Meta Writing Advice: Go on a Journey, Return with an Elixir.

 

The problem of extruded story product

Extrusion is a manufacturing process that forces material through a hole and then slices it up. It’s cheap, fast, reliable, and made purely for identical products. Nothing else.

Terry Pratchett used the term ‘extruded fantasy product’ to describe how much of the fantasy genre is ‘Tolkien frozen and reheated’. If you’ve been around the genre long enough, you know what he’s talking about. If you’ve been around just about any story genre long enough, you know what he’s talking about.

This goes beyond Tolkien, you see it in every genre of story that becomes popular enough. Western films fell into this trap, which is why Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Westerns felt so different. The same happened in mystery stories, which I’ll go into more later, it happens everywhere.

The process is pretty simple, a work in a genre creates conventions, which are then copied by other writers who are then copied by other writers, and then they fossilize long after their intended purpose was originally served.

Like a photocopy of a photocopy, each iteration loses something of the previous version and becomes less distinct and more detached from the original. Publishers like it because it’s a pretty sure way to get profits, for as long as the trend lasts.

When inspiration is copied from copiers from too long, a genre becomes like a stagnant pool. Festering, dull, and not at all like what first drew people towards it. This is also a large part of what makes people tempted to go the ‘subversive’ route, something you should not do, please see my last blog post for why.

Isekai, the subgenre that has taken over so much of anime, is a particularly bad offender in this regard. It’s gotten to the point that, despite literally meaning ‘other world’ or ‘different world’, the story type is completely predictable.

Ground zero for this particular issue seems to be Sword Art Online, which caused so many imitators in its wake and all but killed the very different type of isekai that came before it. The result is that it is currently one of the most stagnant genres of all time, and has become far too self-referential and predictable to be anything but a parody of itself.

So, what is one to do when their beloved story genres are faced with such a problem?

The cure to stagnation

Anyone who has been in writing circles long enough has come across the idea of the ‘Hero’s Journey’ as codified by Joseph Campbell.

As a disclaimer, I don’t take the ‘the hero’s journey be all and end all’ approach to this structure that some do. Campbell really oversold the ‘monomyth’ idea and simply ignored anything that didn’t fit the narrative. But it is an interesting structure and not without merit, even if many parts are far too specific to be applicable to half of what we’ve been told it is.

We won’t go over all the details of the cycle but the most relevant to this post:

1.      There is some kind of issue in the normal world for which no solution is at hand.

2.      The protagonist(s) have to leave the normal world for an alien world in order to find a solution.

3.      The main body of the adventure happens with challenges, growth, etc. along the way.

4.      The protagonist returns with the boon he gained on his journey and shares the blessing with the normal world. This boon is often in the form of an elixir, from which we get the step name ‘return with elixir’.

What does this have to do with writers in a meta sense? More than you might think.

A unique perspective

“No man who values originality will ever be original. But try to tell the truth as you see it, try to do any bit of work as well as it can be done for the work’s sake, and what men call originality will come unsought. Even on that level, the submission of the individual to the function is already beginning to bring true Personality to birth.” – C S Lewis.

Originality cannot be grasped by force, but it also requires a healthy, strong mind in order to come about. Forcing it gets a kind of ‘stunt originality’ at best, and lead to the subversive mindset at worst.

We’ve all seen a work written by someone who has spent far too long in their particular genre at the expense of other facets of life, both literary and otherwise. This is like a mind on an unbalanced diet, it’s not going to work the same way as one on a balanced diet. This is a large part of what brings about the stagnation of extruded story product. You won’t bring your ‘true Personality to birth’ without fixing this issue.

Sometimes, it’s as simple as a different perspective on the same genre free of the old trappings.

Super-author Adam Lane Smith channeled the grief he felt at the suicide of a relative into a story he later marketed to the Christian fiction crowd. The result was nothing like the usual, hallmark-style, feel good stories in that genre. It was brutal, dark, and raw.

The result? Last time I checked, Gideon Ira: Knight of the Blood Cross, was his most successful work.

Adam is not the first to go this route, nor does it require something like that level of grief, thankfully. Raymond Chandler wrote ‘The Simple Art of Murder’ (which can be read for free online) to describe this same issue happening in the world of mystery fiction, and proudly trumpeting the ‘hard-boiled’ school as a solution to the problem. This method wound up creating an entirely different subgenre with its own foibles and follies to come later.

The real father of the ‘hard-boiled’ school of detective fiction was Dashiell Hammett. Someone who worked as a Pinkerton detective himself and so knew a bit more about the reality of crime than most writers in the genre.

An even earlier example was G K Chesterton’s Father Brown, Chesterton, consummate professional that he was created the very abnormal detective in the priest Father Brown to meet the demand for detective stories. His unique little detective was very different from his contemporaries. Rather than deduction, science, etc. Brown’s skill came from his immense knowledge of the human psyche and soul. A guy who spends so long in the confessional is going to notice patterns eventually. Chesterton’s deep faith and worldview brought about this character who still endures past so many of his contemporaries today.

Such is what it looks like when an author returns with an elixir, as it were.

What this does not mean

There are lots of medicinal scams out there, both literal and figurative. Don’t fall for the following.

This does not mean Hollywood style shenanigans like forced diversity and proud perversion. Nor does it mean English class forced reading style ‘this but with whining involved over a thin story’. A unique perspective is not done by effort, it is a side effect of a healthy mind and a willingness to be a little adventurous in writing.

Neither does this mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tropes are tools and a fear of being too conventional is just as bad, and financially worse, than being too shackled by them. We love story types for good reason, and readers want a level of familiarity as well as novelty. Trust what is trusty in your genre, you are presumably writing in it because you love it already.

Nor does it mean you have to live a super-interesting life of your own. While it probably would not hurt your writing, most of us don’t have too interesting lives, and are largely glad of it. But you do need a healthy mindset.

Outside genre inspiration

Not all genres stagnate the same way, and they’re not always the same level of stagnant. I’ll let you in on a little secret, genres are really more about selling books than anything else. They’re a large part of what causes the extruded story product effect. They’re not necessarily bad, but going further afield in the literary world can be a fine journey in and of itself. You won’t just see different stories, tropes, etc. but get a clear look at new styles and literary techniques from a very different perspective to boot.

The old pulps were NOT afraid to be weird and dangerous outside of genre norms, and were better stories for it.

Super-Author Kit Sun Cheah’s thriller flavor of fantasy and sci-fi, aided immensely by his great knowledge of martial arts and tradecraft, are a pleasure to read. Sometimes, the inspiration for a new perspective is just a bookshelf away.

A wider literary pallet will have more options and a deeper understanding than a narrow one. Which brings us to.

Going back to roots

Finally, we have simple literary backtracking. We’re in a sad state where the idea of a literary ‘canon’ is all but dead. Cut off from the roots, a plant will wither and die. I honestly think this situation is by design, but that’s a subject for another post and others have written on the subject already.

Going back to the original photo instead of a photocopy can undo much of the extruded story product effect right there. It will also open up doors that those who don’t know their heritage simply cannot access. Knowing what trends happened and when may also help you get a handle on future ones to boot.

For the genre writer’s, I strongly recommend Jeffro Johnson’s “Appendix N: A Literary History of Dungeons and Dragons” as a starting point for your ‘canon’. Going back, and understanding why conventions become what they are and when, you can easily find inspiration for changes for the better for your own story. There is a much deeper history to fantasy than many realize, going well before Tolkien himself, much less all his copycats.

For others, do a little digging and find your own genre’s history, and you may be surprised at the wealth of stories that you weren’t aware of.

This can and will lead you out of the genre itself. Fantasy will lead to folklore, history, religion, etc. Even devout atheist H.P. Lovecraft recommended writers read the King James Bible. Which brings us to my final point.

Principle informs examples

In my post ‘Martial Wisdom for Writers: What is the Best Technique?” I noted that good technique followed good principles. The fractal nature of reality means that not only are the principles of one man defeating ten are the same as ten defeating a hundred, but that the importance of principles is true in all stages of writing, not just simple technique.

Don’t aim to be the next whatever name author comes to mind, inspiration is fine, but this is simply too limiting a way to go about things. Just like no student of the martial arts will be a copy of their teacher, nor should they try if they want to reach their full potential, no writer should try to be another writer’s clone.

Instead, aim for what they aimed for, the creation of a good story, and do so to the best of your particular abilities. Ideally, fiction should help us see deeper truths and help us move towards them rather than away from them. Escapism as a journey to the otherworld can be very good for you and leave you stronger than before, so long as you are not trapped by a danger there. Old folklore knew this very well.

Ask yourself: What inspired the people who were the biggest names in your area of fiction and biggest influences on you? What did they seek, find, and show? Can you journey to the same goal and perhaps through your own perspective see the truth and express it in a way only you can?

Perhaps, or perhaps not. I’m not you, so I do not know, and I won’t make silly promises to people on the internet.

But if you go on this journey, your elixir cannot come from within the genre that is suffering so much under the extruded product effect. A stagnant pool will only continue to stagnate, and this can be a tragic thing indeed. It has to come from outside the normal world, and there’s a slew of new and strange ones out there to be explored. And they offer an infinite number of possibilities to bring back home.

-

If you want to see my effort to bring a western elixir to the fantasy genre, check out my book, A Stranger in Sorcererstown for what a recent review on goodreads called ‘a breath of fresh air’.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09KWBV4LY?ref_=pe_3052080_276849420

Subversion: Mephistophele’s Old Con.

Let’s take a look at a recent image:

If this tells you “Well, this show is going to be garbage” you are not alone. You are one of a vast number of people with the power of basic pattern recognition.

We’ve all seen this play out and know how a ‘subversive’ fantasy will play out, like we’d know the most formulaic of trad-pub schlock will play out.

To add insult to subversion, the Wheel of Time is one of the most ‘classical fantasy style’ stories of classical fantasy style stories. It is not a ‘subversive’ story by any means.

And because it is not subversive, despite heavy criticism from many corners, it is an immensely popular even long after the author’s death.

Why would anyone think it is a good idea to ‘subvert’ something that worked so well for so many? Fans want to the story they enjoyed come to life in a new medium. Some changes are inevitable with medium changes, but the idea that it needs to be ‘fresh’ is inane and insulting to the extreme.

But in the end, that’s the point.

Suspense and subversion

The curse of English is that we have a messy language. On the one hand, ‘subverting expectations’ can (or used to) simply mean it surprised the audience. A good detective story, for example, could easily subvert your expectations when it reveals that Bill the mailman was actually the killer all along. At its best, this is a clever example of suspense being built up, clues laid out that a savvy reader can pick up on or at least suspect, and coming to a thrilling conclusion that the majority simply didn’t see coming.

This is fundamentally a side effect, not a goal in and of itself.

A good test to see if this is good is asking yourself, “Can the reader enjoy the book after reading it once?”. If they can, then congratulations, you have the ‘good example’ on hand. The ability to enjoy reading it again is a strong indicator of a story’s quality. Even in mysteries, surprise happens once but suspense is forever.

This is the innocuous version, and some would have you believe that is all it is. They’ll often equivocate as well and claim that’s all it ever is. But we’ve seen this pattern before, they said the same thing about ‘strong female characters’. But we have more than enough data to form a pattern of angry square-jawed men with breasts and bad haircuts to know it’s not innocuous. The same goes for ‘subverting expectations’, we know it doesn’t mean ‘Bill the mailman is the murderer after all? What a well set-up, nicely crafted surprise!”. To quote Dan Miucchi, "subverting expectations" has come to mean "deliberately craps in your popcorn."

If re-readability is a mark of quality, most mainstream entertainment doesn’t pass the test. It is ephemera, doomed to be forgotten and soon. Look at how quickly Game of Thrones fell from popular grace. This is, in part, because it put shock value above storycraft and thus failed.

I neither read not watched it, and have no plans to, but from what I have been told it is obvious the show writers and GRRM are more interested in playing a game against the audience than they are with actually telling a good story. It didn’t matter what the setup was, what the most logical act for characters was, how it affected themes, or anything of the sort.

All that mattered was the ability to go, ‘bet you didn’t see that coming, did you?’ to the reader. It is sadly common. Both as a way for petty writers to pat themselves on the back and for readers who only want that brief rush of ‘Wow, I’m surprised!’ and nothing else. It is the low quality, chemical rich, junk food of the story world.

But this doesn’t explain why so much of the subversive sphere has become so painfully predictable. There is another level to this.

What is it, and how does it work? 

Let's ask a doctor:

“If ever I should tell the moment:  Oh, stay! You are so beautiful!  Then you may cast me into chains, then I shall smile upon perdition!”- Faust’s deal with the Devil, from Faust, Goethe.

The old story goes that Dr. Faust’s deal was that the demon Mephistopheles would serve him for his lifetime, and in return he would serve the devil for eternity. In folkloric fashions, Faust made the deal for a number of reasons, but most come down to wanting to know basically everything there is to know and see the greatest secrets of the universe. To go beyond mortal bounds and dare for it all.

Faust dealt with Mephistopheles in search of a grand vision. He swiftly fell into a petty need for novelty and an inability to be truly satisfied with anything or dwell on anything too deeply lest he be caught by his ‘benefactor’. And so, Faust became an even more miserable SOB than he was when he was simply angry at God for his own limitations. His increasingly petty and disgusting actions lose even the surface level of his original vision of knowing all in the world. He becomes such a slave to a hunger he cannot satiate that he almost might as well be in hell already.

Some later versions have him repent when he steps outside his own misery and starts seeking the good of others, but older and many other versions have him take the elevator straight down to the bottom floor of the afterlife.

A petty, angry, repulsive being whose inability to be happy or achieve anything worthwhile has led him to lash out at others who are happy because misery loves company. Did I describe Faust, Mephistopheles, or tortured artist types they force on English class students?

Whether Faust repents or falls deeper and becomes more like his benefactor depends on the version. But there is a level lower than the need for novelty, which can be achieved once that brief pleasure wears off. Once you become less like a human and more like a demon, you reach this level.

Demons can’t create.

In some plays back in the day, a demon coming on stage was accompanied by a cease in music to represent this fact.

You see this metaphorical truth play out in reality in the skinsuit IPs they march out with regularity. Whether it be the new He-Man, Wheel of Time, or something else entirely. They hollow out the original, wear its skin, and demand respect while spitting on anything that made it good in the first place. No longer can they get pleasure from novelty. No longer do they even try for it.

It is simply angry desecration and insults towards what they themselves cannot make or have. The same feeling extends to those who enjoy the original, good stories which pointed at some truth the subversives cannot stand.

They are eternal enemies of the old ways and stories, yet cannot exist without leeching off them. So they try and desecrate them and invert them.

Super-author Jon Del Arroz has a number of videos showing examples of this in the world of comics. Here’s his most recent on Superman (who was honestly always inferior to John Carter) shows the nature of the situation well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5XlQdxtLw

Like Jon says, in this fantasy world, racism is the highest crime you could commit. Murder isn’t that bad, assault isn’t that bad, nothing is that bad as long as they like it and can frame it as an -ism no matter how huge a stretch it must be.

Truth, justice, virtue, the american way, or even simple healthy lifestyles are all made into vices in this inverted world. Neither Faust nor Mephistopheles can stand to be too near them.

Not to mention it will be irrelevant bad-think soon enough. They cannot say ‘stay, you are so beautiful’ even to their current favorite ‘-ists’ and ‘-isms’. We’ve this happen plenty of times as well in the long decline of fiction. JK Rowling was turned on by her own mob for one famous example. They always need to focus on ‘current year’ issues and so are doomed to the ephemeral, yet ironically are also doomed to always repeat themselves.

The snake always eats its own tail.

Let’s take a look at one last illustration:

 

Gandalf bad because he represented and sided with civilization. Orcs good because 'oppression' in a society they weren't part of. 

Their subversive myths are so predictable the takedowns of Tolkien (who has outlasted so many of these already, because of course he has) obviously have never read Tolkien.

“What if Sauron was good?” is literally what lead to the creation of the rings of power in the first place.

Which is what they want, just like it is what Sauron wanted. To ensnare you in their own fantasy and be company in their misery.

The difference being that at least those rings were actually powerful. Subversion is not.

Those who have gone all in on 'subversion' as a philosophy want stories where the evil monster, angry that there is happiness and joy not far from him, and he can never have anything like that, is the good guy because he whines, is miserable, some sort of ‘-ist’, and the happy, good, virtuous people are all really Snidely Whiplash level villains.

They don’t want Beowulf to show up and defeat Grendel. They don’t even want to think about the hero unless they think they can mock him. He represents something they can never attain and thus despise.

In the end, that’s what gray goop subversive story-telling is. It’s a fantasy world for villains, the pettier, the better. They want dragons without St Geroge, giants but no Jack, Grendel but no Beowulf.

They don’t even want the tragedy of Faust to be told, it reminds them that they have already fallen and taken the deal. Even in tragedy, we see the light exists and know there is a better way than the doctor's.

Grey goop is fantasy written for the monsters. It is a world of monsters, with nothing to stand in their way. In it, they’ll still be as miserable as ever. Because they can no longer build anything, or be happy with anything.

And they want everybody else to be like them.

You don't have to deal with Mephistophele's shysters. He won't come through on his end of the deal anyway.

There’s a whole other, better world out there besides their schlock.

-

If you would like some actual fresh and exciting fantasy written by a non-subversive, check out my novel “A Stranger in Sorcererstown”.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09KWBV4LY?ref_=pe_3052080_276849420 

Kishoutenketsu vs 3 Act Structure

 In a response to my last post, somebody asked me (on another site) what ‘kishoutenketsu’ means.

Simply put, it’s a dramatic structure popular in the far east. If you’ve watched anime, read manga, or played a jRPG, you’re probably already familiar with it.

Let's start with the more familiar 3 act structure as a point of comparison and refresher.

We’ve all seen plenty of stories like this, the structure is popular for a reason- it works. Set the stage and start the conflict, build on that conflict until the climax (act 2 should be the majority of the story) and then descend and wrap up.

Star Wars followed this structure. You had:

The setup with the characters on all side and the inciting incident that brought them into conflict in R2D2’s message.

The confrontation is when Luke and company start to butt heads with the empire. The conflict then escalates all the way up to the climax, where Luke destroyed the Death Star.

The dénouement, wrap up in the aftermath and, celebration.

Kishoutenketsu isn’t quite like that.

Sometimes called ‘the four act structure’ there is a misconception that it is a style that de-emphasizes conflict.

This is incorrect. It is true that the structure can be used for less conflict heavy stories than the 3 act structure as that one is more specialized in conflict, but as anyone who has watched Akira Kurosawa (at least something he didn’t rip off from Shakespeare), or a good anime, or jPRG can tell you, there is plenty of room for dramatic conflict here.

This structure traces its roots back to ancient Chinese poetry and has a long history. It is probably seen in its purest form in 4 panel manga shorts. A little research into those, and it should become very clear how it works out.

I’m going to use the famous film ‘Yojimbo’ as an example.

Introduction (Ki)- a drifting ronin (masterless samurai) comes into town in the grip of a bloody gang war.

Development (Sho)- scenting an opportunity, he sets off playing both sides against each other for a mixture of fun, profit, and justice.

Twist (Ten)- the introduction of the character Unosuke and how he sees through the ronin’s tricks and almost has him undone.

Conclusion (Ketsu)- The ronin is able to triumph over both Unosuke and the remaining gang members. Work done, he sets off on the road again.

The twist here is not the same as the twist of a three-act structure, that’s more like a plot twist or something the characters didn’t see coming. A kishoutenketsu twist is a new element introduced to the setup and seeing how it interacts with the others. In the case of Yojimbo, it is a new character. The three-act structure doesn’t allow new major characters to be introduced so late in the game like that, and the foreshadowing only arguable counts, as it was pretty light. 

The closest to a ‘twist’ in the sense of the three-act structure in Yojimbo is the ronin’s act of pure kindness at great risk and cost to himself towards a poor family shortly before Unosuke’s arrival.

Additionally, there isn't necessarily an inciting incident, though there can be one if you wish. This method just has the introduction of elements and then how they play out until the twist. It is a bit more flexible than the relatively recent 3 act structure. Yojimbo's 'inciting incident' is only arguable, while the ronin is hassled upon arrival it is really his own choice to get involved above all else. For more slow paced or reflective stories, there isn't even that to argue.

Which structure is the best? See my previous post for a more detailed answer, but the brief response is that it depends on your story. Both have been used to create great stories, either might be just what you need for your story’s pacing and structure.

Or perhaps Shakespearean 5 act structure is the way to go, or Lester Dent’s proven pulp formula. In the end, what the best answer is, depends on the story. Meditate on the advantages and disadvantages of both and see how they might be useful to you. And if one or the other is not useful then, contra Bruce Lee’s famous ‘reject what is useless’ put it aside for the moment. You may find new value in it at a later date.

Just remember that this is more of a ‘behind the scenes’ deal for the reader than some think. Most readers won’t really know or care what specific structure you use. Some (mostly writers themselves) might argue this way or that to try and fit in your story to a structure after the fact, I know of at least one Japanese site that used Little Red Riding Hood to illustrate kishoutenketsu. But so long as it entertains, the audience doesn’t care any more than the average restaurant goer cares about the chef’s methods.

To illustrate further, Akira Kurosawa’s Shakespeare homages/rip-offs are quite popular in Japan. Yojimbo was remade almost shot for shot into ‘A Fistful of Dollars’ which brought Clint Eastwood to stardom.

So much for these methods. Now let’s get back to writing.

Martial Wisdom For Writers: What is the Best Technique

 In a nutshell: There is no best technique. Only best techniques.

This is true in both the art of pen and combat. If this seems like a cop-out, it’s not. Neither fighting nor reading are situations with all the factors set so that a most advantageous move can be applied to all forms. Even in specific areas, there is much variance. Even on a personal level, what works for one person might simply not work for another.

In the end, the martial arts are about learning how to win in a fight. To this end, there are only 2 goals to account for 1) doing unto others and 2) not being done unto by others.

In the end, storytelling is about inspiring readers to feel something. To this end, there are only 2 goals to account for 1) remove obstacles to making them feel and 2) provide the necessary materials they need to feel.

The best martial technique is the one that brings you victory in the fight.

The best writing technique is the one that creates the desired reaction in the reader.

Now we get into the rub, because there’s always a rub. Good technique follows from good principles and sound mechanics. Unfortunately, principles and mechanics can only be mastered through specific manifestations and forms. A student of the martial arts may be able to recite George Silver’s Four Governors or Musashi’a various points in the Go Rin No Sho. They may even have a broad appreciation of something as simple as timing and structure, but without seeing them manifested in technique, it won’t matter.

A writer may be able to recite the idea of an opening hook, the three-act structure, or kishoutenketsu. But without looking specific versions of these in a story, whether their own or others, the ideas will be all but useless and impossible to master.

So practice, practice, and practice, right? Write until your hand is sore and punch trees until the environmentalists come for you?

Not quite.

Dirty little secret: Not all practice is created equal. Don’t believe me? Find a local martial arts class with a good (big key word and caveat here) instructor. Practice on your own before visiting, then try it under their eye.

Even on your own, mindless repletion will do you more harm than good. You need an idea of what you’re aiming for, to analyze what you are doing, and why.

“It’s not technique that begets technique, it’s understanding that begets technique.”- Silat Guru Stevan Plinck.

It’s easy to get lost in the details of technique, many have done it. Sometimes, entire schools and styles have done so. There’s an old karate joke: “How many karate instructors does it take to change a light-bulb? 100. 1 to do it. 99 to go ‘that’s not the way we do it in our school’.”

And what happens when writers lose sight of the purpose of a technique? Same thing as martial artists, they become style-fanatics. You might have heard one of these:

Never make a prologue.

Never start with a gerund.

Always do this.

That requires the other thing.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Only writers and martial artists love to make up the most restrictive, specific ‘rules’ they can and proclaim them as gospel.

This is a departure from purpose and ultimately self-defeating. Perhaps even more so for writers, they have more wiggle room than a fighter. They have a wider and nicer audience. Few people try to kill an author because they disliked his book. They also aren’t working under the effects of extreme adrenaline, where the brain shifts gears to pure instinct and everything not burned into muscle memory may as well be a cloud in the sky. They can choose their audience, big or small.

Not to mention, the ‘rules of good writing’ are immensely more varied than those of good fighting. We’ve seen entire era’s fashions come and go that would never pass muster in this or that writer’s workshop. They’re simply not as well-defined as the martial arts. By their nature, they cannot be.

In the end, hitting a reader’s emotions is simply much less tangible than ‘do but don’t get done unto’. In both cases, the details are astronomical and varied. But in both cases, once you move away from the purpose of the techniques of either art, you’ve lost sight of the truth.

There is no best technique but the one that achieves your goal.

Understand why certain methods were done the way they were, what they accomplished, and the advantages and disadvantages of each option you have as a martial artist would study the advantages of different weapons and training regimes to incorporate them into his practice.

And if someone tells you have to change something because of a rule but breaking the rule is better for the story, you can safely ignore them. Keep the goal first in mind, and you shall not go astray.

Contact me

Feel free to reach out to me and be added to my mailing list at jonw7896@gmail.com