Knowledgeable =/= Pretentious

I am a little snobbish about things that I enjoy. I know that. I admit that. When I watch a movie I am thinking about cinematography and editing and writing. When I read a book I am thinking about descriptions and character development. I'm like that. I thought we knew that.

That doesn't mean I'm trying to belittle your knowledge or opinions when I express my observations. That is never my intention. I'm trying to start a conversation, maybe share a fact or two that I find interesting. I'm not trying to appear smarter, I'm expressing what to me is an interesting observation. Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, I am knowledgeable about things that I like. Duh.

Yes, I tend to have strong opinions about things that I like. Duh.

Yes, I enjoy sharing my knowledge and opinions with people. Duh.

I don't think that makes me self-righteous or better than thou or high and mighty. I'm not close-minded. I will hear an argument against my own personal opinion. But that's why I like sharing my opinions, so that someone can talk to me about them, so that I can hear what other people think about it.

Recently people in my life have been throwing the word "pretentious" around. And that offends me. Because noticing that long-running shot at the beginning of the movie Gravity doesn't make me pretentious. Talking about the layers of themes and symbols in the book To Kill a Mockingbird (which is actually a fantastic book and I think everyone should read it because it's so so good) doesn't make me pretentious. I mean, if I say anything besides "I like the part with the explosions", am I pretentious?

I don't understand why expressing my small observations about actual quality of things that I enjoy makes me pretentious. I would think that that just says that I appreciate it all the more. Is it just me that appreciates a movie more once I find the symbols and devices used? Is it really so pretentious of me to talk about things like tracking shots and underlying themes? I don't think so. I would have thought that made me thoughtful. I would have thought that made me observant.

I'm tired of people getting offended or weirded out because of the things I know or the things I like. Nothing I do is intended to belittle the opinions of other people, I just enjoy discussing opinions. That's how I learn from people.

I'm just tired of being embarassed of my own brain, because actually, I'm extremely proud of it. Somehow or other it's looked down on if you really seem to know what you're talking about and I'm getting pretty sick of it. I'm sick of pretending that I only look at stories on a surface level, when anyone who knows me knows that I could probably write a detailed essay about any given movie or book I've seen. I could also poke a million holes in any story just for kicks, if I feel like (and I often do - if I'm in the mood, I'm a terrible person to watch a movie with), but when I actually give a story THOUGHT about the techniques for telling it, I get a lot of blank looks and rolled eyes coming my way. I'm used to it, for the most part, but it gets really really REALLY tiresome that knowing things seems to make me uncool, or even unlikeable.

Why are people like this? I just don't understand it.

Video Killed the Literary Star

I heard about the making of an Artemis Fowl movie (ten years late), which made me happy.

Then I heard who was writing the movie, a certain Micheal Goldenberg, whose movies have never been rated above the scale of "mediocre". Which made me a little less happy.

And then, of course, the death sentence: they're putting both the first and second books into one movie. That piece of information had me rocking back and forth in a corner for an hour, trying to be optimistic about it and failing miserably. I'm thoroughly convinced that they're going to just utterly destroy Artemis Fowl, the same way they did Inkheart, the same way they did Percy Jackson, except worse.

So of course, because I'm me, I wrote a letter to Michael Goldenberg.

Now, I can't find a business address to send it to, and Disney Studios is apparently too secretive to allow letters from fans who take an interest (you'd think they'd like ideas from fans now rather than an ocean of complaints afterwards but whatever) so I can't find anywhere on earth to send it to. Which is extremely frustrating, since I took so long to write a letter that was productive instead of anxious and stupid, and respectful instead of drowning in doubt for the writer's abilities. That took time, I can tell you that right now.

But it was all for naught, so I thought I might as well put it on here.

Mr. Goldenberg,

I have recently learned of the work that is being done on the film adaptation of the Artemis Fowl books, and as a fan of the series, I must say that I am excited for the project. That being said, there are a few things I worry about concerning the adaptation, which I’m sure you will understand.

            Firstly, the plan to combine the first two installments of the series into a single movie. Let me say, I understand the reasoning behind this tactic. The end of the second book certainly gives our amoral anti-hero Artemis a much more clear-cut redemption, for a start, which is nice. It also provides much more closure for the issue of Artemis’s father’s disappearance. However, though I understand the logic behind the idea, I don’t entirely believe that it could be executed well. For instance, the transition between fighting the fairies and allying with them midway through the film would be strange at best, not to mention that in order to fit both stories into a single movie, one would probably have to cut a lot out of the plot of both stories, which wouldn’t be ideal as most of it becomes important later. I strongly believe the first book alone can carry its own movie.

However, if you believe viewers would be unsatisfied with the ending of the first book – admittedly, Artemis doesn’t prove to be a very dynamic character in the first installment alone – allow me to suggest a solution. You could end the film with the beginning of the next book, with Artemis receiving the ransom note from the Russian mafia. This would provide a cliffhanger, something for audiences to look forward to in coming movies. Admittedly, this doesn’t solve the issue of Artemis’s moral ambiguity, but it would show a more sympathetic side of him and hint at the growth to come. And while it doesn’t exactly provide closure for the issue of Artemis’s father, it would definitely address it, which I believe would have nearly the same effect. It also has the added advantage of providing enough time to fully tell the story of the first novel without it seeming rushed, which is always a good thing. If you are unsatisfied with the place this leaves Holly Short, I would suggest focusing on her intense anger towards Artemis at the end. This would at least suggest that said story does continue, and hint at confrontation later, something else for audiences to look forward to.

            I would also like to advise you in a few things which should be considered in creating the film. Firstly, please do not forget to include Juliet Butler in the first story; while it is true she could be cut out of the story with relative ease, it does introduce her early, which would prevent her from seeming like a deus ex machina should you ever adapt The Eternity Code, the third installment. She also helps show that Butler is, in fact, a man of honour, which is important to his character. Secondly, don’t forget about the humour. True, it’s stylish to be dark and edgy these days, which could be easily done with this dangerous breed of fairy, but a large part of the reason I fell in love with this series was the smart humour underlying everything. It is important. Please do not forget that. Thirdly, be very careful with how you handle the character of Artemis Fowl. He is a protagonist, but then, so are the fairies. He is not evil, but he wishes to be thought of as such, in the first story at least. Most importantly, please stay away from using the story of Artemis’s parents as a tearjerker story. It is sad, and should be shown as such, but Artemis does not seek sympathy. That is how the author succeeded in making his story sad without seeming like a rather cheap excuse to do immoral things.

            I hope you understand that I am not insisting the film be exactly as the book was; I am aware that they are two different media and will therefore need to be treated differently. I am insisting, however, that you make a real attempt to do the books justice, rather than glossing over two complex stories. An audience the books have not reached will see the movie, and as someone who has loved the Artemis Fowl series for many years, I do not want that audience to come away disappointed. Therefore, please consider my suggestions for the film adaptation, as I truly believe that they would help retain the story’s original integrity, and in doing so, retain what made it great to begin with. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Megan Hands

Pretty good, right? I thought so. I also thought it better I not mention that I'm only sixteen. As a fan, I'm already not taken very seriously IN SPITE of the fact that I've been studying what makes a story good for years now and have managed to pin down all the primary reasons that Artemis Fowl worked. There's a friggin' science to this stuff, believe it or not, and trying to make one good story out of two great stories is kind of like trying to make a cake out of two pies: it may sound like a good idea at the time, but it just doesn't work like that. 

Since this is my blog, I'm going to give you a much longer list of reasons why this movie is probably going to fail. 

First of all, and this bugs me to no end: They're undoubtedly going to white-wash everybody. I know this because they already did it with the graphic novels, and the film industry is notorious for this. In spite of the fact that they repeatedly describe Holly as having "coffee-coloured skin", and repeatedly describe the Butlers as being strikingly Eurasian, we all know that in the movie they're all going to be white. Which will irritate me, and probably a lot of other people as well. 

Secondly, I know I've addressed this, but what the actual frig are they thinking? Putting both books into one movie? What the hell? Not only are both stories plenty big enough to have their own movie, that would involve having Artemis KIDNAPPING A FAIRY and the fairies TRYING TO KILL HIM in one half of the movie, and then Artemis and the fairies (including the one he kidnapped), WORKING TOGETHER for the second half. No matter how good the editing, the acting, that'll be awkward at best and distractingly unbelievable at worst. I just can't picture it. 

Thirdly, the character of Artemis Fowl is so easy to screw up. I know because the smart ones usually are. Everyone generalizes the smart characters so that they're just smart, when in fact there's a lot more to the process than that. It happened to Abed when Harmon left Community, and there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Artemis Fowl will suffer. If they put some sappy music to the scenes with his mother in an attempt to make us go "Aww, he's good at heart", I'm legit going to be angry. It's a sad situation, yes, but he doesn't try to make anyone sympathize with him, which is what makes it believable instead of cheap and if the movie doesn't reflect that I'm going to be mad. He's not all bad - he's really guilty about the mind games he bamboozles his captive with - but he is far from nice, and if they try to portray him as some kind of good kid got in over his head type thing, I'll be mad. Because he's not in over his head. Some heroes hear the call to adventure and fear it. Artemis friggin' staked out  the call to adventure for a couple months and kidnapped it, then blew up a boat on the way home as a warning. 

Oh, another thing they'll for sure screw up: Commander Root. In fact, most of the LEP. Artemis Fowl has a pretty big "Good Isn't Nice" thing going on, which is actually pretty awesome. While most of the LEP has this thing going on most of the time, I think of Commander Root specifically because Commander Root is probably the least nice (and most abusive) one of the good guys. Sure, he spends at least half the series shouting at people to not be idiots or to shut up or to press the button or he'll climb up there and push it with your face, but he's still one of the goodest good guys. He's in it to help people. He'd risk his life for Haven city, or even another officer. He once walked with live grenades over a hole that basically went to the center of the earth to open a route to Los Angeles to help save Haven. Also, in the same incident, came out of it with broken ribs, coughing blood and everything. Point is, he's one of the goodest good guys in the series (especially considering Artemis Fowl and Mulch Diggums count as good guys as well). And just because he's a strong believer in tough love, possibly to a fault, doesn't mean that the audience should be turned against him. I'll admit that when I first read Book 1 I did not understand whether I was supposed to be for Root or against him. But no matter the initial first impression, he nearly got blown up for Holly Short, and if the movie manages to portray Root as your stock character horrible boss, I will not be happy. 

Okay, on the subject of the pure size of the stories they're trying to fit into a single movie, here's the main plot points that would take up the bare skeleton of the movie:

Book 1:

- Exposition: we meet Artemis, Butler, Juliet, his mother, find a fairy and deal with them, and translate the fairy Book. 

- We meet Holly Short and Commander Root and Foaly as Holly goes on an aboveground mission tracking a rogue troll. A mission which goes spectacularly sour. I'm talking buildings are destroyed, the whole thing.

- Holly goes to fill up on magic, Artemis kidnaps her. 

- Root follows Holly's tracker, which leads to a boat, which Artemis then blows up and Root has a very very close call. This is how they find Artemis, so can't be taken out. 

- The LEP find Artemis and go to Fowl Manor. They try to attack the manor, and Butler makes short work of them. I can't remember if the time-stop is already in effect at this point, but somewhere along the lines the fairies put a time-stop on Fowl Manor. 

- Root tries to negotiate with Artemis, which results in Root being very angry and Artemis being very smug. He asks for whatever his amount of gold is, which he figures is a small price to pay for not compromising fairy culture. 

- Somewhere along the line Holly escapes from her cell. She still can't leave the house due to magic rules about human dwellings, but she can wreak some havoc. 

- Root sends in Mulch Diggums, who retrieves the Book and then fakes his own death. 

- Root loses control of the situation as Cudgeon is instated as Acting Commander. He sends in a troll to provoke a call for help, which the fairies could then interpret as an invitation, which they need to enter the dwelling. 

- The troll destroys half the manor, and essentially kills Butler, except that Holly healed him at the last minute, and then Butler sends the troll sprawling. No call for help. 

- Cudgeon is fired. Root sends in the gold for Holly to come back, then planning to throw in a bio-bomb which would kill everyone there but leave the manor intact, which would leave the fairies free to stroll in there and recollect their gold. 

- Holly is sent out. 

- Artemis feeds everyone left in the manor (including himself) a sedative. 

- The bio-bomb gets detonated. 

- The fairies still can't enter because Artemis and Co. are still alive. The sedative let them escape the time-field, and therefore the bio-bomb, which means that the fairies lost. 

- Holly has healed Artemis's mother of her crippling depression for half the ransom, so that has to show up. 

And that's only Book 1! The bare essentials, I swear! Can't cut out Cudgeon because he's the reason for the B'wa Kell Rebellion in Book 2; can't cut out Mulch because he shows up in every single story and is the only reason a lot of things are even possible. Can't cut out Holly's escape because Butler wouldn't be healed otherwise; I'm telling you, bare skeleton. If you don't think that could take up a whole movie by itself, you're crazy. 

The second story involves:

- Artemis gets a ransom note from the Russian Mafia for his father. 

- Holly discovers goblins illegally importing human technology to power illegal fairy weaponry, something far too smart for a goblin to come up with (the author WILL NOT let you forget that the goblin species are idiots by nature). She suspects Artemis. Nothing at all to do with a personal vendetta or anything.

- Holly takes Butler and Artemis in for questioning. 

- Root interrogates them. Foaly interrogates them. Nothing. They know nothing. 

- Artemis and Root strike an uneasy deal; they'll help find the human responsible for the illegal stuff if they help him rescue his father from the mafia. 

- Butler finds the human and is nearly killed, but survives. The team heads off to the Arctic. 

- As they're in the Arctic, they get attacked by a couple of goblins sent by Cudgeon and Opal Koboi, his partner in crime. They are, of course, instructing all the goblins and, unbeknownst to our heroes, orchestrating an entire rebellion underground. 

- There's this whole thing where Root and Butler are trapped in a cave and Holly and Artemis have to get them out by jumping onto a train practically dripping with radioactivity. It's hard to explain, but it's this whole thing. 

- Holly's finger gets cut off, which Artemis then helps her to heal. 

- While all this is happening, Opal and Cudgeon have trapped Foaly, started the rebellion, blamed Foaly for it, and the LEP are losing the battle. 

- Root and Holly realize what's going on (Foaly manages to send them a text from Artemis's lo-tech human technology) and head back underground. But the only way in would be to break into Koboi Labs, which is virtually impossible. Except Holly knows a certain con who can do it. One who faked his death. 

- The whole incident with Root that I talked about earlier. I suppose that could be cut out easily enough. 

- They find and trap Mulch Diggums so he can help them with breaking into Koboi Labs. 

- After some seat-of-the-pants stuff, they break into Koboi Labs, leaving Artemis by the shuttle while the professionals do their job. 

- Except now Holly and Butler and Root are fighting off hundreds of stupid goblins and Mulch is calling for help, and Artemis goes up to help him. 

- Artemis infiltrates the main headquarters of Koboi Labs (by climbing through tubes full of plasma - it's this whole thing), which then allows Foaly to expose Cudgeon as the traitor he is. Cudgeon then puts a gun to Artemis's head, and then Foaly exposes Cudgeon to OPAL about what a traitor of an evil partner he is (he was planning to kill her), and then Opal proceeds to attack Cudgeon, which effectively kills him and knocks Opal out. So Haven is saved and stuff. 

- Root and Holly head back up to the Arctic with Butler and Artemis to save his father, which they do (by shooting him... but not really.... it's hard to explain). 

- Denouement: Artemis and the fairies have grudging respect for each other, Holly has her classic "spark of decency" line, Artemis participates in the first cool moment of his life (where he catches a coin which Holly tossed up in the air and shot straight in the center). Not essential, I suppose, but it's one of those things that are so loved by the fandom that if you don't include it you'll get in a buttload of trouble for it. 

AND THEY THINK THEY CAN PUT BOTH THESE STORIES INTO ONE MOVIE. 

They're going to have to either cut out half the things and change most of it (which, as I may have mentioned, would not be advisable since most of it becomes referred back to later in the series) or make it friggin' five hours long. Also not advisable.

I just want a good movie adaptation that also happens to be accessible. Is that so much to ask?

There's so much more that could go wrong with this movie, though.

I do not know how on earth they plan to introduce Mulch Diggums and his special dwarf talents. There's just no tasteful way to do it for film, so far as I can see. He tunnels by unhinging his jaw, eating the dirt and rapidly ejecting it out the other end. And, like, his hair can be used as lock-picks. And his saliva hardens on contact with air. And can also be used as a sedative. And also is luminous. And his skin can be used as suction cups. Dwarves have so many gifts bestowed on them by evolution that they could take over the world if they would just stop getting arrested.

But the thing about that, is that these "gifts" play a huge role in the series. There's no way to get into Fowl Manor without Mulch, nor Koboi Labs, nor an uncountable number of other escapes/breaking and entering. But the thing is that it's easy to explain how it works in a book. Less easy in a movie.

OH. OH. OH.

IF THEY STAGE THE MOVIE AS AN LEP POLICE FILE

THEN THEY COULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING STRAIGHTFORWARD.

ALSO EVERY CHARACTER WOULD GET A SIMPLE EXPOSITION AND PROFILE.

WHICH MEANS THAT WE'D SPEND LESS TIME ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX CHARACTERS BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WOULD BE RIGHT THERE

AND MORE TIME FOCUSING ON UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX PLOT WHILE THE CHARACTERS JUST UNFOLD.

Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.

Yet another good idea that I will be unable to send to anyone.

WHY WAS I NOT HIRED TO WRITE THIS FRIGGIN' MOVIE?

WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE WAITED ANOTHER TEN YEARS SO I WOULD GET A SHOT AT IT?

But this is actually such a good idea. Because every character has a whole bunch of background that has to be set up to fully understand everything. Like the fact that Butler is Artemis's bodyguard for life because of the tradition amongst the Butlers and the Fowls. And that he's the third most dangerous man in the world. (If I remember correctly, the second most dangerous man in the world is his uncle, and the  most dangerous man lives on a desert island and spends all his time meditating and beating up coconuts or something like that). Also the fact that Artemis Fowl is the head of a criminal empire, which makes his family filthy rich, but his father is missing presumed dead and his mother is suffering from depression. And he's a genius who believes in fairies. And Holly's the first female Recon officer on the force ever, which makes her subject to a lot of sexism. And Root is one of her only supporters. And Cudgeon and Root are lifelong friends. And Opal Koboi and Foaly are old college rivals. There's just so much background which is easy enough to deliver in a book but less easy to deliver in a movie. And this is all without including the beloved minor characters, like gung-ho Captain Trouble Kelp (infamous for choosing Trouble as his name when he graduated from the police academy - and also for the line "If you're looking for Trouble, you've come to the right place") and his brother Corporal Grub Kelp, who's a nervous, whiny little brat. ("But Mommy said!"). Hard to introduce since they're not terribly important, but they recur pretty frequently and become pretty useful to have already established.

But this LEP file idea. Then we could introduce everyone quickly and easily.

I'm brilliant.

If only I would just be HIRED TO WRITE THIS MOVIE

BECAUSE I GUARANTEE I UNDERSTAND IT A HUNDRED TIMES MORE THAN ANYONE ACTUALLY WORKING ON IT.

THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING.

This is the thing.

The thing is that most fans think they want a movie which is exactly like the book.

But that's not true. Because they're two different platforms which accomplish different things and have different strengths. That's why it's a movie ADAPTATION. And I realize that, and I'm not saying that the movie should be exactly like the book, because as a student of storytelling, I know that it shouldn't.

But I also know they're going to just botch this movie. They're going to just destroy it. Which makes me really really mad. Because it's such a good story, and they're going to tell it all wrong.

But I am qualified to know how to tell this story because I've read and re-read the series countless times since I first discovered it. My box set has served me well. I've thought about it at great length. Hell, I actually did start writing a screenplay for it last year, though I didn't get it anywhere near where I wanted it. But obviously, if I think about something for long enough then I eventually come up with the correct strategy.

But Michael Goldenberg isn't being paid to come up with "the correct strategy", is he? He's just being paid to pump out a script that the cast (preferably including Asa Butterfield - the kid is Artemis) can read. No disrespect meant towards Mr. Goldenberg, of course, but let's face it, he probably read the first two books only, if any at all, and doesn't at all know where the series is actually headed. Which is a problem, because the series goes on for another six books, and you need to frame the first story appropriately, knowing where characters like Root and Artemis and Butler and Holly are headed. Otherwise it just won't make sense.

I'm just really frustrated.

If you're just tuning in now, to summarize, I really hope the Artemis Fowl movie comes out nearly as good as the book was to read, but I'm not overly confident that it will. I've lived through a lot of crap movie adaptations of really brilliant books, and I fear that Artemis Fowl will just be another to add to the list. Which makes me very sad and very angry, but thanks to secretive Disney, I can't even pretend I'm doing something about it. Sigh. 

The Voices Won't Let Me Stop Writing

I got a T-shirt this Christmas that said exactly what the title says. It is, of course, for humourous purposes, but it's a lot more accurate than I care to admit to my non-writing friends. Along with the other one I got, "Writer's Block: When your imaginary friends refuse to talk to you." Again, a lot more accurate than it really should be.

Anyways, I was recently sent a link by my friend who also considers herself a writer, and it was just full to the brim of useful links and helpful tips and advice for writing and character-work and dialogue and plots and all that jazz. Which made me very happy, and they are comfortably sitting in my Bookmarks bar on the top of my screen. But what interested me especially was the bits about dialogue.

I never considered dialogue one of my main problems as a writer. My favourite books were always rich with smart dialogue, and I liked to think that my work was reflecting my influences. Problems of mine may include pacing, character development, and believably writing from the perspective of a male, but it never occurred to me that my technique for dialogue may be faulty, excluding the fact that sometimes my work simply has too much of it.

But there is a problem, and I'm not sure how this was brought to my attention before, but my "You've considered this before" bells were going off all over the place when I was reading it. And the problem is that many of my characters have voices that are absolutely identical to each other.

This may not seem like a big deal, if the characters themselves are unique, right? Who cares if the super-girly nymph Juniper speaks like the sarcastic and tomboyish storm fernei Tempera, so long as the characters are clearly distinguished, right? Except it is a big deal. People will care. Because dialogue is hardly believable if two very different characters have the exact same speech pattern, is it?

Think about how real people talk. Me talking to my friend.... Alexis, for example, to use a direct contrast. Our personalities are very different, and our conversations reflect that. Just, for example, Alexis will often confirm statements others make by asking questions, like, "Did you?" or "Really?" whereas I will do the same thing by saying things like "No kidding" or "No way!" Subtle, isn't it? This is why it's so difficult to get a proper grasp on it.

I tend to answer questions by repeating the question, or at least part of the question. "Did you see that episode?" "I saw it." Ask the same question to Alexis, it will most likely be a simple yes or no. Isn't it interesting, when you really pay attention to the subtle intricacies of individual speech? Isn't it just fascinating? (Rhetorical questions. Another habit of mine.)

On a less... inconsequential scale, it's much more interesting to pay attention to actual conversations that happen. Some people may use sarcasm more. Some people may have a habit of trailing off, trusting others to figure out their meaning. The trick is not to think of what the people/characters are saying, but rather how they're saying it, and how that reflects their personalities. There is, of course, the obvious factor that someone who was raised, perhaps, in the south, they may have an affinity for the not-quite-a-word "ain't" or "y'all", and someone may be more profane, if they were raised in the environment for it. But it goes a whole lot deeper than that, doesn't it?

I have a list of quotes from one of my favourite book series, Artemis Fowl, which I have loved since forever at least partly because of its entertaining dialogue. Now, let's take a look at some of these quotes and figure out what they say about the character speaking it?

Let's start simple. Typical Foaly complaining: "I am so unappreciated." Simple, right? But, focus not on what he's saying, but how he's saying it. There were other ways to say it. "No one appreciates me." "Why doesn't anyone appreciate me?" And, really, if you wanted to get a whole lot more creative, a billion other variations of the same meaning. But he said it like this: "I am so unappreciated."

What jumps at me right away is that the subject of the sentence is himself. "I". Judging by my few half-baked attempts at variation, the subject could have been "Nobody". But that would take attention off himself, and Foaly doesn't want to do that. Typically, our loveable smart-ass is quite self-centered. The sentence itself reflects that, but also the way he said it. Make sense?

Let's try another one. This is fun. Alright, Julius Root is annoyed at Artemis for sticking his nose in where Root figures it doesn't really belong. So he says, "Don't you worry your juvenile head about it. Concentrate on growing some bristles." Again, there were other ways to convey the same meaning. "Be quiet, this has nothing to do with you" would have been one thing, and one can imagine the hundreds of other variations. So why does Root choose to structure his sentence like that: "Don't you worry your juvenile head about it. Concentrate on growing some bristles."

It's typical of Root, really. Rather than just instructing everyone to mind their own business, as he well could have, he chooses to belittle the people who irritate him or imply that he can't do everything himself. In this case, he implies that Artemis's theories are invalid because of his age. Every conversation is a negotiation for status, really, and Root prefers to gain his upper-hand status by making verbal jabs at the other person. Artemis tends to accomplish the same thing by demonstrating his superior intellect, which can entail, but isn't exclusive to, making a show of tediously explaining something to others what was immediately obvious to himself.

Alright, one more. Let's find an Artemis quote... Okay, one of my favourites from the first book: "Let us proceed under the assumption that the fairy folk do exist, and that I am not a gibbering moron." I think we can all infer what was going on in this situation, and once again it could have been said in a hundred different ways. So why did he frame his meaning like that?

It's very formal, for a start. Artemis usually is. "Let us" rather than "let's" already conveys that. Now look at the vocabulary used. Was it necessary to use all those words? Not at all. Did it characterize Artemis and the way he speaks? It certainly did, flawlessly. No one's going to mistake that sentence as something that anyone else said. That's not to say that other people in the series aren't intelligent enough to speak like that, they just don't. Artemis does. It's just... how he talks.
On a slightly different note of analyzation, the bit at the end, about assuming he's not a "gibbering moron", is clearly a sample of Artemis's brand of sarcasm, which in itself is obviously quite different from, for instance, Mulch Diggums or Foaly's flavour of sarcasm. This is mainly because Foaly and Mulch use theirs to poke good-hearted fun at the people around them, while Artemis uses his mainly to communicate how dumb the people around him are being, effectively shutting them up. Again, it's the negotiation for status.

Now, it's not only the way people say things - it's also WHO they're saying it TO. Artemis Fowl doesn't have a whole lot of good examples of this, because Root is always the commander and Holly's always a police officer and Artemis is always smarter, and there aren't a whole lot of situations where the roles change. But, if we go back to my characters Juniper and Tempera, then we can start really looking at the difference it makes when considering WHO they're talking to. Obviously lifelong friends Juniper and Tempera are going to talk to each other on a much more familiar level than they're going to talk to the newcomer, outsider, Randy. Tempera tends to be a lot more sarcastic, for example, and Juniper tends to be more patronizing, tones that they would never use with each other, you understand.

Aren't the intricacies of dialogue FASCINATING? This is why I decided to write a whole post on that alone. It's something very subtle that requires a lot of attention to detail to get properly. There are certain easy ways to get around some parts - for instance, assigning one character an extremely distinct way of speaking, such as, for example, a very formal and unnecessarily verbose pattern of speech - but it's not always that easy. Going back to my own characters, Juniper and Tempera, neither of them are going to talk in a way that's going to make someone raise their eyebrows, but they've got to talk DIFFERENTLY. You understand how difficult this can be after you realize that all these characters come from the same person's mind, and that person has their own pattern of speech that is very easy to simply leak into all their characters.

The problem, you see, is every character needs to be treated as a proper person, with their own voice, not the author's, and hearing every character's individual voice can be difficult sometimes. It's also what makes writing so gosh-darn fun. I can't explain precisely why that is. All I know for certain is that the jokes about "the voices" and "imaginary friends" are a lot more than jokes. In fact, they're basically the truth. To be a writer, you need to hear the voices. Take from that what you will, but it really shouldn't be a surprise to find out that most writers are a little bit insane. Facts o' life, guys. Facts o' life. I think you'll find most writers, depending on how self-aware they are, happily accept that. I, personally, prefer the term "eccentric", thank you very much. Cornelia Funke, writer of the indescribably wonderful Inkheart trilogy (and Reckless and Dragon Rider and The Thief Lord which are also wonderful) even says, and I quote, "So what? All writers are lunatics!"

So... quit judgin' me, alright?