Bartimaeus Trilogy

Some time last year as I was shopping for a fantasy fiction that has nothing to do with Hogwarts, I almost got His Dark Materials Trilogy (Philip Pullman) instead of Bartimaeus Trilogy (Jonathan Stroud). Fortunately, my instincts  snapped me out of that stupid decision, and I ended up shunning TEH POLAR BOARS WARZZZ.

From what I’ve heard, besides being anti-Narnian, His Dark Materials is just a by-the-numbers “prophecy story”. I haven’t verified that, but if it’s anything like the movie, I’ll pass. CGI POLAR BEARS ARE SO OVERRATED (I’ve seen and pictured one in real life, thank you). The movie’s only redeeming quality is Nicole Kidman’s body hugging diaphanous top, which makes her bra apparent. Anyway, if anything, His Dark Materials only convince that sometimes one only has to be polemic to be hip. Example? See The Da Vinci Code.

So, the entire Bartimaeus Trilogy looks something like this.

Yeah, I know, it looks so much like a Potter book. Even their settings are alike. BT is also about magic, and is essentially a coming-of-age tale of a boy wizard. Wake me up if you haven’t heard all these before.

But wait for the opinion that matters: I like Bartimaeus Trilogy more than Harry Potter.

And I’m not saying this just because “It’s hip to be different I’m hardcore r0xx \m/”. My reasons are more simple and less embarrassing than that.

While fantasy stories rely very much on magic, they still need some rules, and I happen to think that Bartimaeus’s make more sense than Potter’s. In Potter, magic just come out from any magicians with a magic wand. In Bartimaeus, magicians do not cast spells; they summon creatures of varying skills to do their bidding. These creatures are not visible to a commoner’s eyes, and they can only be seen by magicians who are wearing special kinds of spectacles. It’s more than likely that these creatures are doing something nasty behind you without you noticing.

Ok, apples and oranges so far. Now consider this: in Harry Potter, the magicians live in a world that is detached from the rest of us. They do not interact with non-magicians and it’s more likely that they haven’t lasted for generations. I mean, where were they in the events of history? What were they doing before Voldemort and all the dark arts? And what’s the rest of the muggle doing just ignoring them (If this is the real world, Fox News would be condemning them to hell and Dubya would be sending stealth bombers their way)? Are they even real? Couldn’t they just be a matrix-y "alternate world" thingy?

In Bartimaeus, there is a full integration of the magicians and the non-magicians. Wizards exist since the dawn of time. They have used their magic (that is, summoning) to create real-world landmarks, like The Pyramids or The Tower of Pisa. And what of the summoned beings? They are variegated, and, more importantly, are quite involved in the story, unlike Potter’s Creatures Ex Machinas (they just appear as the most convenient plot device. Phoenix, anyone?). A huge part of the plot involve them begrudging their slavery. As for the commoners, they are fully aware of magicians existence. They ARE ruled by magicians, and some do not sit idly tolerating that fact.

And I haven’t even touched on Bartimaues, arguably one of the best characters ever written. He’s a djinni who, much to his dismay, constantly gets summoned by this trilogy’s boy wizard, Nathaniel. He’s been in this world for more than 5000 years and is involved in many events we read in our history books (including some wars, and even the creation of Tower of Pisa, which, as Bartimaeus claimed, leaned because the architects did not follow his advices). Bartimaeus is sly and wisecracking, and he always peppers his speech with insults, sarcasms and braggadocios. His banters to Nathaniel - who he dislikes - are gut-eviscerating hilarious. 

Nathaniel: Silence!

Bartimaeus: All right. I’ll be quiet as the grave.

Nathaniel: Now-

Bartimaeus: Your grave, incidentally.

Stroud has only recently permitted Miramax to give the books movie adaptations, so do read the books now, so that when their movie trailer shows, you can go around bragging about how well-read and erudite you are. Chicks dig that. Hehe. I kid. I don’t think films will do these books justices.

Jaded

Adobe Flash, Photoshop and Illustrator are all my perpetual sources of frustration, and I don’t think I’ve ever felt as exasperated with all 3 of them as I have this week.

They seem more determined to give me a crap art than a picturesque one. 

I’m not saying that I’m an expert in any of the 3, but I’d like to think that I’m capable of doing many things with each, let alone combined. And since I do have a good control of the Pen Tool (you’ll find that an achievement if you’ve ever tried using that bastard) I think I have what it takes to create lively illustrations. However, I have my biases for what I think are lively illustrations – I lean toward a mix of funky professional street art with a tinge of Chinese painting, plus a stylistic use of lights and a conscientious reduction of palettes. What really gets my goat is how limited the 3 programs are when creating artworks like that, or heck, anything that feels more hand-drawn than digital. Just this morning, I tried drawing a samurai (draw, samurai! Get it? Hilarious!!!) by using Illustrator. I wanted him to look like a Chinese painting. Instead, he ended up looking more like an engraving done by an 8-year-old. Naturally, I trashed that work, and settled with making a digital looking stuff, which, as I later realized, required the least effort… 

Wait, what?! Is that why these so-called “digital arts” are in the rage, and is it just me, or are they becoming the most generic sight ever? I’m weary of seeing the humdrum and formulaic thing adorning the billboards. How many times are we going to see the same circles, stripes, vertigos, twirls, ink splats, angel wings, gothic crosses, tribal tattoos and boxes to “retro” and “grunge” everything up? So, I’ve done all these today, and learned how easy they are to make. Could it be that these techniques are abused speak less of their artistic merits and more of current designers’ attitudes? So what about creating a more painterly-looking art, or, heck, just something with more personality and originality? Why don’t I see them? Have our designers run out of ideas, or are their skills in Illustrator mediocre? Or is it likely that excessive use of Illustrator may lead to the loss of ideas? 

Gee, that isn’t much of a stretch. You know what Illustrator need? A command that will inspire people! CTRL+I to get Inspired, or CTRL+H to get High, or CTRL+FN+G to Find God.