|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Nov 13, 2018 14:04:27 GMT -5
You make some good points;
Personally, as a prototype for what was to come I think it worked well; but it could definitely use some fixing in the future
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Dec 25, 2018 1:46:33 GMT -5
So Toz, any plans for more LM reviews like that?
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Dec 30, 2018 18:30:48 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE
PART ELEVEN: What Separates Good Writers from Great Writers?
Writing is very expansive and takes many forms; from flights of fantasy to grounded reality and everything in between, it is difficult to find two stories that are completely identical. You may find similarities, but there will always be slight changes in detail that make each story stand out.
Writing is more than a simple activity of putting words to paper (or keyboard); the best stories are ones that enthrall the reader and captivate the audience. Some end up forgotten, some become famous in their own right, but only the cream of the crop receive universal acclaim.
Which begs the question- what separates the good stuff from the great stuff? What takes a story to the next level? Genres are so diverse that its almost impossible to say that there is a standard for literature as a whole.... indeed, there isn't.
But, if you really want to perfect your craft, there a three key principles to keep in mind. If you bear these in mind, you are guaranteed to take your story to the next level. Let's break it down:
1) Preserve the Suspense of Disbelief
Let's face it- fiction is filled with stories with fantastical premises... even some non-fiction is the same way. Some of which are so out there that it is impossible for such a story to take place in real life.
But we aren't going for realism, we are going for believablilty. The difference is fine, but important. In the next post, I will break down the kinds of things that keep your readers interested in the story without them getting worked up over when things get... ahem, questionable.
2) Never "Force" anything
When you tell a story, no doubt there are certain things you want to happen or certain set pieces that you want to draw attention to. However, it is important to let the story flow naturally and ensure that nothing comes across as forced into the story. In this post, I'll talk about things to avoid, and things that help your writing feel natural
3) Don't Introduce something that won't be used
Better known as Chekhov's Gun, this principle helps you figure out what your "significant set pieces" are going forward. When writing a story it is important that anything that is introduced be used in some capacity. In this post, we'll discuss Chekhov's gun and see why this is such an important principle in writing.
Are these "laws" set in stone? Per se, no. But by the end of this mini-series, I hope we can all agree on the important point- that by doing these three things, it makes writing stronger and takes stories to the next level
|
|
|
Post by Toz76 on Mar 19, 2019 22:47:50 GMT -5
3WSR: Where are we now?
The past year or so has been a chaotic one for our little corner of the internet. But we've finally achieved some stability, so today I'd like to give our fans (all 0 of you) a little update on what's changed, and how we're proceeding going forward.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Apr 26, 2019 13:16:12 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE
PART TWELVE: Preserving the Suspense of Disbelief- How writers "make anything happen" in narrative
The written world is filled with many fantastical premises. Whether it is the wizards and monsters of fantasy, the whimsical and nonsensical of children's literature, the surreal and terror of horror, or the wackiness and absurdity of comedy. Now, we know as rational human beings that there is no such thing as magic, monsters, and the like, and there are things which simply cannot happen because they are flat out impossible... and yet, we enjoy these stories anyway. Why? Because when we sit down and read a novel, or watch a movie, or even play a video game, there are things we do not actively think about... but if we were to think about them, we realize that the premises of a lot of fictional works are rather ridiculous, nonsensical, farcical, outrageous, etc. And yet, we allow ourselves to be enthralled in these worlds and accept what happens as is.
It is at this point that you, the reader, is engaging in what is called, a "willing suspension of disbelief." You withhold yourself from critically thinking about the premise at hand and instead focus on appreciating the narrative and story being told. The best writers are capable of taking the most outrageous of concepts, and put them into a narrative that you, the reader, will still enjoy. Stephen King, one of the most acclaimed horror writers of all time, is a perfect example. His stories cover all sorts of concepts that would be "impossible" in the real world. Whether it is the telekinetic Carrie from the novel of the same name, the monsters attacking the town from "The Mist" or even an encounter with the devil in "The Man in the Black Suit," King takes on a journey that, while obviously impossible in real life, we still "enjoy the ride" anyway because his execution of these ideas runs smoothly and flows naturally, with out sudden "bumps in the road" that make us stop and question the premise.
We could spend hours talking about different writers and stories and breaking apart why the suspense of disbelief is preserved despite the outlandish concepts; but that is not the point of this post. Instead, we're going to look at the tools of the writers themselves, and figure out how they preserve the suspense of disbelief with said tools.
Let's break it down; each of these is pretty much a separate post in its own right, so for now let's only briefly go into them.
-Internal consistency within the narrative
You aren't just telling a story; you are painting a picture and showing us but a small part of world that the story takes place in. This world has its own history, characters that have lives outside of the narrative you are focusing on and even "Laws of physics" that govern what can and can't be done within the world. In the case of a long form story like 3WSR, internal consistency is key to preserving the suspense of disbelief because the moment you contradict yourself, the narrative falls apart. Let's take a look at some examples of maintaining internal consistency within 3WSR:
-The eight laws of magic; part of the fundamental "laws of physics" established in the 3WSR world is that of the eight laws of magic. As powerful and versatile that magic is, even it has finite limitations; said limitations are governed by the eight laws. In terms of internal consistency, this means that, from my perspective, I have the responsibility to depict magic as being used within the confines of said laws. At no point can I depict magic as being dependent on hereditary inheritance, as being able to bring a dead person back to life, as creating new life, etc. By acknowledging the limits of magic, and writing within said limits, you maintain your trust with the reader because you are not "saying one thing and doing something else"
- But wait, if Magic cannot create life, what the deal with beings such as golems and hommunculi? They are artificially created, so shouldn't they not exist? It's actually a simple solution- in this world, said beings are not considered "life" by magic users. But if they are not considered "life" then how is "life" defined in 3WSR? In 3WSR, living beings have three parts: the mind, the body and the soul. When one dies, it is only the body that dies... the soul and mind become one entity, the "spirit" that passes onto the afterlife. In the case of artificial beings, because they were not born naturally they do not have souls, and thus when they die, they do not have a "spirit" that passes onto the afterlife.
- Hold on, if spirits move onto the afterlife, what is the deal with ghosts? Simple- "ghost" and "spirit" are synonyms. Both refer to the same kind of being with the only difference being that a "ghost" is a spirit that has failed to move onto the afterlife and is lingering. They are not "monsters" in the traditional sense of the word, but they do need help moving on.
-That still doesn't explain demons; demons don't have souls and yet are alive; what gives? Demons are actually cursed races in 3WSR; millennia ago demonkind were cursed... at the cost of their souls they gained exponentially longer lifespans and great, natural power. However, the lack of a soul means they fear death more than humans. Unlike humans, which move onto the afterlife, because there is no soul for the mind to fuse to, the death of the demon's body also means the death of the demon's mind... in effect, ceasing to exist all together. There is no afterlife or reincarnation for demons; once they die, that is the final end.
And this is just a small sample of how internal consistency is maintained within 3WSR.
-Avoiding going beyond what is established as possible within the confines of the narratives' world
While there are some stories that come across as "making anything possible" within the narrative, there are in fact defined limitations even in those stories that the writers never cross. So in the case of 3WSR, since it is established that magic has limits (refer to last paragraph), it is my responsibility as a writer, to you, the reader, to never go beyond said limits. That being said, if something were to happen that does go beyond that limit, it is still possible to preserve the suspension of disbelief so long as ample explanation for the deviation is provided.
In the case of 3WSR, it is established that "only the good-hearted" can touch prism shards, as they have a natural defensive mechanism that prevents anyone with a blackened heart (i.e. evil) from touching them. Many of aspects of Colormen lore even show definitive proof that no one evil can touch shards. So how do evil colormen have any? An exception allows those of "colorfolk blood" to touch shards, thus allowing the evil colormen to steal them and create the necessary tension within the story for drama and such. (there is more to this but it will not be covered here)
-Lampshade hanging
Sometimes something so unexpected or, frankly, ridiculous happens that the suspense of disbelief becomes paper-thin, if not broken. To get around this there is a simple solution: acknowledge it. That's right, don't be afraid to point out the absurdity of a situation. If you, the writer, acknowledges something as absurd or unbelievable, then the reader will understand that you aren't doing this for the sake of it, and will still go along with you for the ride.
-Avoid deus ex machina, anti-climax and jumping the shark
Again, this deserves its own post, but for now know this: the lazy resolution, the sudden drop in tension and including far-fetched events for the sake of novelty are things that should be avoided. After all, there is a reason why "Jumping the shark" is literally the term for a decline in quality of a TV series.
There is only one exception to the above: if you do it for the sake of comedy, to satire said tropes, then this is something you can get away with.
Preservation of the suspense of disbelief is a vital tool in the arsenal of the writer, because once you lose the suspension, you lose your reader.
Till next time, fellow writers.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Jun 26, 2019 13:29:49 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE PART THIRTEEN: The Dangers of a Forced Plot- why one must allow the plot to flow naturally Now that we know how to preserve the suspense of disbelief, let's go into the substance of the story itself. Your story follows a plot, the journey we take from the beginning to the end of said story. The best stories allow their plots to "flow naturally" from A to B. But what does this mean? Put simply, it means that you allow the actions to unfold in a manner that makes sense. Imagine the plot as small boat sailing down a river. Rather than fight the current or run aground, you "go with the flow" of the river and allow the journey to go where it ends up. Sure, you have have had an endpoint in mind, but sometimes said endpoint is not what you reach... you may find yourself somewhere else entirely and that is ok. This endpoint that you did reach is often better than the one you had in mind anyway, because you let the story flow naturally to this point in question. But what happens when the plot is forced? As if suddenly your boat goes in another direction opposite the current all together "just because" and for no particular reason? This is a problem for several reasons. While there is nothing wrong with a good twist or surprise exposition, forced plots are a completely different animal. In a forced plot the transition is awkward and makes no sense in the context of the story. Yes, there may have been an endpoint in mind, but it is not worth continuing onto said endpoint if the plot was forced. Let's look at an example (NOTE: SPOILER ALERT TO LITERARY MOSAIC 12) In LM 12, we meet our first female detective in the series, Marlena Gent, and the case she is asked to investigate: the theft of some jewels and the murder of her owner. There are six suspects, and some of them are shown to have motive. But one in particular stands out a little: the victim's nephew. It is mentioned that he was angry at the victim, Mary Murples, for nearly cutting him out of her will in favor of giving her estate to a man revealed to be a con artist. This is coupled with the fact that it is revealed that he was the very last person to see her alive prior to Murples' death. Taken all together, seems fairly straightforward. Cue a little later in the story, when the suspects are all confronted to set the story straight. Despite the set up that had been going on until now, suddenly and without warning... the minister, Simon Goodrop, is accused of being the murderer. For the next few minutes in the story, what happens is a bit confusing to a reader... it looks like we are building towards the nephew, when suddenly "something" happens that seems to paint Goodrop as the murderer. Each of these hints are followed by something that "redeems" Goodrop and sets the course back to the nephew. In short; it reaches the point where the police are ready to arrest the nephew and let Goodrop go... only for Commissioner Gent to appear (despite having retired from field work in a prior volume) and arrest the minister for murder and treason. Apparently, Goodrop was actually a German agent during the war with Murples as an agent put to keep track of him... and apparently all trace of Goodrop had been lost until now. In theory, this twist could have worked under the right circumstances. But in this case, it didn't. For a twist to work, it needs to be shocking, but still make sense within the context of the story. Among the problems with this twist are: .How could Goodrop have been invisible until then? As a minister he was a very public figure who interacted with many people, so the idea that a German agent would lie low as a clergyman is rather ridiculous. .Rather than being hinted at early on, with clues that at least give an idea that he is at least a person of interest, the possibility of him being the murderer doesn't truly become evident until the last few scenes, unlike the nephew which at least had some build up beginning around the middle of the plot. Even the most damning evidence of all, the nephew's fingerprints being on the murder weapon, is overlooked in favor of the twist... and the explanation offered to get around it doesn't really feel satisfying, to be honest. In fact, the twist was so problematic, that in the transposing, a new ending had to be written all together for it to make more sense (with the original ending still around for posterity; but not considered canon). Why didn't the ending work? Yes, you could chalk it up to me and Eyes having different ideas for how the story would play out, but that is not the point. (we talked about collaborative writing in a prior post). This twist is a good example of what happens when a story is forced; it ends up not making sense and throws the reader off rather than pull them in. Or even Literary Mosaic 2; when the suspect who fit the description was arrested with the evidence linked to him, this was all thrown out in favor of the twist that... the assassin Elvira was the murderer, despite there being no evidence linking her to any of the action in the story other than nearly killing Gunnarson and the explanation offered comes across more as confusing than expository. This twist was so memorable for being forced, on 3WSR we use the term "pulled an Assassin" when referring to a forced twist. Let's be clear- I am not hating on the ideas of my fellow writer, Eyes. His ideas, on paper, could have actually been quite brilliant. The issue came down to their execution. Had the stories been executed a bit differently, then these probably would have been received better. At this point though, all we can do is move forward. In doing so, we improve our techniques and refine our abilities. And with that we keep in mind some of the most powerful tools that make a story great; including the avoidance of forced writing. (Which, even I have to admit, I am guilty of... but that's a discussion for another post )
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Jul 22, 2019 12:54:40 GMT -5
Character Insight: What's the Deal with Michael Walton?
Detective Inspector Michael Walton... a rather interesting figure in the Literary Mosaic series. To some, he's an *sshole and others, he's just doing his job and protecting the city from the criminal element. This figure has been around since Literary Mosaic 8, and yet... there seems to be a difference in his characterization from LM 8 through to LM 16. No doubt this has lead to some confusion over just who exactly is this man and what role he plays in LM. So here, I'm going to set the record straight and hopefully clarify just what is Michael Walton's role in the Literary Mosaic series.
Let's break down who Walton is as a character. As we have seen in the past, Walton has butted heads with the primary LM detective, Adolf Gunnarson, on more than one occasion. But does this mean he hates the Swede? At a personal level, no, he does not. Walton doesn't hate Gunnarson "just because he's Gunnarson." Rather, he does not respect Gunnarson at the professional level. Walton, at heart, is a properly trained, competent Scotland Yard Detective. His way of thinking is to find the solution based on the evidence. So when he looks at Gunnarson, a private detective who mostly relies on hunches over evidence... and in some cases uses only hunches and disregards the evidence all together, he just cannot understand the thought process involved... especially when in several cases it lead Gunnarson to capture the wrong suspect. Walton on the other hand places much more emphasis on evidence as opposed to hunches. His reasoning is fairly straightforward: when a crime happens, the physical evidence left behind is the most direct link to the suspect, and therefore must be what is relied on in order to determine who the perpetrator is. Any derived theories, therefore, should make sense within the context of the evidence. For example, if someone is found dead in a kitchen of a stab wound, but none of the knives present are bloody, and the sink is dry, therefore Walton would deduce that rather than try to wash the knife and put it away, the killer stole the knife rather than risk it being discovered.
At the core of Walton's thought processes though, Walton is best described as a "pragmatic realist" when it comes to dealing with situations. He realizes that if a solution to a problem needs to be found, it has to be handled with an approach that treats it for what it is, rather than spending time speculating on "Oh maybe its not that bad" or "I feel that this will work just because." Instead, he assesses the situation for what it is, and designs and solution that best fits the scenario. Which leads us to the next point:
On the surface, he appears to be a dangerous man, willing to use military grade weapons against the common criminals of London. While that may seem so, deeper analysis of his actions reveals a far more complex and reasonable motive for this. Michael Walton's pragmatism shines through when he realizes a troubling state of London: a rise of organized criminals on a scale never before seen. And if the Irish Mob had access to Military-style (albeit black market) weapons, then imagine what people like Lord Bury have access to.
If the London Underground now has access to Black market, military weapons, then Walton knows that Scotland Yard must do better to combat this, the danger is simply too great to only use basic handguns. Therefore, his proposal to have proper military weapons on hand (courtesy his SAS connections) is the only fighting chance London has against this new kind of criminal.
Walton can therefore be considered the prototype for what would eventually become Scotland Yard's Specialist Firearms Command (an actual unit of Scotland Yard founded in 1966).
So we know that Walton only "looks down" upon Gunnarson because he finds the Swede's methods questionable. And if you look at Literary Mosaic 11 in particular, it becomes clear that Walton's questioning is fairly justified.
(NOTE: Spoilers ahead for Literary Mosaic 11)
For example: when Gunnarson claims to know who did it, the first thing he does is state that "we will take each suspect in turn here and see how they could have done it." Given that there were 10 suspects all together in the case, this would have taken a lot of time... time that Walton would have preferred not to waste. In his eyes there were only two possible suspects left, based on the evidence. Let's look at this extract from Literary Mosaic 11 to see how they interact:
[After Hartley is shocked at the prospect of Cricket being a suspect]
Gunnarson sighed heavily, "I'm sorry James, but until I find conclusive evidence that proves her innocence, or the nephew's guilt... I have no choice but to consider her a suspect" Gunnarson explained.
"Then perhaps let us work on the case; we wouldn't want emotional attachment to interfere with your judgement" Hardstuckle suggested.
"Let me rephrase that. Cricket is a prime suspect to you, but to me... I know who really did it... and I have the proof to back it up."
"Another one of your accusations, Gunnarson?"
"It is not. Let us take of the people here and in turn show how they could have possibly killed the Major."
Before Gunnarson could proceed though, he noticed that everyone was looking at him like he was crazy. "What?" Gunnarson asked.
"Gunnarson... that wasn't a "rephrasing" at all- in fact you completely contradicted yourself. It's just as I suspected, your emotional attachment is interfering with your judgement and I cannot allow you to contribute to this case" Walton said.
"look, just give me a chance to explain, at least give me that" Gunnarson asked, realizing Walton was absolutely right.
"Well, we know it was Mrs Hartley or Mr Cronwall, based on the evidence. All right, you have one chance Gunnarson, but if you cannot prove your theory, I'm throwing you out of here" Walton warned.
"Fair enough" Gunnarson said. "Hmmm... I think I will start with Mr. Gothart, and his wife Emily."
"She's still a suspect? Surely not."
"Gunnarson, I told you, they couldn't have done it because they did not have cigarettes or knives; Mrs Gothart does not even smoke" Walton pointed out. "We already eliminated them based on logic and evidence, what game are you playing?" he said sternly.
"Let me explain; you see I never eliminate someone until the person who actually did it has been found. Several times the police have written off people when in fact they did it all along, and thus I'm still including them. Here's how they could have done it if they had done it..."
"You're bluffing Gunnarson" Walton said.
"what?" Gunnarson asked, confused.
"if you knew who did it, you'd just tell us instead of going into some ridiculous monologue. This isn't a mystery novel Gunnarson, this is real life" Walton pointed out. Gunnarson stared awkwardly for a bit, while everyone else realized how true Walton's logic was.
"... I'll explain my reasoning later. As to the Gotharts, you see...eh, oh, uh...." Gunnarson said, losing his train of thought.
"As I suspected; utterly impossible, they did not have knives or cigarettes. Now focus on the two that it could have been! The only thing you are proving right now is that you are one of the worst detectives I have ever met" Walton said
......
Now on the surface it does look like Walton is just being a jerk to Gunnarson, but let's look at it through Walton's eyes.
Walton, being a pragmatic realist, cannot understand why Gunnarson insists on backtracking to all the suspects when most have been ruled out by now. Reasoning that Gunnarson's emotional attachment to Cricket (being that she is the wife of his close friend) must be the reason behind Gunnarson's reluctance to stay focused on her as one of the two prime suspects, his suspicions are all but confirmed when Gunnarson flat out contradicts himself. However, he decides to let Gunnarson speak anyway so see if there is even some merit to the Swede's theory.
Despite Gunnarson explaining his reasoning, the fact that Gunnarson was willing to talk about suspects that had been eliminated, and consider how they could have committed the crime, makes Walton realize something: Gunnarson must be bluffing about knowing who did it, since "if you knew who did it, you'd just tell us instead of going into some ridiculous monologue." This shows that Walton has recognized that Gunnarson is relying on hunches over the evidence before him, and Walton is trying to keep the Swede focused before he goes off on some tangent. In fact Gunnarson can't even figure out himself how the Gotharts could have committed the crime, resulting in Walton calling out the Swede. Him calling Gunnarson the worst was unprofessional no doubt, but it was stemmed more as frustration rather than flat out anger.
But that still doesn't explain what is Walton's role in the grand scheme of LM? What part does he play? To answer that, we need to talk about what Literary Mosaic is going to look like, Post LM 18
(NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD)
After Commissioner Gent's retirement and the takeover of Commissioner Turner to Scotland Yard, as a way to help the public get more involved in the fight against crime Tuner's assistant commissioner introduces the "Bracket System" to better organize the police forces. Realizing that there are various levels of threats when it comes to criminals, Turner shuffles assignments for various officers.
Bracket one- the "one-off" criminals; average people who commit crimes of passion or heat of the moment scenarios. Can be stopped by regular officers.
Bracket two- The "serial" criminals. People who commit one kind of crime by night, but maintain regular lives by day. A bit more dangerous, but can be stopped by more experienced officers
Bracket three- the "hardened" criminals. Dedicated to their criminal lives, they are even more dangerous, but are usually lone wolves, or lead relatively small gangs. More experienced officers and detectives can stop them, but they often need specialization in their relative department to do so.
Bracket Four- The "Criminal elite." The most dangerous of the most dangerous. The crime lords and assassins are here. Dangerous lone wolves even more skilled than tier three and people who lead large syndicates are in Bracket Four. In a nutshell- the major figures of organized crime.
Walton has been a homicide detective for a good while by the time Gent retires. But due to (spoilers) he realizes that murderers are just the tip of the iceberg... if crime needs to be stopped, he needs to go after the ones who really are causing London's problems: organized crime syndicates.
When he goes to put in for a transfer, it turns out his request is not necessary; Commissioner Turner has decided to transfer Walton to organized crime on the grounds that some of his past cases lead to the downfall of major crime syndicates, and his unique skill set will make him invaluable in taking down London's organized crime. Therefore, Walton is transferred to Organized crime to be used to the best of his abilities.
Walton, can be considered a "Bracket Four" hero due to his abilities stemming from his SAS training. As a Bracket Four hero, he is meant to fight Bracket Four criminals. Meanwhile, Gunnarson would be a Bracket Two Hero, meant to take on Bracket Two and occasionally Brakets One and Three criminals. Stein takes on (specialized) Bracket twos and threes, while Marlena is predominantly Bracket one and two. A different kind of hero for different kinds of criminals.
In short, Walton is not meant to take on regular street thugs, he is meant to take on the criminal syndicates, their leaders and the ones under them. Lower Bracket criminals, like JJE, are simply not in Walton's cross-hairs because he knows that there are bigger threats to London than a serial killer who kills one Bracket One or Bracket Two criminal every 3-5 weeks.
But there is still something unresolved: "Does this mean Walton is just a bloodthirsty former commando killing criminals left and right?"
Certainly not. Walton has a very strong opinion about killing: in his eyes, outright killing should only be as a last resort to protect the innocent, and even then when no other options are available. In the Blade Syndicate takedown in LM 13, the assault Walton lead resulted in relatively few casualties, especially compared to the assaults lead by the Ripper Underground and the Irish Mob. The police arrested those they encountered, only killing those who presented an immediate threat to their safety (i.e. about to start shooting at the police)
As for the Warehouse shootout in LM 14... Walton knew the Irish Mob had access to military grade weapons and as such needed to be ready to counter a force with said weapons. Not only that, but he knew that Stein's life was in jeopardy and if he didn't rescue Stein soon, a good friend would die at the hands of the mob. So with the mob on the offensive, Walton had no choice but fight his way to rescue Stein.
Not to mention, Walton's "special equipment" is only used in specific circumstances. Specifically, "When the danger presented is so great, that confronting said danger without the equipment is more dangerous than confronting said danger without it" In other words- most often, he will not need to use his equipment.
So what happened behind the scenes anyway? Initially, Walton was created to be a "foil" to Gunnarson; a grounded realist to anchor Gunnarson's wild hunches that would often go in crazy directions. But this made him come across as a jerk in his early appearances. It wasn't until 13 where he came into his own that we finally see the Walton in his current form emerge.
Which brings me to my last point: Does Walton oppose Gunnarson? To reiterate, at a personal level no, at a professional level, yes. When Walton goes to reveal the truth about Gunnarson to his fellow detectives, he is not doing this out of personal spite. Rather, as a professional, it is his responsibility to talk to his colleagues and reveal the truth about an unofficial detective that everyone admires from afar, yet has never truly scrutinized Gunnarson's methods. In fact, despite the popularity of "Gunnarson" as a slang term referring to an incompetent detective who over-relies on hunches over evidence, Walton doesn't use that term, seeing it as "immature."
In conclusion, despite a... confusing start, Walton is not the *sshole some may believe him to be. At the end of the day, he is a hardworking man, with a realistic look of the world, who wants to do what he can to save his beloved city.
There is far more to him... but I cannot say it now or it would spoil even more. Till next time, fellow readers and writers.
|
|