"I’m worst at what I do best and for this gift I feel blessed."
Nirvana, Smells Like Teen Spirit
The Burning Issue: Confidence and Art
Let me let you in on a little secret – by and large, I hate my own writing. I mean, I know that technically speaking, I fulfill the functions of grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and whatnot just fine most of the time. It’s just that no matter what I write on any subject, I always feel there’s something out of place. More specifically, when it comes to writing about Magic, there’s almost always a point after I fire off an article to Craig where I think "I could have done better with that." The one article I was thoroughly satisfied with was We Pause and Reflect (A Flavor Review of Time Spiral Legends). I think the problem may lie within the fact that I know not why I’m so satisfied with that article, or why my other musings displease me.
Sure, I’ve thought about it. I like how in-depth I was in that review, and that it was a pretty unique way for a set review to go; entirely on the Legends of a set. The humor didn’t seem forced to me, and I didn’t hold back when chastising a card that didn’t work for me to save someone’s feelings. There was something in that article that clicked for me that I haven’t been able to recapture. My other articles… eh. Any time I read over one, I always feel like something is missing, and I’m not sure I’ll be able to find it. I write in a bit of a time crunch now, so I’m only hoping that leads to some sort of crazy inspiration rather than, as one might expect, panic.
Perhaps I’m overly self-critical, I’m not sure. When I bump into people online who’ve read me (or perhaps "are willing to admit they’ve read me"), they’ve unanimously praised my writing skill, which I generally meet with a confused "Oh… thanks." Maybe I’m too close to the source, maybe I don’t appreciate something in my style or humor because I sit here and type it out. Perhaps it’s because I know the points at where I struggled on what to type next, and know that I just came up with some logical end to the sentence, devoid of any real meaning or purpose aside from assuring a non-fragmented sentence (run-on sentences, on the other hand…).
I am not fishing for praise. I am not soliciting pity. I am not going emo on you, this I swear. End sentences with prepositions, I will not. Like Yoda, I will not speak. I learn through trial and error what doesn’t work – this is known as forum feedback – and I try diligently to not repeat past mistakes. The problem I think I run in to is that when something works, most people don’t know why. I know how a toaster works, but I can’t tell you why. I know that I like it when I read a Wakefield or Rizzo article, but I can’t tell you precisely what it is that I like about them. I know I liked most of Tait’s stuff when he wrote too. The only thing I can think of that ties the three together (and I know Tait would hate being compared with Wakefield, but trust me, this is apt) is that they are unabashedly willing to bring their failures to light just as much as their successes. If that’s not what I like about them, then I don’t know what the three have in common aside from gender and certain alleged anatomical similarities – although I can’t specifically confirm those, nor do I want to. It is, more or less, like the old cliche, "I don’t know art, but I know what I like."
So let’s try an experiment in the forums this week – I want as many people as are willing to participate (talk about self-fulfilling) to name their favorite writers (Magical or otherwise – authors are fair game here), but only if they can explain why they like them. What is it that these people do that hooks you, that gets into you and makes you want to keep reading what they write? I, for one, am a big fan of George R. R. Martin, and I like how he spits in the face of many of the established conventions of the fantasy genre. That he can craft a low-magic world short on fantastical creatures or tell a story from so many different perspectives is doubtlessly compelling, but I am more impressed that he can make a story based largely on political intrigues actually interesting. He has believable characters with understandable motivations that interact in ways that seem natural for them. My one complaint is that his characters seem to feel sort of formulaic after a time; "this is the character, this is their personality, this is their flaw." Yes, characters need flaws, but it seems that most of his are based around a single large flaw. I can’t think offhand of a character that is instead plagued by a group of smaller flaws. It’s a minor complaint anyhow; as I said, I like his characters – Tyrion and Arya in particular for their self-contradictory natures – each of them has a nature imposed on them by their surroundings and another part of them that is unlike they way they were taught to be, and something about that makes them my favorites.
Sometimes I think that writing is more of a science than an art, that it is something that can be studied and, dare I say, perfected, rather than something which will always be constrained by subjectivity. For example, take painting or drawing – I believe that any no matter what the subject matter, it could be considered horribly botched or utterly flawless depending on how it is rendered, or based on the biases of the viewer. As such, there are ultimately no hard guidelines as what makes for good or bad artistry, thanks in part to things like abstract or surreal art, let alone avant-garde. Writing has a sort of conventional wisdom to it; there are things that are expected of what is widely considered to be good writing, based on the genre. A mystery must always lead the reader to suspect someone other than the true antagonist was the solution, elsewise it is boring. You couldn’t get away with simply making the most likely-seeming suspect be the actual criminal without working in some really good twist, otherwise you’ve just got a boring story. A good writer, for example, could never get away with a flawless character – they’d be boring, and as soon as it was figured out they were flawless, the outcome of everything they do is predetermined. An artist, on the other hand, could excuse a perfect image so long as they possessed the skill to render it. Indeed, if an artist rendered a perfect flower, or landscape, or naked woman, they would be praised highly and often. Writers can’t do this kind of thing – even Superman has his kryptonite. Art, ultimately, does not have rules – anything you think is a rule can be smashed by one of the aforementioned alternate genres. In fact, most of the widely recognized classic pieces of art broke supposed rules.
Writing, on the other hand, has guidelines, formulas, plot-charts, and other devices that can be ignored only at great peril. While one could certainly attempt a work of fiction that had no readily identifiable climax or denouement, I doubt it would be terribly successful. Writers have to worry about things like plot holes, or unbelievable characters, or consistency (any flaw here would get hounded mercilessly). Maybe I’m speaking rectally here, but I think that writing, by the modern standards held for it, has a lot more in common with science than art. Thoughts?
Ze Decklist
This week I’m coming to you with something I’ve been kicking around with some other writers and friends that I find does pretty well casually. Some people appreciated its mostly budget nature, others like the mechanics of it, some people thought it just looked fun to play (it is), and Talen gets to feel giddy for indirectly inspiring it. So, gentlemen… what is it? Follow the white rabbit, and all shall be revealed. Actually, screw the rabbit (not that way, you perverts). Instead
Creatures (33)
- 4 Sparkmage Apprentice
- 3 Stalking Yeti
- 4 Aven Riftwatcher
- 4 Calciderm
- 2 Dust Elemental
- 4 Keldon Marauders
- 4 Stingscourger
- 4 Stonecloaker
- 4 Whitemane Lion
Lands (24)
Spells (3)
Swap out the Sacred Foundries for Forge[/author]“]Battlefield [author name="Forge"]Forges[/author], and you’ve got a pretty budget deck here. Sure, okay, Cloudstone Curio is far from a unique deck premise, especially after Talen’s recent fetish-venting article (although I’ve been toying with this deck for a few weeks now), but this deck also functions pretty darn well even if it doesn’t get the Curio. It’s just ridonkulous if it does draw it and get it to stick.
What the deck does: By and large the trick here is using a small variety of mostly Red critters with comes-into-play abilities and using the Rescue creatures to re-use them. A lot. Ad nauseam, really. No, I don’t think using Latin makes me look more intelligent. It is, however, much briefer than typing "to the point of disgust." Well, unless I bother explaining that. Damn. Oh, well. I told you it wasn’t going to make me look more intelligent.
Of course, Rescue also works unsurprisingly well with Vanishing, so I have an excuse to beat people in the face with Calciderms for way more turns than I actually should be allowed to. Deckbuilding, you see, is art, which as we’ve established is often improved when you break the supposed rules. Yes, I’ve managed to actually make the Burning Issue relevant to Ze Decklist – a new epiphany, no doubt. Carrying on, you’ve got Stalking Yeti and Sparkmage Apprentice for removal. Yes, Sparkmage Apprentice. See, I always like a deck that can, going first, have a shot at killing an opposing first turn mana dork, just because I know people will keep hands which they would otherwise throw back simply because they figure that their one land and one mana dork will see them through until they draw that second land. Yes, it’s a cruel reason for adopting a strategy, but as many people could tell you, I get miffed when people keep bad hands. I don’t mind someone conceding if I’m smashing their face in with better draws, or if whatever deck I’m playing at the time happens to be exploiting a major weakness their deck can’t recover from (such as 4x maindeck Gaea’s Blessing versus Mill_you.dec), but I feel cheated when someone keeps a one-land, seven-card hand without any kind of one mana play in hand, and then concedes after a couple of turns of not drawing a land. Call it tough love – these people need to learn to accept the occasional five or six card hand (I do not, on the other hand, expect people to play with four or less – if they want to, fine; if not, I understand).
Anyhow, enough about the Sparkmage. Okay, maybe not. I like that he can Keldon Marauders ping to the dome. Even one point at a time, this is pretty useful. Especially if, I don’t know, you’ve got one of each, Curio on the table, and 4RRRR open. Mmm. Death by paper-cuts. Yum. And yes, I know Mogg War Marshall would probably be pretty good in here somewhere, but I ended up eventually using the Sparkmage for that slot because a) I wanted more critter removal and b) while making a bunch of Goblin tokens is cute, there’s enough stuff in here which already folds to Pyroclasm / Rough / Sulfurous Blast et cetera without ever getting to do anything. At least the Sparkmage did something just by showing up.
Talen’s R/G Curio deck from last week ran Scryb Rangers for the sole purpose of having instant speed bounce with Curio – I neatly dodged this by just running ten of White’s Flash / Rescue hybrid dorks. Whitemane Lion is like the poster child for what Ashcoat Bears wants to be when it grows up, Stonecloaker is a scarily good beater to begin with, being a three power flier for three mana, not to mention being the most gorgeous thing ever to play after a turn 2 Keldon Marauders. Dusty is a flat-out game-winner, Wrath-hoser, and all out general scary guy (get it? Fear? Scary? Whatever, never mind…) and I think two is the right number here – you do want to draw him, but you rarely want to see a second copy show up – partially because you’d better off most of the time drawing a Curio than a second Dusty, since the Curio will let you re-use Dusty and everyone else you want anyhow. Multiple Curios do little also, ergo relying on three rather than the full four.
Stingscourger and Aven Riftwatcher are your silly guys, in that getting either going with Curio will tend to win the game, especially if you get to the point of using either multiple times in a turn. They are especially good in that provided you leave mana open, they’re apt to be rescued from targeted removal, which is a general fail against this deck – you’re typically holding a Rescue dork, and Calciderm can’t be targeted to begin with. And of course, thanks to Dusty, Wrath effects aren’t a guaranteed out against you either. It’s one of those things I like about the deck; while clearly being a creature based deck, it does a good job of negating or lessening the drawbacks those kind of decks typically run it to.
Who the deck is for: There’s a certain Johnny-ness to the deck, a certain (but lesser amount) of Spike-ness, and a lot of synergy. Also sure to be popular with people who hate getting their creatures killed, via targeted means or otherwise. I wish Stormfront Riders had been gifted with Flash, as being able to rescue precisely two critters at instant speed would be nice. Although if you’re willing to deal with the sorcery speed, consider that Riders + Soul Warden + a spare couple of dudes + Curio = arbitrarily large amount of life. Consider: You have Soul Warden and Curio out, and dorks A and B. You play Riders, electing to return dorks A and B to your hand, which creates two tokens (C and D), which give you two life. Then, C comes into play, and you decline the Curio trigger, but D comes in and elects to bounce C, which makes E, who bounces D, which makes F, who bounces E, et cetera. Repeat until you like your life total, your opponent concedes, or you develop carpal tunnel syndrome. I recommend one of the first two options for hopefully obvious reasons (and take no responsibility if you choose the third).
What to watch out for: Artifacts and Enchantments top the list, unless of course you include a sideboard – I recommend Fury Charm and Cloudchaser Kestrel if you do. I’ll explain the Kestrel in a bit, but Fury Charm has the ability to destroy artifacts, screw with combat math, or act as probable removal versus opposing Vanishing creatures. This alone wouldn’t be enough to dissuade one from simply using Hide or Disenchant, however, your next biggest worry would be untargetability or Protection from Red, the latter of which nullifies your chances of dealing with something via Sparkmage, Yeti, or Stingscourger. Luckily, Mouth of Ronom can help some here. Moreover, however, is the point of including the Kestrel – not only can it repetitively remove enchantments via Curio, but it can Purelace your Red removal creatures to get around Protection, giving it an extra use over Disenchant. Similarly, it provides an additional benefit against Circle of Protection: Red if one is played after the Kestrel but before you draw Curio or a Rescue dork to re-use the Kestrel. For this reason, I can endorse the Charm / Kestrel combination over simply using Disenchant. Not to mention that a re-usable Kestrel is a nice way of dealing with Moldervine Cloaks, too.
Hmm, yes, that looks like about everything. Now to send this off to Craig, after which point I hope not to feel like I Could Have Done Better.
Signing off,
Rivien Swanson
flawedparadigm a(aye Carumba!)t gmaSPAMSUCKSil d(.)ot co[I like swords.]m
Flawed Paradigm on MTGO (when I actually log in)