This site provides writing advice and superhero comedy. If you're writing a superhero story, you will probably find our superhero-themed articles especially instructive.

Would you like to subscribe to our RSS feed?

UPDATE: I’m deleting Rahul from the story.  I might end up using some part of this chapter, maybe the rhythm or something, but I’m thinking the vast majority of this won’t be used.  I’m still too lazy to delete it though.

At 5:05 PM, Rahul sits down at his desk and starts studying calculus.

At 5:50, he tosses his calculus book across his desk and starts on biology.

At 6:15, he moves on to physics.

At 6:30, he starts on biochemistry.

Rahul strained himself attempting to force his brain to focus. His biochem notebook was loaded with complicated equations and the chemical formulas of important products. He remembered dutifully copying down the material for what seemed like at least an hour, but couldn’t imagine how he might apply it on a test. He couldn’t even imagine what the test would look like.

Well, not exactly. He figured it would be a thin packet loaded with scary words and phrases like “Explain the potassium-calcium exchange. Is it an example of an antiport exchange transport? Why or why not?” What he couldn’t visualize was him actually remembering, let alone understanding, any of this arcana during the test.

He snapped his notebook shut. The test wasn’t for another two days and this wasn’t helping at all. Maybe, he reminded himself, he could study for English language or British poetry. It made him feel like Ashwin whenever someone was jealous of his English.

He hated Ashwin.

His calculus book suddenly slipped off his desk, knocking two more textbooks with it. Rahul slammed his desk in frustration. His hand stung. He had to get out of this place.

Quickly leaving his room was a tricky proposition. Mounds of school materials and old tests and assignments leaned precariously against each other. The room was already messy enough that it would require heroic courage to even attempt the feat. Rahul had pushed aside the task for maybe the past year or so. Besides, the old tests would probably make him feel bad anyway.

He grabbed a light jacket. The path to the apartment door was empty, but going out without parental permission didn’t seem right. He joked once or twice that his parents would call a constable if he tried and he wasn’t completely sure he was joking.

He caught his mother on the telephone. Her voice was so high and lilted that she might as well have been singing for a children’s choir. He didn’t need to hear any of the conversation to know that she was talking with Ashwin, the Prodigal Engineer. Ashwin, the Chosen One. Ashwin, the Shining Star of the Patel family.

Her voice and facial features sharpened as she put down the phone. “Rahul. Where do you think you’re going at this hour? And on a school-night!”

Rahul had carefully concocted his alibi. “Biochemistry has been going pretty well, but it would help if I studied with Sagar a little bit tonight.”

Her gaze moved up and down, carefully appraising him.

“You were planning on leaving to study without bringing any books or materials?”

Rahul had made such a glaring mistake that he nearly groaned. He wasn’t sure exactly how much his face gave away, but he thought he kept his composure.

“I didn’t want to bother packing up my things until I was sure that I could go.” He drew out the word ‘bother’ and added a tone of whininess. He was sure that his mother would believe a lie based on his own laziness. Pretty sure, anyway.

“Get your things and go.”

“Thanks, Amma!”

He threw his book in his knapsack and raced out the door.

UPDATE: I’m not sure how I’d actually use this chapter now.  I’m cutting Rahul out of the story, so I don’t know how that works.

Backstory

• Jay and Rahul are driving.
• In a bad part of town, a failed carjacking leads to fireballs being thrown around the car.
• Their van gets nailed pretty bad and hits a building

The van was trashed, a burning slag heap. Khalid looked like he might be alive. HIs head was slumped away and wasn’t moving. He smelled bloody.

Jay’s door was smashed in and wasn’t going to let him out willingly. Jay concentrated very intently upon his hand, clouding out whiffs of blood and charred seats. His hand. Its component atoms rearranged themselves into a more familiar and useful pattern. Fingers grew less prominent and nails extended into claws, massive cutters. Jay sliced through his seatbelt and carved through the door.

Jay tripped coming out of the car. The ground was slippery with fuel.

***

The thugs watched as the driver got up and walked around the side of the car. They couldn’t see the passenger’s door get diced but they heard the metal’s awful moans as it was rent. Circling around, they saw the man emerge from the car carrying his passenger.

***
Jay began to walk away from the van. He found that Rahul had a phantom of a pulse, but the concussion caused by an exploding fuel tank might finish him.

The thugs encircled him. He wasn’t particularly worried for himself– the head goon couldn’t even blow up a van right. He estimated that it would take exactly four slashes to execute the four members of the Elemental Gang. Five, he decided. The earth guy might be able to parry once with a boulder or something.

Of course, Khalid’s odds of survival would drop precipitiously if it combat broke out. Jay figured he could buy a shade over three seconds of unrestrained whupass by hurling Khalid straight upwards and catching him after the gang-members were done. Sadly, there was no way to catch him without killing him.

“Where you think you going?” asked the red-haired one. He brandished a fireball at Jay.

Jay trudged along.

“Maybe he didn’t hear you,” goaded the dripping one. Water, Jay decided.

“What’s the matter with you. Too dumb to hand over the car. Too dumb to die easy.” Mr. Fire was definitely going to start something. “You think we done with you?

Jay tried siding past Mr. Wind. He was tall and lanky, a real weakling. He put himself a few feet ahead of Jay. Wind glanced nervously at the others.

Jay’s back was now to Fire, whose voice had grown considerably more shrill and aggressive. Judging from the erratic light and shadows, Fire was waving his flaming hands quite loosely.
Walking away with Khalid was not viable. Killing the four without casualties was not viable. Killing them now, anyway, he thought.
“Where you going? Where you going?”

Jay’s ambling ground to a halt. At least he was beyond the fatality range of the impending explosion. He visualized his entire body giving way to something considerably more menacing.

“First, I’m taking my friend to a hospital. Then, unless you’ve turned yourself in to the cops by the time I come back, I’m going to paint the wall with your intestines.”

Jay’s head began hurting. Even under ideal circumstances, around 60-90 seconds of tranquility, metamorphosis wasn’t pleasant.

“How ya gonna do that? We’re the baddest ballas in East St. Louis. You’re just a sorry-ass body waiting to be buried.”

Jay felt his hold on Rahul slipping. He took a knee to steady himself as his legs buckled. His head was hammering. At least the reconfiguration would be at least as disconcerting to them.

“Well, I’ll fly to the hospital with these wings.”

Green, leathery wings erupted from his back. From the back forward, his clothes had begun to meld into green scales glowing in the car’s fire.

“Depending on how sadistic I’m feeling, I might strangle y’all with this tail.”

The tail waved at them. It wasn’t just for decoration.

Yellow plates replaced his chest. Wind clutched his stomach, but he wasn’t the only one who looked like he was going to throw up.

“Then I’ll bust out the claws. I was thinking maybe I’d rip out your beating heart, but I also see an opportunity to test whether human intestines actually extend for miles. But I’m open to suggestions.”

Jay felt his formerly mammalian neck shrink slightly as his senses of smell and vision sharpened. He was overwhelmed by the foul, acrid gasoline and Rahul’s blood and the thugs’ sweat and the dirt embedded in every decrepit building for miles around.

Jay savored the moment. The thugs were gibbering wrecks, scarcely able to comprehend what they had seen. They probably understood that it involved a dragon and, maybe if they followed the news and had a reasonably good memory, a reputedly sadistic superhero (lies! All lies!). Sigh.

“Any other bright questions?”

He paused for dramatic effect, but he doubt they appreciated the moment. He pinned his enormous mass against his spring-like legs. His wings began rhythmically flapping, whipping the hot and ash-loaded air around. He launched himself upwards by letting his legs loose and flight was elementary from there.

Jay didn’t understand humans well. They were fascinated by flying, by being able to read a license plate from a mile away, by being able to transform (painfully!) from a dragon to a human.

1) Try not to begin sentences with the words there, it, so, and then.

A. There and it create passive sentences. For example, “there are only three cities with many supervillains” can be rewritten as “only three cities have many supervillains.”

B. So usually connects an action awkwardly to a previous statement, like “I hate Italian food, so I’m not a fan of lasagna.” Phrases that begin with so are often obvious and unneeded.

C. Then is problematic when it indicates that a string of actions is continuing. “I went to the door and then I knocked.” Usually, then suggests that the action is individually insignificant. Sentences with then frequently feel like laundry lists of actions that don’t need to be spelled out. “I hit the up button. Then the elevator came. Then I stepped inside and got out on the ninth floor” could be revised to “I took the elevator to the ninth floor.” Unless something interesting happens on the elevator, there’s no reason to draw it out.

2) Passive voice lacks punch and verve. Is passive voice in your piece? Does your piece use passive voice?

3) Have you weeded out unnecessary and unproductive sentences and phrases? Writers don’t stumble upon coherent, compact stories any more than a sculptor accidentally turns a stone into a face. Good writing relies on editing and deletion as much as creation/addition. If a scene, chapter or character adds little to the work as a whole, you’ve got to have the guts to remove or revise it.

A. One common objection is “but I’ve already got 60,000 words! If I cut anything, I won’t have a manuscript long enough to submit.” OK, but if you don’t cut anything, you probably won’t have a manuscript good enough to get accepted anywhere. Wise editing and deletion will increase the publishability of the whole.

B. How does one edit wisely? Well, here are some suggestions. List your chapters and then write a 1-2 sentence synopsis of your book’s plot. Which chapters are tangential to your synopsis? For example, Harry Potter’s Quidditch scenes are useful and enjoyable, but not really related to the main plot. Compared to the rest of the book, how long are your tangential chapters? As a rule, tangents shouldn’t make up more than 10-15% of the book.

C. Deleting scenes and chapters can be emotionally hard. Instead of deleting them, try cutting and pasting them into a separate file. In a few days, if you feel that you really need that scene, then you can retrieve it.

D) Talk to your reviewers. Ask them to nominate scenes that could be reduced. Did they ever use phrases like “this dragged on”?

4) There are many stylistic tics that may cause readers to stumble.  Get out a set of markers and print out a copy of your work. Circle each of the following tics in a different color.

A) Modifiers (a lot, almost, very, extremely, roughly, approximately, quite, nearly, a bit, etc.)

B) Sentences that begin with nouns

C) Words that have 5+ syllables

D) Sentences that have 15+ words

E) Sentences that have 4+ commas and/or semi-colons

F) Sentences that have 3+ clauses

G) Lines of dialogue that are not attributed to a speaker

H) Capitalized words that are not the first word of the sentence. (Why might this be problematic? According to the article “Revision Checklist” by B. Mac and Jacob Mallow, 9 out of 10 members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors of America agree that Over-Capitalization Syndrome can be visually disorientating).

I) Fragmented or grammatically incorrect sentences.

J) Paragraphs with 150+ words

K) Italicized words

It’s not a problem that you will have many circles on your page for some of these categories.  There’s nothing wrong with an occasional long sentence, for example.  But when each page has 10-15 long sentences, that might rub readers the wrong way.  Circling each of these items helps you get in the reader’s mindset.

This article will focus on how to craft gripping scenes that immerse readers in the story. First, I will start with an absolutely awful scene, offer a revision, and then draw connections about how you can make your scenes more immersive.

My mini-scene

The elf hit the orc with his shield, giving him enough time to cast Fireball. It shot out of his land like a bullet.

This scene completely fails to immerse readers.

1. “like a bullet” feels distinctly inappropriate for a conventional fantasy story (let’s assume that’s what it is).

2. What’s the fireball like? This wasted a huge opportunity.

3. The passage used weak and generic verbs (hit, cast and shot).

4. We can’t really visualize the fight. What happens to the orc that lets the elf cast Fireball?

5. What’s the elf like? Or the orc? We can’t really visualize either beyond the barest mental cliches.

A somewhat better version of my mini-scene

The orc swung wildly with its masher. The elf instinctively ducked. A cool breeze fanned the elf’s face as the hammer rushed by. The elf sprang up with his shield, smashing the orc’s face. It fell backwards, chains rattling as it crashed into the ground. The orc’s bloodyshot eyes fluttered, unfocused as though gazing at something miles away.

But it was alive.

“Spirits of fire…”

Mystical energy welled in the elf’s chest and smoke pooled in his lungs. The smoke. He lived for the smoke.

“I implore you…” he aimed his hand at the prone orc. Power surged from his heart, as though magma were rushing through him. Clumps of his skin charred and flaked away in the wind.

“Incendio!”

A geyser of fire hot enough to melt stone gushed out of his fingers. The orc’s top half disintegrated completely. And the bottom half… only he and the gods would know it had ever belonged to something alive.

The elf inspected the black gashes that ran up his heavily charred, heat-withered arm. Regrowing skin and bone was simple enough that any apprentice healer could have his arm functional within an hour. But the scars, the scars were permanent. In any case, they made for great bar stories.

Then he noticed that his fingernails had burnt away.

“Dammit!”

It took weeks for fingernails to grow back.

This story is better, but it still has many problems… “incendio”? Come on. More substantively, we have no impression of the physical setting, where the story is taking place. (Is this fight happening in… an open field? An Orcish coliseum? An astral plane? What’s the weather like? How does the terrain affect the duel? Who, if anyone, is watching? Is anyone else fighting? What time is it? How humid is it?)

In contrast, this scene does develop the cultural setting. We learn a lot about the elf here and his society. He spends as much time thinking about his burnt fingernails as he does about killing the orc.

The sensory imagery is occasionally solid– particularly the fire/smoke/imagery– but aside from that it was pretty bland…

Making Your Scenes More Immersive

1. Sensory imagery is critical. “He cast a fireball” is too bland to captivate readers.

   1. Show us what the spell does to the victim, the caster, the terrain, etc. Give us the smoke!

   2. Try to engage as many senses as possible. Smell and touch are particularly immersive and visceral. Sight and hearing are obviously important but are usually more generic.

   3. Focus on the elements that separate your story from every other story we’ve read. A fight between elves and orcs on the beach should not focus on the seagulls. Likewise, a story with a dragon character (ie a dragon that actually has lines) had damn well better describe and use the dragon. Give us the dragon!

2. You have to show readers where the scene is happening.

   1. The best way to develop the setting is to show your characters interacting with the scenery. For example, if the fight is in a tavern, bystanders might jeer or root for one combatant. The elf might use a chair or mug as a weapon. More generically, the elf might choke on the smoke that comes from the fireball or his eyes might water.

   2. Don’t overwhelm your audience with trivial details. For example, if they fight on a beach, describing the sounds of the waves hitting the beach probably won’t add much. But mentioning that the sand offers bad footing will help your readers visualize the scene.

3. Explain the cultural setting. What are the people in your world like? How are their thought processes and cultures different from ours?

   1. Above, the elf is pretty messed up. He talks about his scars at taverns and cares more about his fingernails than burning an orc to death. If I had only described him as an elf, the audience would have assumed he was elegant, high-minded, nature-attuned, etc. What is this, Dungeons and Dragons?*

   2. Readers prefer unique settings.

4. What is the focus (or purpose) of your scene?

   1. Originally, my fireball scene was an action scene, describing only the elf-orc fight. The rewrite was far more character-driven. I used the fight as a vehicle to portray the elf.

   2. Mixing up scenes is usually more effective. You can drown your readers in action (or dramatic dialogue). I tried to mix action and character development here and I think it was pretty effective.

In the opening…

Generally, I think it’s a good idea to show or at least foreshadow the main characters.   My opening– Best Investigator– only really shows Lash and Agent Orange, but I mention Captain Carnage and Dr. Atrios in passing.  Dr. Fox/Catastrophe, Tommy Thompson and Oliver are completely missing.

Most writing guides emphasize an audience’s emotional investment in the characters.  That’s certainly important, but I think it’s also important for fiction writers to get readers to emotionally invest in the world.   Both of these investments tie in to what’s at stake.  Why should the audience care whether your characters succeed or not?

The opening should also establish the tone and mood of the piece.  People that buy/read your novel will probably do so on the basis of the first few chapters (maybe just the first few pages).  It’s important not to jilt your readers– if it starts out tragically, it shouldn’t be a light-hearted comedy.

In the body of the story…

If your story is your gun, scenes are your bullets.  Scenes, rather than blocks of exposition that occur in a sceneless vacuum, show the characters.  A character in a well-constructed scene will feel a lot more alive to your audience than, say, a character who is described like “Courtney was a middle-aged man that was kind of both proud and insecure.”

Show all the elements the conclusion needs.  For example, if everything hinges on saving the girl at the end, we should see the girl, the hero, and the villain long before the final fight.

I really like plotting by problems.  Ahem– the first sentence of the novel is “Courtney had problems.”  Your characters have overarching goals and their attempts to reach their goals only create more problems and obstacles.  These problems should be varied, but it will probably be easier to read if the problems get progressively worse.  Pretty much the only thing political scientists know is that perfect solutions don’t exist.  (Or, if they do, save them for the “Happily Ever After”).

In the conclusion…

By the end, your characters should have made some hard-earned gains and your audience should care about whether your hero succeeds.  In the conclusion, show us that everything hinges on success now.

The conclusion, more so than the other parts, depends on the resonance of your villain with your readers.  If your reader sees how devastatingly strong and fiendishly devious your villain is, your hero will be much more heroic as he vanquishes him.  And the villain should be vanquished only by the hero’s actions.  For example, it would be totally lame if you have a wife being held hostage by her husband in their home and then the cops randomly burst through the door and blast him.  But it would be a lot more heroic if she struggled for the last few chapters to somehow secretly call 911.   Then the cops bursting through the door might be an appropriate and satisfying conclusion to her course of action.

Authors of children’s novels should be especially sensitive to the problem of the “hero” not really saving the day.  Having an adult step in and solve the problems will make your readers– even children– wonder why they read about a helpless hero.

Throughout the story…

Avoid randomness.

One area of particular randomness is naming characters.  I heard that someone once wrote a story where the first character was named Alex, the second Betty, the third Carl, the fourth Donna, etc.  Hopefully, you have a stronger reason for naming your characters than that the first letters of their names come in alphabetical order.  Some writing guides recommend that you pick names with “meaning.”  For example, Sophia translates to “wisdom,” which could conceivably, maybe kinda give a cue to your readers… in Greece.

The strongest reason to pick a name is that it suggests something about the character.  This goes beyond screwing weaker characters with sissy names like “Percy” and “Neville Longbottom” and then giving stronger characters hard-sounding names like “Jack Ryan.”  Like most stories about superheroes, Superhero Nation goes over-the-top with character names.  Courtney never really gets over that people make fun of his name, which suggests that he’s pretty insecure (also, he picks Lash as his name).  Agent Orange sounds absurd.

Be careful with tense changes.  Your readers will generally notice when you use a wrong one, but it’s very easy to slip into a different tense when you’re writing.  I recommend slowly reading through each page immediately after you finish writing it.  This is more effective than finishing the piece and then looking for tense mistakes because your eyes will glaze over after a few pages.  Best Investigator had a lot of tense problems right at the very beginning, mostly because I didn’t really know when the events I described at the beginning occurred compared to the time the story itself was taking place.  I’m pretty sure my latest version has fixed these problems.

Another problem is maintaining a constant narration.  For example, in “Only Human,” my narrator focuses mostly on what Jacob Mallow sees.  But, when Gangrene releases his chemical, the narrator describes what’s happening across the city even though Jacob Mallow has no idea anything is wrong.  Another awkward narration shift in Only Human is towards the end, when Jacob leaves the greenhouse.  The perspective stays in the greenhouse with Agent Orange.  I knew that was really awkward at the time I was writing it, but I kind of had to show what Agent Orange was doing with his blood.  Until I’m done with the next revision of Only Human, those problems will still be there.

Audience interaction with characters

• Character’s actions
• Motive
• Past
• Reputation– what other characters think of him.
  • If reputation hopelessly inaccurate, show how it came to be.
• How habits and behaviors are affected by the character’s environment.
• Don’t overemphasize physical appearance– if you understand a character, you don’t need to know what color his eyes are to imagine him.
• Exaggeration– but not enough so that the person becomes a carciature.
• The twist– play on stereotypes and audience expectations

If you must withhold information from the audience for suspense, make sure that they understand what the question is, even if they don’t know the answer (or you’ll confuse them).

Your protagonists shouldn’t have an easy time of anything.  Show that the best heroes get screwed by circumstances all the time but work through it. Every situation has something that can go wrong.  Find it.

What if something arises and both Lashes respond to the same crisis?  Most impersonations are malicious, so someone will assume that wrongdoing is afoot.

Irony: Rahul wants a dragon to free him from a virtual confinement in the US (play on the princess held in the dragon’s tower)

The narrator should refer to the character by the same thing every time.  Rusty may call Hunter “Daddy”, but the narrator should always use Hunter.

Rusty has two white triangles under his left eye.  They look suspiciously like the rune for “betrayal.”  You wouldn’t betray me, would you?

The reason that Tolkien could get away with so many random digressions into details about his world was that his world was the story.  More importantly, his world was interesting and fresh.  It would put your readers to sleep if you attempted likewise, especially if you draw heavily on boring conventions (ie elves as graceful, cultured, nimble creatures.  We’ve already seen these guys before).

Readers expect a story to end only when the first major source of structural tension is resolved.  This should be the heart of the book.

Controlling audience perception of a character

• Ordinariness vs. strangeness

• The amount of time devoted to the character

• The character’s potential for making meaningful choices

• Other characters’ focus on him

• The character’s frequency of appearance

• The character’s degree of involvement in the action

• Readers’ sympathy for the character

• Narration from the character’s point of view

Emotional investment

• The best uses of emotional and physical pain fall somewhere between inconsequential and unimaginable.
• Grows less effective with repetition.  Is this character a whiner?
• Sacrifice– should be meaningful and a conscious decision.
• Jeopardy–ratchet up the tension and anticipation before the main event.  That way, when the pain comes it is more gripping.
  • The feared event has to be plausible– there’s no way the hero will actually get sliced by the log-cutter.
• Audience should have a personal stake in every conflict because they sympathize with some characters.
• Anguish: when your audience sympathizes with both sides of a conflict.
• Show us character’s needs and desires.  Does he collect new sports cars because he’s greedy and shallow?  Or because his father struggled to make a 20-year-old car run… and the only time his dad bought a new car, it was repossessed days later when the plant shut down.
• Playing fair will draw an audience’s respect.  Cheating is similar to contrived plots– it makes character seem weak.
• Drafted vs. volunteered heroes.  Volunteering for a glorious assignment (like Frodo didn’t) would make character look arrogant and perhaps fool-hardy.
• No sympathetic character should lightly break a promise.
• Villains/Negative reactions
  • Sadism: rooted in thirst for power (not a love of pain).  He forces character to acknowledge he has no control over his life.
  • Self-appointed
  • Oathbreaker
  • Intellect (vanity, arrogance, non-humanness).  We’re afraid and resentful of people that know more than we do.
  • Insanity– show us his perceptions and delusions.
  • An opposite attitude from the hero.  Beholden to absolutely no one but himself, completely impulsive, selfish, ect.

No one is EVER doing “nothing in particular,” unless they’re really preparing for criminal activity.  “What if he was going for a walk?”  That’s not the same as nothing in particular.

Inherit the Wind, by Robert E. Lee and Jerome Lawrence, used to taunt Bashal

Narration–

Keep a character’s attitude and perspective in mind.  Avoid what he can’t or doesn’t see at all costs or the reader will wonder who’s really talking.

Rusty’s Traits

• He’s Hunter’s son (~3 year-old-dragon)
• Simple speech patterns, though somewhat smarter than most toddlers.
  • Most sentences six or fewer words.  Heavy use of fragments.  Logical process not fully developed (”Because!”)
• Gets lonely easily, like most really young kids.
• Generally enthusiastic and curious.
• Has insiders and outsiders, but it’s a little different than Hunter.
  • He’s afraid of and quite nervous around outsiders.  He’s super-engaging with insiders.  It’s far easier to get into Rusty’s “family” than Hunter’s.
• Doesn’t understand commonly accepted bounds (like when it’s ok to butt in on someone’s conversation or talk to strangers).
• Sassy.  He’s too young to know better and Hunter is too soft on him to lay down the law.
• Vaguely grasps distinctions between “Daddy” and everything else.  He doesn’t really understand the “baby” vs. everything else distinction, but it seems to end up with him not being able to go anywhere while everyone else has fun.
• Really likes comic books and other kinds of stories.
• He likes bright colors.
• Poor grasp of what is dangerous.  This is affected by comic books fascination, where the protagonists ALWAYS take bold risks and are applauded for it.  There’s never any real danger to them.
• Like Hunter, has a dragon and human form.  Human form looks pretty ordinary.
• Pathologically curious. (For example, he rummages through Rahul’s stuff).

Pictures:

Linguistics

• Absolutely no more than 8-word sentences. 
• Few descriptive nouns (will use “shoes” rather than “sneakers”).
• Can repeat 4-syllable words, if careful.
• Understands comparisons like “bigger than”
• Chatters short sentences, pretty irritating.

NOTE: At 5:41, March 22 I decided that Rahul was a major barrier to the story.

• The voice was very different than what I was used to.
• Rahul himself is not a particularly good character. I aimed for an authentically Indian version of Spiderman (as written by an American who’s never been to India) and I think, at best, it would have been a knock-off of Spiderman.
• I’ll keep this post up just for reference sake, but any reference to Rahul/Bashal/any of the other Indians being in the story is incorrect.  Not a one will make an appearance in Cowboys and Indians (of course, this means I will have to get a new name).

Rahul’s Traits

• Sweet, good-natured
• clueless, imperceptive
• Easily flustered.
• Clumsy
• Very poor at engineering– not methodical enough.
• Not particularly good at handling stress, particularly in tricky mental problems.
• Compassionate and charitable.
• Not especially good at lying and deception.
• Acutely aware of his own imperfections. For this reason and more (see * below), he’s not eager to become a superhero.
• *Originally, I had imagined that Rahul would be eager to be a superhero, like pretty much every other comic book character yet created. That was a mistake. The eagerness to be, essentially, a vigilante is premised on the notion that power creates an opportunity (and perhaps an obligation) to do good. Additionally, the aspiring superhero must at least flirt with supreme self-confidence (I must apprehend the supervillain, because I am far better-equipped than the police to do so). Especially Spiderman but pretty much every American superhero so far created would agree that “with great power comes great responsibility.” Note that the “responsibility” is to protect the people, NOT to avoid abusing superpowers by repressing them. A stylistic element that reflects this is that pretty much every superhero has a honeymoon period where he figures out what he can do with his newfound abilities. For Peter Parker, this was swinging around and eventually hitting a building with his webs. The implicit understanding is that power = cool. Wouldn’t it be neat if you could do that. I think the rosy American view of power makes sense from an American perspective– it’s not like we’re on the verge of a civil war where some person (or group) gaining power necessarily leads to the weakening of everyone else. At least in India, there is something of a history of religious violence… several million people died in the post-colonial partition of Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. It is QUITE plausible that, with that perspective, that India in this alternate superpowered universe would see superpowered people as a dire threat that must be stopped. The lesson from partition is that, when the state is weak relative to its people, the people’s prejudices and turmoils will lead to disaster. In contrast, the American government was designed to be weak relative to its people (for example, the 2nd amendment was designed to ensure that the people would be able to overthrow a tyrannical regime).
• To condense: Americans generally agree that power can be used well and should be. In fact, many Americans would agree that power bolsters ones principles and morals (when you have absolute power, you don’t need to compromise anything… but when you’re weak, you have to cooperate with scum, a la the USSR in WWII or Pakistan now). Indians are far more likely to believe that power can corrupt those that wield it and oppress those that don’t.
• Language
  • Variation in noun numbers: “He performed many charities. She loves to pull your legs.”
  • Ready, ah? He’s here, ah? (right?)
  • Answers agree with yes/no structure of question. You didn’t come on the bus? Yes, I didn’t.
  • Past perfect where Americans use past simple. “I had gone” instead of “I went.”
  • Hope denotes an expectation, rather than desire. “With those clouds, I hope it will rain.”
  • Wallah– someone who’s involved in something. The grocery-wallah gouged me.
  • Matlab– “what I mean to say is”…
  • Using gift as a verb.
  • Pain in place of hurt. “Does it pain?”
  • “That and all/This and all”– regarding that.
  • Deadly used as adverb to mean intense.
  • Sexy used to mean cool or excellent.
  • “Hello, who are you and what do you want?” Common way to answer the phone. Not considered impolite.
  • “pass out of the university”– to graduate.
  • “He was acting funny with me” — he was strange/impolite/rude.
  • “on the anvil”– about to happen.
  • Cribbing.
  • “high-end”– supposedly of higher quality or stature. Frequently used derisively.
  • godman– someone who claims to have supernatural powers. Somewhat pejorative.

Bashal’s Traits

• Created by the Staff of Nehru. Possibly a spiritual possession, more likely a spiritual awakening.
• Different person from Rahul, his alter-ego. Rahul remembers what he did, but can’t really remember the thought-process. His old mental state is not in control when the robe is on.
• Quite brash, painfully so.
• Powers of wind-control and quite capable with the full-length staff, which extends as far as he needs it to.
  • Possible pole uses: pogo, pole vault, ranged weapon, melee, reaching high up to avoid explosion or get on a building…
• Not aware of US laws and regulations. Doesn’t really care. Far more concerned about helping people… Laws should only exist to help people and they should not constrain people from doing that. (Indian cynicism).
• Cerulean turban/facemask with black eyeslits, white tunic and orange, flowing pants and sandals.

Agent Orange (Hunter)

Hunter’s Plot Purpose

• With Oliver, he’s one of the two government guys trying to keep Rusty survive to see adulthood.
  • As the alien, he sticks out more, so he has to stay in the safehouse pretty much all the time.
  • He is always annoyed by Rusty and pretty cold, despite being tremendously friendly to human children. Rusty isn’t human, charming or harmless.
  • He won’t discuss this until very late, but he gets subtle signs that the kid is bad news, maybe even tremendously dangerous. His superiors might have thought he was just irritated about maybe being replaced… but they couldn’t exactly replace him on the mission (he has a strong track-record and they don’t have anyone who knows as much about aliens).
• He increasingly sees a conflict between his mission (keep Rusty safe) and his duty (keep the country safe). He cares about keeping innocents safe in a genuine, heart-felt way and maybe there’s no way to keep them safe without killing the kid.
  • The kid really IS vicious and maybe a prophecy interpreted one way suggests that he will eventually be a criminal of some notoriety
  • I’ve already ruled out them actually killing Rusty (that’d be WAY too dark… even mentioning that he’s thinking about it is pretty twisted, I think). But the main Hunter-Ryan conflict will be Hunter’s sense of duty vs. their mission.
• On a significantly lighter side, he pushes Dr. Fox to do something useful with whatever the hell he got out of the chemical explosion.
  • Early on, forces Fox to move back to his place. Gets real upset with Oliver for compromising their security.
  • First, cajolement. Then actual preparation. I think a mentor relationship would be WAY too cliche and implausible, so I’ll go with a “I’m too busy to bury your body” kind of help.
  • Also, maybe helping Fox realize that life isn’t the same. I think this is essential to showing that he’s changed more than just physically.
• As the Mallow plot advances, he’ll help investigate, maybe interacting with Tommy Thompson or the Belgian along the way.
  • Probably only after Lash gets killed. Until that point, he probably thinks it would compromise his mission.

Distinguishing Narrative Characteristics (how would this character act/perceive unusually in a given setting?)

• Two separate voices

1. Outsider. He overcompensates for awkward English by using entirely awkward, “refined” language. “Arduous” instead of “hard,” for example. He enjoys making outsiders feel a bit uncomfortable. He doesn’t give any stories you’d want to hear about, but he knows more than a bit about megadeath and other unsettling issues to creep anyone out. Rarely talks about himself. Jokes, but only garishly. He tends to overdress for strangers, showing no skin.
2. Informal. This language tends to come out either when he’s talking with friends or under stress, which suggests that it is more natural for him. He tends to sound more like, well, a comic book character or perhaps a military grunt. He’s more open, concerned, prone to telling stories, talking about baseball, etc. More associated with trench-coat and cape (which are more natural for him, if not for government directors).

• Driving curiosity that often overlaps with paranoia. Understands no normal boundaries of taboos– anything that might conceivably affect the mission is on the table.
• Unnormal senses.
  • Supernatural reflexes. When action happens, time just kind of slows down.
  • Visual orientated. Catches freakishly small details in visible spectrum, also sees in infrared (heat) spectrum.
  • Smell. But, in a city, actually attempting to make any sense of what he is smelling takes total concentration. Is that a particular person coming– who? Or is it smoke, exhaust, grass, an animal, blood, food, garbage, etc?
  • Law-sense. This is just a mystical sense that a felony is being committed somewhere close. Dogs feel earthquakes, he feels felonies (humans hate that analogy, but that’s their problem).
  • Memory. He tends to make unusual connections, long after a human would have forgotten.
  • Mental. Mentally speaking he isn’t very quick, which is easily mistaken for stupidity. His thought process is similar whether he’s dividing 100 by 10 or 8907432 by 179– either way, it’s just division, right?

Other Unusual Traits/Characteristics

• Noticeably jingoistic, idealistic, wildly committed to the American Dream.
• He doesn’t have a particularly well-defined sense of self. Consequently, the concept of “sacrifice” doesn’t really register, because sacrifice suggests that you’re giving up something that’s yours. He throws himself in the way of danger without hesitation because that gives him something (value) rather than threatening to take away something of value (his life). The only reason he’s lived this long is because he’s too suicidal to kill.
• Fatalistic, somewhat aware this isn’t particularly American.
  • He’s kind of hard-wired that way, though. He feels guilty anyway.
• Doesn’t feel particularly guilty about interpreting micromanaged orders. He knows what the objective is.
• Very traditional sense of honor (do what’s right, save the day, strategic and moral victory at any personal cost) and duty (to one’s oaths and commanders).
  • Doing what’s right may require lying, cheating or stealing but oaths can never be broken. Laws will only be broken in a minor way, deliberately.

(Alternate) History

• 1915. Paingod, Hunter and a few other aliens crash-land on Earth after captain gets murdered. The crew splits up into two factions over the meaning of the orders (”conquer” or “contact” Earth’s lifeforms?) Paingod frames Hunter for the captain’s murder, and Hunter jumps ship figuring he’ll capture PG later. Hunter tracks PG down a few months later in the Kaiser’s Germany as WWI rages. Paingod has already created a group of ubermensch and Hunter fails miserably, so he turns to US for help. US not particularly open at that time, but the battlefield accounts of Germany’s super-men are too gruesome to ignore. Hunter joins up, Allies win war but PG gets away. Hunter agrees to stay until PG caught.
• 1919. Geneva Conventions regulate the use of chemical/gas weapons but also the use of supernatural soldiers. They can still be used, but essentially only against each other. They have to be distinguished from regular soldiers. To integrate these soldiers and use them lawfully, the Marines add on the Cape Corps. Hunter is essential to the recruiting of superheroes– he actually creates them– but doesn’t hold a particularly high-ranking position. Originally, the MCC anticipates a role where he just reworks recruits stateside. He anticipates something a bit closer to the action.
• 1926. A Southern segregationist and Northern Marine chaplain improbably cooperate to create what becomes known as the first “comic book,” American Man, which told a series of stories about the near-crippled Marine who was selected to make sure Hunter didn’t get into trouble with any of the other soldiers. Based loosely on the “real-life” Silver Shooter, the protagonist proceeds to prove himself worthy of superpowers after attempting to sacrifice his own life to save another Marine in the Yangtze Patrol Service. The comic becomes a sensational smash, so much so that Gallup Poll’s inaugural set of “most respected men” polls places the Shooter at #2 and Hunter in the top 15 in the nation’s esteem. Take that, Lindbergh.
• 1945. Admiral Yamamoto’s transport plane experiences “technical difficulties” and all hands are lost, presumed dead. Hitler commits “suicide,” as do most of his bodyguards. So did the Soviet coroner that verified that Hitler’s body did not, in fact, have six-inch-deep claw gashes sliced through his abdomen. The American government maintains that the body had to be quickly cremated so that there Hitler’s many, many venereal diseases wouldn’t spread. Hunter has no comment.
• 1945. WWII won. Paingod is actually captured and executed, but Truman asks Hunter to be assistant director of Office of Special Investigations, a body designed to counter the growing communist threat. He accepts (so he’s thinking about US as more than just a business partner at this point). He supports Patton’s call for immediate march on Moscow– Hunter assumes USSR will become nuclear within 50 years and the ensuing nuclear standoff will destroy the world.
• 1947. After two years of rumored sightings, a photograph of Paingod is recovered from a CIA agent’s camera in Tegucigalpa. The CIA agent is never located, that agency’s first death in the line of service. In the ensuing uproar about whether Paingod has begun assisting the USSR, the US government informally nixes the idea of executing supervillains (killing PG’s impostor helped him pull the ruse off).
• 1952. After Americans land at Inchon and rout North Korean attack on South Korea, Allied Commander MacArthur indefinitely assigns Hunter to the Pentagon. He doesn’t want there to be any confusion about who deserves the credit for Allied success. When China attacks, American forces are surprised and outgunned. The United States government maintains that China’s caped “Chicommandoes” indiscriminately attacked normal American forces but these allegations remain contentious. Eisenhower personally orders Hunter back, but the American war effort could not regain its lost momentum. The war ends in stale-mate.
• 1954. Senator McCarthy and the Committee on Un-American Activities escalate investigation of who exactly lost the Korean War. They settle on, among other individuals: the Director of Special Investigations, the Postmaster General, high-ranking Army officials, scientists researching floridation for Crest Toothpaste, most of the State Department. Additionally, McCarthy implicated an editor of Washington Comics who actually did steal secrets and sell them to the Soviets (the comic-book industry hasn’t yet forgiven McCarthy). The Director of the Office of Special Investigations was forced to resign because of connections between his brother-in-law and a communist-affiliated union. Eisenhower appoints Hunter as Director with the mission to end McCarthy’s career. After Hunter then declined to speculate which superheroes might be communist spies, McCarthy turned up the heat. Nielsen Media estimates that 55% of the American electorate watched the committee proceedings as Hunter unleashed what McCarthy later called the “crocodile tears from hell.” McCarthy’s career was finished– who makes a superhero cry? OBVIOUSLY a supervillain. That’s why Congressmen don’t make soldiers burst into tears anymore. Take that, CSPAN.
• 1982 (bet you thought I would have something from Vietnam, right? HAHA sucker).
• 1971 (just kidding). Washington Comics discontinues American Man, citing pathetic sales and lack of interest in bloodless, black-and-white, pro-American story-lines. They begin converting old comics into new, more “culturally relevant” ones. Comics are “culturally relevant” if they have heavy amounts of alcohol and psychotrophic drugs. Additionally, relevant characters often stick it to The Man, a supervillainous entity usually personified by bank guards and grocery cashiers. The Man is not to be confused with the author of Superhero Nation, who is just a Man.
• 1972. Polk Comics launches with the Adventures of Agent Orange, a somewhat bizarre, completely horrific but vaguely sympathetic account of the war.
• 1966-72. Vietnam! Nothing particularly important happens to Hunter. Uhh… he fights a lot. I mean, a LOT. Let’s just say he earns the Agent Orange moniker.
• 1972. Che Guevara gets fatal case of syphilis. This actually wasn’t Hunter, but Soviets blame him anyway.
• 1973. Social Justice League formed, mostly with disgruntled hippies and other people of questionable hygiene.
• 2001. September 11.
• 2004. NSA intercepts satellite phone communications thought to belong to Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. He goes “missing,” which is accurate in the “never seen again” sense. The American government maintains it is “still looking,” which is accurate in the “he’s sliced so thin we’ll need a while” sense.
• 2005. Yasser Arafat dies of AIDS. This actually was Hunter, but the plot was too bizarre for even Palestinians to believe. Not even the Israelis know how he did it, but AIPAC is still working on him.
• 2011. US attacks Iran, Somalia.

Hunter: “Pokemon? Is that some kind of horror movie?”

Oliver: “You JUST made a reference to Terminator. How could you not know what Pokemon are?”

Hunter: “Yes. I watch science fiction and horror pictures. And comedies, as long as there are dragons.”

Oliver: “How many dragon comedies are there?”

Hunter: “Well. Dragonheart… and… and… Reign of Fire.”

Oliver: “Reign of Fire? That wasn’t a comedy!”

Hunter: “It wasn’t? Damn.”

Miscellaneous Details I’ll Dump Here So I Can Maintain Character Consistency
Language

• Language: slang from last fifty years (he’s served with a lot of young soldiers). Many adverbs and advanced diction. Pacing is like an immigrant’s (English isn’t his first language)– slower, and more conscious. Some words don’t make sense–he uses an awkward thesaurus.
• Tells many stories, particularly those revolving around a wholly sympathetic protagonist (a hero).
• Non-standard idioms:
  • seriously loaded (crazy, off the mark)
  • words that have the wrong ending (deweedifier, assistatory)
  • leading by the tail (to manipulate someone because you think he’s not mature), deriving from adult dragons letting their sons run ahead even though they can’t stray too far away (because they’re held by the tail).

Super-powers (Italics denote something that might alter the character’s perspective, what he might notice, how he might perceive something, etc).

• His body is resilent but after taking enough abuse can collapse, leading him to “die,” after which his body will reform itself.
• Supernatural reflexes– time slows down. His limbs move extremely quickly, but walking speed is well below-average.
• His body can liquify, making him theoretically able to shapeshift (not so easy in reality), regenerate wounds.
• Super-sight (including thermal) and smell (frequently picking up people’s scents, blood, sweat, car exhaust, ect.)
• Felony-sense and a bond with spirits of the law.
• Flight, around as fast as a high-speed chase (roughly 75 mph, for two to three minutes… it would require a vast amount of energy to sustain that speed)

History
Pictures

• He’s slightly cartoonish but clearly less so than his son.
• I toned down his leg muscles from the first shot (below).  My model was from a cartoon show.
• This took me around 4 hours of work (mostly coloring).

Audience interaction with characters

• Character’s actions
• Motive
• Past
• Reputation– what other characters think of him.
  • If reputation hopelessly inaccurate, show how it came to be.
• How habits and behaviors are affected by the character’s environment.
• Don’t overemphasize physical appearance– if you understand a character, you don’t need to know what color his eyes are to imagine him.
• Exaggeration– but not enough so that the person becomes a carciature.
• The twist– play on stereotypes and audience expectations

If you must withhold information from the audience for suspense, make sure that they understand what the question is, even if they don’t know the answer (or you’ll confuse them).

Your protagonists shouldn’t have an easy time of anything.  Show that the best heroes get screwed by circumstances all the time but work through it. Every situation has something that can go wrong.  Find it.

What if something arises and both Lashes respond to the same crisis?  Most impersonations are malicious, so someone will assume that wrongdoing is afoot.

Irony: Rahul wants a dragon to free him from a virtual confinement in the US (play on the princess held in the dragon’s tower)

The narrator should refer to the character by the same thing every time.  Rusty may call Hunter “Daddy”, but the narrator should always use Hunter.

Rusty has two white triangles under his left eye.  They look suspiciously like the rune for “betrayal.”  You wouldn’t betray me, would you?

The reason that Tolkien could get away with so many random digressions into details about his world was that his world was the story.  More importantly, his world was interesting and fresh.  It would put your readers to sleep if you attempted likewise, especially if you draw heavily on boring conventions (ie elves as graceful, cultured, nimble creatures.  We’ve already seen these guys before).

Readers expect a story to end only when the first major source of structural tension is resolved.  This should be the heart of the book.

Controlling audience perception of a character

• Ordinariness vs. strangeness

• The amount of time devoted to the character

• The character’s potential for making meaningful choices

• Other characters’ focus on him

• The character’s frequency of appearance

• The character’s degree of involvement in the action

• Readers’ sympathy for the character

• Narration from the character’s point of view

Emotional investment

• The best uses of emotional and physical pain fall somewhere between inconsequential and unimaginable.
• Grows less effective with repetition.  Is this character a whiner?
• Sacrifice– should be meaningful and a conscious decision.
• Jeopardy–ratchet up the tension and anticipation before the main event.  That way, when the pain comes it is more gripping.
  • The feared event has to be plausible– there’s no way the hero will actually get sliced by the log-cutter.
• Audience should have a personal stake in every conflict because they sympathize with some characters.
• Anguish: when your audience sympathizes with both sides of a conflict.
• Show us character’s needs and desires.  Does he collect new sports cars because he’s greedy and shallow?  Or because his father struggled to make a 20-year-old car run… and the only time his dad bought a new car, it was repossessed days later when the plant shut down.
• Playing fair will draw an audience’s respect.  Cheating is similar to contrived plots– it makes character seem weak.
• Drafted vs. volunteered heroes.  Volunteering for a glorious assignment (like Frodo didn’t) would make character look arrogant and perhaps fool-hardy.
• No sympathetic character should lightly break a promise.
• Villains/Negative reactions
  • Sadism: rooted in thirst for power (not a love of pain).  He forces character to acknowledge he has no control over his life.
  • Self-appointed
  • Oathbreaker
  • Intellect (vanity, arrogance, non-humanness).  We’re afraid and resentful of people that know more than we do.
  • Insanity– show us his perceptions and delusions.
  • An opposite attitude from the hero.  Beholden to absolutely no one but himself, completely impulsive, selfish, ect.

No one is EVER doing “nothing in particular,” unless they’re really preparing for criminal activity.  “What if he was going for a walk?”  That’s not the same as nothing in particular.

Inherit the Wind, by Robert E. Lee and Jerome Lawrence, used to taunt Bashal

Narration–

Keep a character’s attitude and perspective in mind.  Avoid what he can’t or doesn’t see at all costs or the reader will wonder who’s really talking.

Exam preparation… only for the masochistic

I am getting ready to TOOL my Constitutional Law midterm tomorrow.  Fortunately, it is considerably less difficult than a comparable course at law school… I only have to know the basic holdings and doctrines (rather than having to quote the decisions and understand the nuances of the minority opinions) of the following cases.  The ones with *s are especially important.

The only mind-blowing case we looked at so far was Luther v. Borden.  Did you know that there was a revolution in Rhode Island between a democratic insurgency and the standing dictatorial regime?  In upholding the dictatorial regime’s claim, the Supreme Court found that the Guaranty Clause (which guarantees to each state a republican form of government) was not actually meant for the Court to use.

Political Questions Doctrine

• *Marbury v. Madison
  • Main finding was that the Court asserted it had the authority of judicial review under Constitution.  It relies mostly on textualism, with some  structuralism and original history.
  • Relying mostly on textual arguments, it disclaims jurisdiction over the case because its only claim to original jurisdiction is a law “repugnant to the Constitution.”
  • The Court disclaims responsibility over “political questions,” matters best left to elected executive and legislative leaders.  However, the judicial power of the US extends to all cases arising under the Constitution.
  • It is the Court that decides what the law, the Constitution, is.
• *Dred Scott v. Sandford
  • Main question– does Congress have authority to restrict slavery in territories?  Taney’s majority says no.
  • Taney: Congress isn’t so authorized by needful rules clause– founders hadn’t intended that to apply to territory outside the 13 colonies.  (?)
  • Relies on dual sovereignty
  • Strict construction of national powers: “the Federal Government can exercise no power over a citizen’s person or property, beyond what that instrument [the Constitution] confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.”  After finding that Congress was not constitutionally authorized to pass the Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott was therefore not made free by being taken into what is now Minnesota.
  • Taney relies on precedent (Strader v. Graham) to say that Dred Scott did not become free by entering free state Illinois.
  • Finally, slaves have no citizenship and cannot therefore file suit in US courts.
  • Curtis’s dissent: counters Taney’s strict construction by pointing out that no Congress and states have not been authorized to disenfranchise a group of people who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
  • Curtis relies on judicial restraint to contend that the Court should not overturn the Missouri Compromise.
• Minor case: Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
  • Judical supremacy… no state officials or legislatures can challenge federal judicial findings.
• Minor case: Ex Parte McCardle (1868)
  • Court finds that it has no appellate jurisdiction in this case because Congress took it away.
• Luther v. Borden (1849)
  • Case happened following a democratic revolution and reactionary counterrevolution in Rhode Island (complete with a dictatorship and martial law).
  • Main question– which regime is the legitimate government of Rhode Island?
  • Taney’s majority relies on structural argument: Congress must decide which government is legitimate for it to find that government in (non)compliance with the guaranty clause.  In this case, Congress had delegated that authority to the President.
  • More structuralism: if courts were free to question the President’s judgment, only anarchy would be guaranteed.
  • He relies on the principle of the president recognizing foreign governments , which has been applied to state governments by a Congressional act.
  • Political questions: whether a new government has been legitimately established is a political question.  Court won’t touch it.
• *Baker v. Carr (1962)
  • Arose because of a dispute about Tennessee’s state legislative districts.
  • Lack of jurisdiction vs. nonjusticiability.  For nonjusticiability, it comes down to whether duty is judicial in nature and remedy/protection can be made judicially.  Court finds that this issue is justiciable; ie not a political question.
  • Brennan’s majority uses precedent: right to vote free of arbitrary impairment has been previously recognized by Court.
  • Brennan: protecting political rights does not necessarily entail a political question. Political questions involve the relationship between the branches of the federal government, not between federal judiciary and the states.  Nonjudiciability is mostly a matter of separation of powers.
  • Frankfurter’s minority thinks this case spits on stare decisis by conflating legislative representation and apportionment with denial of voting rights based on race, religion or sex.
  • Frankfurter: this ruling compromises Court’s position in federal government by weakening public confidence in its ability to stay neutral, out of political fights.
  • Frankfurter also questions the original history of this… first the British, then the colonies and the states have always been malapportioned.
• Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
  • Carter terminates defense treaty with Taiwan without notifying Senate.
  • Powell’s concurrence: courts can’t act upon Goldwater’s complaint because both sides haven’t yet taken action to assert constitutional authority.  Until there is a constitutional impasse, judicial branch has no role (structual argument).
  • Rehnquist’s majority: it’s a nonjusticiable political question that can never be acted upon.  Powell rebuts this by relying on doctrine established in Baker v. Carr.
  • Brennan’s dissent finds that political question doctrine only applies IF the branch is acting on its constitutionally provided authority.  In this case, he believes that President’s authority is weak.  He then finds that the court should rule prudentially by quickly finding that the President alone can offer/withdraw recognition of foreign governments.
• *Nixon v. USA (1993)
  • Walter Nixon gets impeached after Senate committee “tries” him.
  • Rehnquist’s 9-0 majority: the case is nonjusticiable.  A political question is where there is a textual constitutional commitment of the issue to a political branch or a lack of judicial standards for resolving it.
  • In this case, the Constitution gives Senate the “sole Power to try all Impeachments.”  Nixon argues that “try” means that it has to be judicial-style proceedings, instead of just a committee’s hearings, but Rehnquist can’t find conclusive evidence the Founders meant it that way.  Textually, he looks at the three highly precise restrictions on these proceedings and then concludes the Founders did not mean to impose broad limitations thereon.

Separation/Distribution of Powers

• Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952)
  • Truman seized steel mills and notified Congress, telling them that he would abide by their decision. Congress took no action.
  • Truman’s decision was not warranted because Congress had expressly denied Truman that power.  For Black, even the mere absence of approval was enough.
  • Jackson sets up a doctrine where President’s power is broadest with express approval of Congress, and at its lowest ebb if incompatible with expressed or implied will of Congress.  Twilight zone depends on case-by-case circumstances rather than abstract theories of law.
• *INS v. Chadha (1983)
  • Invalidated legislative veto.  This was a formalist, rather than functional, view of separation of powers.  It also violates the presentment clause and bicameralism.
  • Justice Powell concurs, but wants a limited ruling.  He says that Congress has assumed a judicial function in this case, which is unconstitutional. 
  • Justice White sees a Hobbesian choice.  Congress isn’t able to lay out laws for every eventuality, so it must be forced to surrender law-making authority to executive branch if it can’t use legislative veto. 
• *Morrison v. Olson (1988)
  • Pendulum swings back to a more functional, rather than formalist, view of separation of powers.  Morrison finds that Congress creating an independent counsel position does not violate the separation of powers principle.
• Clinton v. Jones (1997)
  • Official immunity exists for state acts done in an official capacity… Clinton’s acts done before presidency are not covered.
  • There is no separation of powers issue because the judiciary is not being asked to perform a task that is executive.  The case cannot curtail the scope of the Executive Branch’s official powers.
• Clinton v. NY (1998)
  • Steven’s majority finds key differences between a line-item veto and the veto as described under constitution.  This tips the pendulum again from functional to formalistic. 
  • President explains the line-item veto as part of the power to decline to spend or decline implement specific tax measures. 
  • The court rules prudentially on the grounds that the line-item veto authorized by Congress is not authorized by constitution.  Its textual arguments—that a bill altered by line item veto is not exactly what was presented to President, is also pretty compelling.
  • Scalia’s minority is joined by Breyer on a defense of the veto against Presentment Clause attacks… the line-item veto occurs only after requirements of PC have been met.  Scalia says the real issue here is an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority. 

Separated/Divided Powers in Foreign and Military Policy

• *Missouri v. Holland
  • Holmes’ majority interprets 10^th amendment in light of “what this country has become.”  The nation has a significant interest in applying treaties everywhere (to ensure compliance). 
  • Holmes acknowledges that there are some limitations on the treaty-making power, but doesn’t say what they are. 
• *Youngstown v. Sawyer (more important in this area than before).
  • The court looked at congressional proceedings—in 1947, Congress had rejected an amendment to allow for seizures in emergencies. 
  • Balance of powers issue—president took on a law-making capacity by seizing the mills without authorization. 
  • Jackson’s concurrence finds that the President’s power fluctuates as it agrees with Congress. 
• Prize Cases (1862)
  • President can “recognize” that we are under attack and respond within authority as commander-in-chief.  Otherwise, declaration of war (explicit or implicit?) must come from Congress. 
  • Nelson’s dissent finds that war only exists in a legal sense with declaration. 
• *USA v. Curtis-Wright
  • Nondelegation doctrine only applies to domestic sphere. 
  • The sources and nature of foreign and domestic power are different.  Constitution serves to divvy up state and national power the powers the states had.  States never had foreign powers, though. 
  • Even if foreign policy powers were never mentioned in Constitution, they’d be federal powers because that’s a necessary national power.  To be sovereign, the USA must have those powers. 
  • The President alone speaks as the nation’s representative. 
  • Court prudentially refuses to rule on constitutionality of joint resolution authorizing embargo. 
• War Powers Resolution
• Iraq Resolution
• Korematsu v. USA (1944)
  • Uses precedent established in Hirabayashi, which found that Japanese curfew was acceptable. 
  • President acted with congressional authority
  • Frankfurter’s concurrence implicitly acknowledges the issue’s nonjusticiability. 
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
  • Breyer’s majority finds that indefinite detention raises a serious constitutional problem (due process clause). 
  • It examines past precedent that upholds the government’s contention.  But Mezei was at Ellis Island and not actually in the US. 
  • Scalia says that courts should never second-guess AG’s authority to indefinitely detain.  This would grant a constitutional right to release an individual who doesn’t even claim a right to be here.  Kennedy says that this case is fine, but there might be some cases where the courts should intervene. 
  • This tends to contradict Supreme Court deference on foreign issues.  The nation speaking with one voice on these issues is not so important here. 
• *Ex parte Milligan (1866)
  • Main question: did military commission have jurisdiction?  No—the Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers all classes of men at all times under all circumstances. 
  • Discounts theory that constitution should be revocable in emergencies.  It rejects that theory based on the government having all the powers it needs.
  • Military tribunal was not established by Congress, nor would that have resolved the problem.  The military necessity is questionable where the courts are open (ie Union states like Indiana).  In a military tribunal, Milligan was denied several constitutional rights (trial by jury, etc). 
  • The dissent argues that the entire nation was at some risk of invasion and that an impending invasion was enough for Congress to declare military districts.  
• *Ex parte Quirin (1942)
  • Congress and President are obliged to provide for the common defense.  They can make all laws necessary and proper to executing that. 
  • Majority distinguishes between lawful and unlawful combatants. 
  • Majority finds that Founders did not intend 5^th amendment to forbid military tribunals. 
  • Majority sidesteps Milligan precedent by saying that Milligan was not an enemy combatant. 

Federalism

• *McCulloch v. Maryland
  • State of Maryland says that the Constitution is a contract between states and federal government.  This isn’t part of the federal powers, so it isn’t constitutional.
  • Marshall delivers a unanimous decision—Constitution proceeds directly from the people.
  • Federal supremacy, within its limited sphere of action. 
  • Necessary and proper clause. 
  • More textual evidence/original intent: omission of the word “expressly” in the 10^th amendment.  Because bank is implicitly granted to feds, 10^th amendment doesn’t apply. 
  • Constitution as a great outline of government.  It can’t spell out every specific thing the government can do. 
  • Marshall rejects limited definition of “necessary”
  • Original history in the use of phrase “proper and necessary”
• *US Term Limits (1995)
  • Two main issues: can states add/alter qualifications enumerated in the constitution?  If not, can a ballot access restriction pass muster anyway?
  • First, adding qualifications not within original powers of the states.  Second, Framers intended Constitution to be sole source of qualifications.
  • 10^th amendment only reserves rights that states had before. 
  • Intent and effect of ballot restriction is to disqualify incumbents.  No go. 
  • Thomas’ minority says that the Constitution is silent, and thus raises no bar to actions by the state or people. 
  • Thomas busts a move.  All governmental powers stem from the people of the states, so it is incoherent to assert that they cannot reserve a power that came from them.  States maintain an independent political identity…
• *Printz v. USA (1997)
  • Big ruling is that states can’t be compelled to carry out federal law.  Congress can’t require state law enforcement to enforce/administrate. 
  • This usurps President’s authority. 
  • Scalia’s majority finds dual sovereignty. 
  • States can, however, be asked and induced to cooperate. 
• Federal Maritime Commission
• Baldwin v. Fish and Game
• *Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
  • affirms state’s right to control exclusively internal commerce, but commerce in transit is subject to congressional standards. 
  • It does not address whether states can assume power in absence of congressional law. 
  • Affirms state police power. 
• Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
  • Focus shifts from commerce/police power to nature of subject regulated.  Is it something that requires a national set of standards or can local standards reign?  This isn’t the clearest standard, though. 
• *Southern Pacific v. Arizona (1945)
  • benefits-burden analysis. 
  • States have some authority to regulate inter-state commerce but the state’s interest in doing so be balanced against burden to ISC. 
  • Black’s minority based on judicial restraint.  Judging the safety concern is a political issue. 
• *Philadelphia v. NJ (1978)
  • NJ can’t ban imports of waste from other states.  This isn’t comparable to a quarantine because movement of waste into NJ isn’t harmful to public health. 
  • Waste might cause harm after deposit, but there’s no basis to distinguish in-state vs. out-state.  NJ accepts in-state so it must accept in-state. 
  • Rehnquist tears into this reasoning. 

Federal economic jurisprudence

• Hammer v. Dagenhart
  • Example of pre-1937 jurisprudence.  Law banning IS transport of kid-produced goods is found unconstitutional. 
  • Looking at Champion, Holmes’ dissent finds congress CAN inhibit trade. 
• *NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin (1937)
  • NLRA stands.  This represents a new era of jurisprudence. 
  • There is still homage to avoiding the obliteration of the distinction between national and local government. 
• *Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
  • Cumulative effects doctrine.  Although individual act may be insignificant, allowing it and similar acts could be huge.  
  • Congress can legislate over acts that have only an indirect effect on interstate commerce, like growing wheat so you don’t buy others’. 
• *Heart of Atlanta Motel v. USA (1964)
  • Court finds that ISC can be used to enforce civil rights.  Relies on anecdotal evidence that many hotels are serving to impede IS travel.
  • Black’s concurrence acknowledges that a purely local establishment that has little out-state economic impact is outside this. 
  • Douglas looks beyond the commerce clause to 14^th amendment. 
• *USA v. Lopez (1995)
  • commerce clause does not extend to gun possession within 1000 feet of school. 
  • Feds can regulate/protect under commerce power the channels of ISC, the instruments or persons/things in ISC, even though the threat may be from purely intrastate. 
  • Court declines to endorse government’s reasoning that anything that could conceivably affect economic productivity or lead to violent crime can be regulated.  To do so would be to jeopardize the sphere of state sovereignty (education, law enforcement, etc).  Or childrearing. 
  • Thomas goes a bit further, arguing that there are a LOT of areas in which federal regulation oversteps Commerce Clause limits. 
  • Breyer looks at cumulative effect of guns at schools and finds that there is a considerable economic impact of guns at schools.   
• *USA v. Morrison (2000)
  • Upholding Lopez precedent, finds that the gender-motivated crimes are not economic activity in any sense. 
  • Violent crime goes to the heart of state police powers. 
  • Thomas writes a concurrence to reject the “substantial effects” doctrine. 
  • Souter is upset that his beloved substantial/cumulative effects doctrines have been silently sidelined. 
• Some important theories: judicial review, unwritten constitution, writ of mandamus, original/appellate jurisdiction, political question doctrine, original intent, structuralism, legislative veto, item veto, presentment clause, bicameralism, police power, substantial effects doctrine, dual federalism, general welfare clause, cumulative effects doctrine, spending power.

Fortunately, a lot of these cases are pretty important to US political history (Dred Scott, Korematsu, McCulloch, Marbury, etc.)