience.

Right now I’m in the “quick read-through” phase of the revision process: I set the manuscript aside for a couple of weeks, then I pick it up and read it on my kindle just as I would any book. While I read, I make super-quick notes in a separate notebook. I use symbols instead of writing anything lengthy because the symbols are quicker to write down and don’t interfere with the quick read-through process. (N.B.: I stole this idea from James Scott Bell in his excellent book Plot & Structure).

The symbols I use are as follows (again, heavily borrowed from Bell’s book):

Checkmark: Dragging
Star: Sentence-level revision needed (in other words, the prose is wonky or I need to work on paragraphing)
Circle: Need to add material
X: Cuts (either because I’m over-explaining, something’s not working, or I’m telling and not showing)
?: Plot hole/inconsistency

That’s it. I don’t write lengthy notes while I’m doing the quick read-through. The idea is to get an overall sense of the story. One of the reasons for this is that sometimes when I’m doing a read-through, I see a “flaw” and immediately start revising. Then I get lost in the rabbit hole of “tinkering” which is not really revision but just endless shifting of commas and clauses. The quick read-through and symbol system help me avoid getting sucked into this trap.

The other reason for the quick read-through is because I don’t believe a fundamentally flawed book can be fixed in revision. Not to be too gross, but trying to fix a fundamentally flawed book is like trying to polish a turd. Better to just flush that thing and move on.

If the quick read-through reveals that my story isn’t working — that on a structural level, something is off — then I need to start over. Dean Wesley Smith calls this the “redraft.”

When I wrote the first draft of Thirteen Treasures, I didn’t like it. It had some good moments, but overall, I found it to be fatally flawed. So I put it in a drawer and started over. My second draft for Thirteen Treasures is a completely new story. I’ve kept most of the main characters and a few of the settings, but the structure is new, the themes are new, and the overall energy and tone are new. I’m in the midst of the quick read-through now, and I can already say that I enjoy this new story so much better than the old one. It would’ve been a waste of my time to try and fix the problems of the first draft. With this second “redraft,” I’ve got something inherently solid that I know I can work with to make better.

It’s a bit daunting to do a “redraft” because it feels like the time spent with the previous draft was all just wasted time. But honestly, writing a new draft is a lot more fun than struggling to edit something that is fundamentally not good. Sometimes we as writers need to exhale some garbage and clear our creative heads before we can get to writing the good stuff. My first draft of Thirteen Treasures was the stuff I needed to exhale. The second draft was the story I really wanted to write. The quick read-through that I’m in the midst of now has shown me that this second draft is revision-worthy.

After the quick read-through, I’ll move on to Phase 2 of the revision process. More on that later…

The Force Awakens Retells A New Hope (and that’s a good thing)

SPOILERS AHEAD

First of all, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is good. I needed a second viewing to tell if it was truly good, or if it was just my Star Wars excitement that made it seem good. My second viewing confirmed it: the movie is very good. I was entertained and emotionally invested in the story and characters. This was not something I could say about The Phantom Menace.

But one thing I’ve noticed in reviews and reactions to the new movie is that people feel the need to mention that The Force Awakens is basically a retelling of Episode IV: A New Hope. This mention is made with a bit of a sigh, as if it’s a knock against the new film.

But it shouldn’t be a knock against it. The Force Awakens DOES retell A New Hope’s story, and that’s a GOOD thing. I’m not breaking any new ground by writing this, but A New Hope was successful in large part because the story Lucas wrote followed the Joseph Campbell/Hero with a Thousand Faces/Hero’s Journey thing to perfection. That is why the story resonated with so many people. It’s one of the classic narratives. I won’t go so far as to say it really IS the monomyth or whatever, but it’s a strong narrative structure that storytellers throughout the ages have returned to again and again. In copying A New Hope, The Force Awakens has tapped into one of the greatest story structures in human history.

Continue reading

© 2026 Jennifer M. Baldwin

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑