Some Friday Encouragement

The book you hold in your hands was never supposed to happen.

Thus opens the official Afterword at the end of the compiled, hardback edition of the Captain America: Winter Solider comics, written by one Ed Brubaker. If Bucky Barnes is your favorite character in the MCU, take a second to thank Ed for that, because his comics are the basis of the terrifying, tragic, beautifully conceived character from the films. 

The Afterword continues:

There are several truths in Marvel Comics, or unwritten rules, if you will. And one of them was, no matter what else you did, Uncle Ben, Gwen Stacy…and Bucky Barnes all stayed dead.

I won’t transcribe the entire note here, but it’s most definitely worth a read. In it, Brubaker goes on to explain that, as a child, Bucky was his favorite, and that he was never satisfied with the explanation of his death. Decades later, as an adult writer, when given the chance to helm a Captain America comic run, he brought Bucky back.

I read his comics several years ago, and I remember being floored to read his Afterword. This man, once a fan just like us, never got over his dissatisfaction, and when he had the chance, he did something about it. Creatively, brilliantly. He took the staid old idea that sidekicks are merely props for main characters, without a life – or fans – of their own, and he toppled it right over. What an icon. Thank you, Mr. Brubaker, for this character whom I adore. 

Thank you also, sir, for the single line that would launch me down the path of my own beloved Nikita Baskin, and his journey: “…But we Russians…we have nothing but our winter.”

I’d always wanted to write about the Romanovs, but it was a nebulous idea. I didn’t know where to start, or how to incorporate it into anything. And then this line acted as a point of clarity. Oh, I thought. Oh.

This post isn’t about my stories.

Except…it is.

Because creatives aren’t born in a vacuum, full of nothing but their own, pristine ideas. And stories are born from half-love…and half-spite. For everything you love and want to emulate, there’s something you loved that pissed you off, that changed, that went in a bad direction, that you want to fix. 

I saw a NYT bestselling author on Twitter just days after the end of GoT talking about how uncomfortable he was with the idea of “fixing” media. He intimated that we shouldn’t challenge art, only accept it. I guess he wants art put under glass, never to be touched or examined. 

Gotta call bullshit on that.

Art begets other art. (Plagiarism is a whole other issue, and as a victim of it, I’m not condoning it in any way, shape, or form.) Fix-it fanfic is about creators taking the characters they love, and giving them the endings they felt they deserved; or it’s about exploring other options. Stories don’t have just one ending; fiction isn’t real life. Someone sits down at a word processor and decides the ending. And if people don’t like that ending, they’re free to imagine alternates. Every book ever written is a what-if scenario. Don’t like “fixing” media? I’m sorry, that’s literally every book ever written. Someone taking an idea they liked, and “fixing” the end. Putting his or her own spin on it. 

I’ve always said, and I’ll say again: Every story’s already been told, and Shakespeare has done it better than all of us. 

But in the vast and wild world of contemporary fiction-creation, there’s room for the half-loving, half-bitter people like me who want to tell stories that please us – that please people like us. 

I spent my teen years/early twenties thinking I had to adhere to particular rules. I studied lots; it made me a better writer. But now? Now I can look at something, and snort, and go “yeah, right,” and I can write something that satisfies in a way that the other thing didn’t. 

Warning: I’m about to segue awkwardly:

When I was a kid, I used to spend one week every summer with my riding instructor at horse camp. It was so fun. All of us students spent the week grooming and riding her horses, and then we’d tag along and groom for her Pan-Am gold-medal trainer, and hang out and rub elbows with Olympians all week, and it was SO COOL. (I once got to polo-wrap Impressario, who is horse royalty, and I’m still starstruck about it.) One year, there was a very high-handed male trainer, whose name I shall withhold, let’s call him T, in town, and the older girls and my trainer all had lessons with him. My trainer’s horse was young, goofy, and still learning how to be a dressage horse. I watched a lesson in which T demanded she execute movements too advanced for the horse (named Tango, if you can believe it). He wanted a degree of collection more suitable for a ten or eleven-year-old horse, and not for this green youngling. My trainer, when she left the arena, was in tears. “He wasn’t ready,” she told me. “He’s just a baby, and he can’t do that.” She was incredibly upset. I said, “Why did you do it, then?” And she said, “Because he told me to.”

“He doesn’t own your horse,” I told her.

“Yeah, but he’s…”

And I, apparently a rebel that early, said, “It’s not his horse so he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care if he hurts him, or traumatizes him. Screw him. I would have left the arena and told him to go piss up a rope. You should have told him off.”

She responded that T was too important, and famous, and special, and expensive to have said that to.

I said, “I don’t care. He wouldn’t hurt my horse. Screw him.” 

She looked stunned. I fed Tango extra carrots, groomed him well, told him he was a good boy. I wanted to throttle T for scaring him. 

I mean…don’t come for my babies. 

I’ve gotten off topic, obviously. But my point is: pick and choose. Take the good, leave the bad.

You can learn from this trainer, while advocating for your horse. Take his advice, and do what you will with it. Just like…

Content creators can inspire and encourage you…but you don’t have to stick to the script. You can hand-pick what you love about something, and weave it into an entirely different narrative. You can fix things. You can correct that wrongs that hurt you. Fiction is nothing more than one person’s idea laid down on a piece of paper. I love fiction; I worship at its altar. But it isn’t set in stone; isn’t infallible. If a story bugs you, go fix it. 

All those stories full of unexplored subtext? Go explore them.

Stories in which secondary characters are props? Go make them central protagonists. 

Someone tells you no? Find a way around it. 

Be confident and cocky enough to say, “Alright,” and go make your own stories better. Smarter. Steamier. More satisfying. 

The best revenge is living writing well. 

I am…devastated…by what happened in Avengers: Endgame. I can’t believe the studio that gave me Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Thor: Ragnarok, and Black Panther gave me this mess. 

But.

Am I expected to accept what four men came up with as an adequate conclusion of decades of comic history? Do I have to approve of a director/writing duo’s canon as the ultimate canon? 

Nope, I don’t. I’m not unhappy because I don’t care; I’m unhappy because I care so much. Because I love this broad, vast cast of characters, and because they were shoved over in favor of spectacle. I’ve had males in my life tell me that I’m unintelligent if I didn’t enjoy Endgame. And yet, when I question them on time-travel specifics, they tell me, “who knows, don’t think about it too much.”

I’m an author. It’s my job to think about stories too much. And I don’t need anyone’s permission to write stories that matter. 

So please, take heart, creators: we can do what we want. And someone will thank us for it.

Some Friday Recs

Hi, all. It's Friday, and it feels like a good day to recommend some of my favorite fictional media. If you've been...let down...by a favorite movie or series lately, I have the recs for you! I can't guarantee we have the same taste, but I can safely tell you that I absolutely adore all of the titles listed below. 

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood 

First off, note to my regular readers, this is animated. Not only that, but it's anime. And I'll tell you: when I first watched it, it was with much skepticism; in my younger years, some of the trademark quirks of anime didn't necessarily jive with me. But those are quirks I've come to actually love (all kinds of media has quirks, and your mileage may vary on each one), and this show, which I binged over a weekend while I was sick, is just...magical. I love it. SO MUCH. I re-watch when I feel bad for any reason. 

The characters are so multi-dimensional and well-thought out. Their development is slow, and natural, and heartbreaking, and uplifting. The plot leaves you on the edge of your seat, but it always makes sense, and all the various story threads are wrapped up neatly and cleanly at the end. And WHAT AN END. I cried. In a good way. We have redemption arcs that are satisfying, victories that really mean something, and we have morally gray moments. Female characters who kick SO MUCH ass. There's alchemy involved, and lots of beasts and fantasy elements, so if you can't hang with my vampires, this maybe isn't for you. But if you like things that are a little different, this is an amazing show. I can't rec it enough. 

I originally watched it on Amazon Prime, but it's since become unavailable there. It's on Netflix, though. And I know anime purists insist on subtitles rather than the English dub versions, but I always watch the dub. I find reading subtitles causes me to miss things, and I don't have the mental energy for that most days.

I won't scream at you about how much I LOVE Ed, and Al, and Roy, and Riza, and Greed, and Ling, and Lan Fan...but know that I want to. 

Yuri On Ice

While we're talking about anime anyway, this show is so, so good. This was my first venture into anime. I watched it on freaking YouTube with subtitles, and then, when it came out, bought the dubbed DVD/Blu-Ray. (You can watch it on Amazon, now). 

In this sports anime (figure skating), main character Yuuri struggles with intense anxiety, and it's maybe the best, most realistic depiction of anxiety I've ever seen on screen. As someone who struggles with anxiety, it resonated with me in so many ways. And I love the characters, their challenges. It's cute, and sweet, and just a treat. 

All my vampire lovers, please go watch

Only Lovers Left Alive

Quiet, thoughtful, character-driven, this vastly underrated movie stars my faves Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton as vampire lovers, and it's just completely lush and divine. Lots of negative reviewers have called it boring because they wanted it to be like Underworld (which I also love, my dog is named after Bill Nighy's character in those films), and it is instead this slow, thoughtful study of what it means to be immortal. One of my favorite films of all time.

For book readers

A Charm of Magpies Series  by KJ Charles

I've read most of her work at this point, and really love her voice and style. This series is m/m, and balances intrigue, suspense, and emotional investment so expertly. Love her writing.

Happy Friday, everyone! Go read/watch something you love this weekend!  

#DragonSlayer Debriefing: Epilogue

I still need to get to our secondary characters in a different post, but I've been working on Golden Eagle all day, so I wanted to talk about that DS epilogue...

Warning for spoilers below the photo. 

#TeaserTuesday: Sons of Rome

More debriefing will continue, hopefully later in the week.

Today, for #TeaserTuesday, I wanted to talk briefly about the series as a whole. About where we've been, and where we're going, and about the approach going forward. 

#DragonSlayer Debriefing: Mia

In the freaking year weeks leading up to Dragon Slayer, I didn't tease much about Mia, because most of her scenes reveal the fact that she's...

#DragonSlayer Debriefing: The Revenant

I'm going to have a photo, and then do a cut, so if you haven't finished Dragon Slayer, you won't accidently be spoiled on the main blog page. Spoilers below, proceed at your own risk! 

#DragonSlayer Debriefing: “Did I give you leave to speak to me, witch?”

Back to our debriefing! 

I want to talk about the end of the book today. Specifically about Vlad's moment in the basement at the end. 

#DragonSlayer Debriefing: Hostages

This book could have been much shorter. I could have kept discussion of the past to a bare minimum; a few quick flashbacks. But I knew early on that I didn't want to do that. Vlad and Val are such important characters moving forward that I wanted to really show them to the audience; more than that, I wanted to show how two innocent little boys could grow into the men they are now. And that, in this instance, is neither a quick, nor lighthearted story. In my other books, I often reference a character's childhood, but here, I needed to show you most of it. 

Romantic

I had some interesting comments on a FB post I made yesterday, and it reminded me that a term as simple as "romance" is one that holds a variety of meanings; as a genre, it can be rather hard to agree on its specific traits. I wanted to expand on that, if I may. And talk a bit about my own approach to romance as a concept...perhaps rather than as a genre. 

At its loosest and most basic romance simply means love story. Love stories can be fully realized, with confessions, and kisses, and consumation; they can be subtle, too, full of yearning, and almosts, and bittersweet potential. Romance can be the fluttery feeling of anticipation; it can be a promise. 

From a business standpoint, romance as a genre (mass-market), as defined by the RWA, are stories that "place their primary focus on the relationship and romantic love between two people, and must have an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending." According to this definition, if other primary elements of a story - action, mystery, political intrigue, or family dynamics, etc. - outweight the romantic storyline in regards to page time and narrative focus, or if the ending is sad, the novel cannot be catergorized as a genre romance. 

This is the only reason I've always hestiated to call myself a romance author. It's about the pie chart of narrative focus. 

Then there's the Walter Scott definition of a romance as "a fictitious narrative in prose or verse; interest of which turns upon marvelous and uncommon incidents." 

One of the reasons I always talk about writing is art is because it is. It has been, for centuries. Writing is a way of expressing human ideals, values, dreams, fears, secret desires; a way of reflecting real life, and of reflecting, perhaps, the kind of reality that still feels out of reach. It's entertainment; we read to be entertained. But the beauty of it has always been that, like the human mind, or the human experience, it's terribly hard to classify in simple terms. That's why, although I'm someone making a living with my writing, who is grateful for the industry that allows me to do so...I do lament the ways the industry has allowed something as rich and varied as romance to become this very rigid, boxed-in classification. 

Let's look, for a minute, at the Romantic Movement, and at Romanticism. 

Romanticism is an "artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement" that began in the late 18th Century in Europe. It was born as a response to the previous period, Classicism, especially Neoclassicism, which sought the mechanical, logical, and rational. Romanticism, by contrast, was all about the organic. About sensation, the individual, and deeply felt emotion. There was a heavy emphasis on nature; on being present in nature; hearing it, seeing it, feeling it. There was an exploration of human feeling; of human suffering and torment. Of love, and hate, and fear. If Classicism asked you to think, Romanticism asked you to feel - and it asked you to feel a wide range of emotions all at once, tangled up in a character's search for meaning. 

I love this quote:

In its stylistic diversity and range of subjects, Romanticism defies simple categorization. As the poet and critic Charles Baudelaire wrote in 1846, “Romanticism is precisely situated neither in choice of subject nor in exact truth, but in a way of feeling.”

You can read the rest of the essay here. 

Romanticism also gave birth to my favorite genre of all time: Gothic literature. From Ann Radcliffe, to Charles Dickens, to Edgar Allan Poe, to the Bronte sisters, to contemporary Southern Gothics like Anne Rice, and even modern horror writers, like Stephen King.  

I've often described Rice's work - her Vampire Chronicles are particular favorites - as "romantic," despite a lack of what a modern reader might consider a proper love story. But I'm using the term in a more classical sense. Lestat is nothing if not the ultimate searcher for the sublime. Her prose focuses on a really lush, rich, emotional reading of place. There is wonder, and beauty, and darkness in everything, from a forest, to a coffin, to a New Orleans apartment. 

Romanticism handed down a tradition of rich description, in which setting serves often as its own character. The scents and textures of a place inform the characters' mental states. Romanticism gives us mood. It gives us that deep inner reflection; it's where stories about characters struggling beneath the weight of emotional burdens originated. A work of romantic fiction doesn't merely tell us how to feel; the prose actually inspires dread, joy, terror, understanding, and love within the reader's mind. 

Now. That's all well and good, but it's 2019 out there, after all. So what does that mean for a modern writer? 

If you're trying to get traditionally published as a romance author, you have to adhere to industry standards. Publishing houses are trying to sell as many books as possible, and their approach is to appeal to the widest number of readers possible with books that are classified for ease of search. And publishing houses tend to follow trends rather than invent them. 

Indie publishing, though, is a more craft beer, garage band, Etsy-type affair that can follow or reject industry standards at its own risk. Indie means I can scream into the void about Romanticism and write my weird Poe/Tolkien/Bronte-inspired books however I want to. 

Personally, I view a romance as any story in which the love story has an important and rewarding impact on the main characters' narrative arc. By that definition, all of my books are romances. But some fall short of that classification based on strict industry standards. And if an audience expects those strict standards...then it generally behooves me not to advertise as romance. Though all my books are heavily flavored with romance. But, go back to the narrative pie chart; my books in which the romantic relationships have less page time than other relationships are automatically labeled as "not romance," or, funnily enough, "not my norm." 

Trust me, I still struggle with this. I hate it. 

What's been interesting to see, though, is that, even within the world of traditionally published books, there's some disagreement about the definiton, and this is largely due to the fluctuating level of sexual content in romance novels. 

To my mind, a book can have plenty of sex, but no romance, and likewise plenty of romance but no sex. Most romances do contain explicit sex, but it's the emotional components that truly define the story. Love is an emotion. If emotion is not examined within the narrative, no matter how much sex it contains, then it's not really a romance. 

Also, just a sidenote: romances with lots of explicit sex are not necessarily erotica; in order to be considered as such, an erotica novel needs to be exploring themes of sexual growth and discovery. 

For an author, it's important to label your books properly for marketing purposes. If I referred to Sons of Rome as a "romance series," readers would doubtless be disappointed, because they were looking for something very different than what I've offered. But that doesn't mean my books don't contain romance. Quite the opposite, actually. All my stories are love stories. Thirty years ago, then might have even been categorized as romances, too. 

There's more I want to say - specifically about fanfiction, its contribution to romance, and the way audiences interact with romance in media - but I think I'll put that off for a follow-up post. Until next time. 

#DragonSlayer Debriefing Part One

If you're reading this from the main blog page, and you haven't finished Dragon Slayer, and don't want spoilers, then don't click on the "Read More" under the photo. 

But I want to talk about my boys!! 

This will doubtless turn into several posts, because there's lots of break down. Let the debriefing commence...

A Favorite Passage for #TBT

Sometimes, you write a passage and realize that it's an ~important~ one. Not just for that moment, or even that book, but for your series as a whole. This passage, spoken to Vlad Dracula by Nikita near the end of Red Rooster, is one of those biggies for Sons of Rome, and a personal favorite, too. 

"You arrogant idiot. The world's broken a thousand times. You missed most of it while you were asleep. It always breaks, and stupid people always die trying to keep it from breaking, and it always mends itself in the end. I can live through that. I have. But I won't live without him."

Writing can feel like walking through a minefield drugged and blindfolded, but this was, even in the initial draft, one of those "ah, yes, this, good" moments for me. For a few reasons.

Some history:

I really, really like the idea of dropping figures from history into the present. Does anyone remember Mystery Science Theater? One of my favorite episodes ripped to shreds a film about an airplane with time-traveling capabilities. My favorite quip, though I hate that I've forgotten who delivered it, was, "Hey, we can send Bob Saget back in time to meet Charlemagne!" Teenager me thought that was priceless. But also! I remembered it. Tucked it away for later. 

I have zero desire to ever write about time travel. But I am writing about vampires and other immortal beings, and have always wanted to. So time traveling wasn't an option, but Sons of Rome was built on the fledgling idea, from way back, of "what if a few important figures from history were actually vampires and are actually still alive and might need to get back in the politics game again?" 

And that leads us to the passage above, and the fight between Nik and Vlad. 

I love the setup. Here's Nikita, who's over a hundred years old, who was a very threatening, deadly, terrifying person in his mortal life. He's just kicked down the door, and is mowing down guards, and how scary: one of Stalin's Chekists, in the flesh, super strong, has stormed the manor. What's scarier than that? 

The answer is Vlad the Impaler. Vlad the Impaler is a hell of a lot scarier than that. And Nikita is hopelessly ill-equipped to handle him. 

Superficially, that's fun to have the chance to tell. 

Nik's statement hints at something much larger than a cool matchup, though. At this point in the series, Nik is fairly nihilistic. He's gone from - as a human - someone who put all his hope and effort into a political cause. One that, ultimately, failed. He was a drop in the ocean, and he managed to get almost everyone he loved hurt or killed in the pursuit of that goal. Now, seventy-five years later, he's met one of the monarchs he fought for, and is disgusted by him - but mostly disgusted by himself. His own naivete and faith in one system over another. Right now, Nik is looking out for himself. For his pack, his family, his Sasha. He doesn't give a damn about wars, or causes, or anything that doesn't affect his people. In this instance, Vlad is the physical embodiment of a kind of ruling system he no longer believes in...but which will roll over him and crush him all the same. There's that desperate fear: that once again he'll be leveled by the rich/ruthless figures who hold power over him, just the lowly foot-soldier in someone else's war. 

He isn't totally hopeless, though. As long as he can help his loved ones, he will, no matter how futile the effort is. And that is a message that speaks to the bigger picture of the series as a whole. And the way I'm approaching world history within it. 

Because it isn't a time travel story, but one that moves only forward; the character journeys are all about learning from the mistakes of the past. The world has never been a peaceful place. No nation, no group or population has ever been purely good or purely evil. There have been some truly evil people throughout our history; but there's been lots of gray. Lots of failed attempts, and flawed morality, and good intentions twisted into monstrous executions. We can't change that. We can't pin the blame on one person, or one country, or one moment in history. And so we go on, and we learn. And for these characters there's the will to do it better, in a world that is, ultimately, safer and more accepting than it's ever been before. It's about characters living with regrets, and finding hope. 

Nikita finding an identity that isn't rooted in a system is such a huge part of his character journey. And we get to see lots of good growth on that front next book, in Golden Eagle. 

Until then, thanks for letting me walk down memory lane with Red Rooster. 

And don't forget that Dragon Slayer is now live! 

WW: Food for Thought

"I promise you, brother, that nothing like that will ever happen again."

from Dragon Slayer, out now.

(Though, for Vlad, "making things right" is gonna involve some killing)

I'm going to label this "Workshop Wednesday," since it's Wednesday, but it's really more of a "food for thought" kind of post. 

I have a personal writing philosophy that's formed after a lifetime of book reading and fictional character loving. I know that, given a large, ensemble cast, no two readers will have the same favorite character. In writing characters who are well-rounded and unique, no matter their personal traits, you're opening the door to lots of opinions. And I think this is an absolutely wonderful - even essential - side effect. 

We all pick favorites for different reasons. Sometimes it's a character who reminds us of ourselves; sometimes the kind of character we'd like to know in real life. Someone we feel sorry for; someone we hurt for; something we think is sexy; someone so deliciously evil we can't help but love them for it. Someone good; someone kind; someone brilliant; someone unloved. The heroes, and the underdogs, and the villains...we all come at a story from different places. Different characters mean different things for us.

That's why I want all my characters to feel tangible. To feel like real life, knowable people. It's also why I carry their journeys forward across multiple books, showing their organic growth as a series progresses. And it's why I want to create journeys that are emotionally satisfying for the readers who really love those characters. 

For the most part, I have a firm "positive character growth only" policy. With a few exceptions, I am, despite setbacks and bumps along the way, taking characters on journeys that will leave them better off at the end than they were at the beginning. Certainly not everyone would wish to do the same, but for me, I'm tired of negative-growth stories. If I'm going to spend my life writing stories, I don't want to be depressed all the time. No matter where a character begins the journey, if that journey teaches them things, and makes them better, then I think that leaves anyone who loves that character satisfied at the end - even if it's a sad, bittersweet kind of satisfied. 

For instance: Sunday night's episode of Game of Thrones left fans divided...which I admit surprised me. For me at least, I found it immensely satisfying, full of emotional payoffs for just about every character. I mean...Arya Freaking Stark, ladies and gentlemen. Holy cow. 

But I was also so happy with smaller moments, too. Sandor putting aside his terror to save his little wolf pup. Beric Dondarrion being Beric Dondarrion 'til the end, even if it made me go "oh no, Beric." Dany picking up a wight's sword to fight back to back with Ser Jorah...and Jorah himself, being the person who loves Dany most in all the world. Crap, that hurt - but in a good, rewarding, and expected way. And Theon. That's a redemption arc, and a well-deserved one. Even Melisandre, who I have hated; this episode brought home the fact that none of the horrible things she's done have been done in the spirit of cruelty. She has truly believed, all this time, in her cause. We can hate that cause, we can see lack of morality in it, but we understand her. 

There's plenty of people online poking holes in the battle plans, and asking about the illogical logistics. But from a purely emotional standpoint, this episode delivered. Every single character acted so completely in character - down to Jon and Dany not really having any idea how to defend against a siege - that though we cried, and though we might have quibbles over fallback protocol, none of our characters did things that were inconsistent with their narrative arcs as presented thus far. 

This was why passionate fans of Steve Rogers were so totally let down by the end of Endgame - the last on-screen appearance of Evans's portrayal of the character. Not because - as someone tried to mansplain to me the other day - I didn't understand time travel, or because I'm "an angry shipper." But because choosing to live in an alternate past with alternate versions of the people we've spent six movies watching him develop bonds with is so completely out of character. It's an example of negative character growth. Of character arc negation. 

Okay, I won't rag on the movie anymore. Promise.

But those are some examples of what I'm talking about here. In my own writing, it's been fun to see which characters readers care about most - and to see that, as hoped, everyone has a different favorite! Because of this, I don't want to reward only some of my audience. True, you can't please everyone. Probably you shouldn't try, and that's not necessarily what I'm doing. But I want to show all my characters, even - maybe especially - the secondary ones, the same kind of commitment to characterization. 

With Sons of Rome, I know there are readers who love Nik, and Sasha. Val. Some will love Vlad, and Fulk, and Red, and Anna, and Rooster, and I'm willing to bet there are even some who will love folks like Liam, and Richard, when we get to him. These characters all antagonize one another, but none are the villains cast against other characters' heroes. They're all just people doing their best. And no matter how small the parts they play, whether they live, or die, I want fans of those characters to feel like they've been well-served. Like the growth was positive, and organic, and rewarding in some way. 

And then I wonder why it took forever to write Dragon Slayer! 

You can't please everyone, no. But fans of all kinds of media put time and money and love into a creator's work. I don't think it's too much to ask that you leave them walking away, at the end, feeling like that investment was worthwhile.

Just some food for thought.