Thursday, January 11, 2018
The End of the Magical Kingdom Pre-Interview, 2017
L.M. Warren's "The End of the Magical Kingdom” trilogy was always devised as the strange mutant baby of internet cartoons and social media trolling. Subversify caught up with Mitchell and piqued his mind regarding his unique writing style, which is often described as “emotionally violent” and “hostile to the audience.”
Q: Many of your glowing reviews liken your writing to “trainwreck poetry”. It’s beautiful, it’s poetic and yet it’s a traumatic experience. Why?
A: I believe it’s the voice of the Now, as opposed to ten or twenty years ago. This is a new generation. Modern writing is emotive. It’s harsh. It’s more clever than soothing. Many of us in the Y-Generation used to read for education but we relaxed by watching cartoons and flame-warring on message boards. The language of script writing has always been, historically speaking, punchy and aggressive. That’s probably why people who love movies enjoy my writing. It feels like a cartoon or a live-action play, rather than a traditional novel.
Q: You cite Susan Harris and the sitcom Soap as one of your main influences. Why go for laughs when most novels are about deep introspection and high drama?
A: I think a lot of writers are so keen on following rules of serious literature, they forget the essence of human storytelling. It’s about conflict. It’s about keeping your sense of humor, even in the darkest of times. It’s holding the audience’s imagination hostage with a glimpse into another world. Maybe that world is Hell, but it’s always interesting. I really don’t think any show has ever matched Soap’s tone either, at least as far as telling a dramatic story in an exaggerated and funny way. All in the Family was realistic comedy. Soap was surreal and yet emotionally brutal. I was inspired a lot by that. The Maxx was another influence. It was tragedy written in quirky comic book speak language. Fusion literature.
Q: With your trilogy of books you do just that, fuse together “serious literature” with juvenile profanity and sarcasm. You’ve described it as social commentary that the South Park generation can appreciate. Yet, whereas cartoon shows have a “nothing sacred” collection of barbs, you insist on adding scenes of such unrelenting depression and tragedy in between sitcom-like scenes. You tell the audience it’s time to laugh, only to leave them in tears.
A: Yes, it may come from the fact that I’m a depressive. Or it could be that I simply have a great desire to write literature but in a brand new comedic voice. Some of my darkest creative influences come from the distant past. Our Town, Death of a Salesman, Animal Farm and the original Brothers Grimm. This is what’s shaping my world. And I don’t believe in going all Stephen King on you and describing the grass for 50 pages. It’s happening in real time, at least in my mind it is.
Q: Is the book for younger readers? Or does it target more sophisticated readers over the age of 40?
A: Older readers immediately catch onto the social satire. But younger readers will like it regardless of whether they understand what every allegorical character represents. We’re not giving the younger generation enough credit. Sure, there are many that don’t read. But the ones that do are eager to read something new. The millennial generation doesn’t want clichés, formulaic plots and predictable Harlequin romance. If you actually read modern fanfiction on the Internet, some of it is very bleak and bizarre stuff. This is what younger crowds enjoy. Something they’ve never seen before, something their parents have never seen before.
Q: You’ve written a War and Peace-sized trilogy of books written for short-attention span audiences of today. If the objective is to appeal to short attention spans, why make the series so long?
A: Everybody loves an ongoing story. It just takes some planning to make it accessible. If our goal as modern and influential storytellers is to build franchises, then we’re actually writing books to read for people who hate reading. The challenge is in hooking them with strong imagery, with comedy, and with easy flowing contemporary language.
Q: You made these books as ADHD-friendly as modern writing can get, with scenes of intense emotional brutality, obscene limericks posing as faux Disney-songs, over the top descriptions of sex and violence, and as many references to illegal drugs as you could fit into a PG-13 rated book.
A: Yes the mock of Disney is intentional. It’s a mask of a family friendly G-rated book, a tongue in cheek sort of thing. In actuality it’s a horrific satire of man’s violent nature. It does feel as if “you’re there”, because the prose relies on hypnotic suggestion, which I’ve also studied for quite some time. And in scenes of brutality, yes, that’s harrowing to read. But we imagine ourselves in this hypothetical world, experiencing a new life. And yes, if your imagination is vivid, sometimes that world is uncomfortable. It’s an experience you’ll never forget.
Q: You’re having far too much fun trolling the literary world.
A: I think we as new age authors have a responsibility to save writing, to keep the art of it alive. I have no interest in making movies. My heart is in writing and always will be. But that doesn’t mean I will deny my readers of the full cinematic experience that the movies give them. If the worst they say about my book is that it’s a series of books for people that hate reading, then I’ll take that as a compliment. If the second worst thing they can say about me is that I troll the literary world, that’s a fascinating compliment and I’ll take that too.
A:Now that the NSA and FBI have been alerted with carefully chosen keywords, let's talk about what "terrorism" means.
MW: Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
That's a broad definition and one that encompasses the State as well as the Revolution. We identify terrorists as such because we cannot bear to describe our "enemy" as merely another group of soldiers. We cannot imagine our own country as one that uses violence or intimidation to ensure their political aims.
We outgrew the term "commie" because we saw the fall of the Soviet Union, and though there is a renaissance of Russian-hate building again, most people will not accept another war that has already come and gone.
Now it's time for companies / countries to re-brand the marketing. "Enemy" is such an empty word and it makes people think too hard about who is actually good and who is evil. "Terrorist" is a much easier word to accept because it is implied that terrorists are without souls, without conscience or compassion, and that they do cruel and sickening things to innocent people.
But if you take away the label of terrorist and describe a Good Christian who is willing to die for Jesus, or a Good Soldier who is willing to die for his country, you have something wonderful and inspirational.
The State not only takes on the actions of terrorists by using violence against innocent civilians (called Imperialism when it's the wealthy attacking the poor) but sometimes they can actually help promote other terrorist entrepreneurs as a means of distraction. Whether it's funding "terrorist" groups overseas or creating fictitious terrorist threats, or inadvertently creating vengeful monsters out of the remains of broken people. Sexy, if it's someone like Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger looking for patriotic revenge - disgusting if it's a dark skinned man speaking Arabic, fighting for the vengeance of his dead child.
The people of the French Revolution, rebelling against the rich and elite were the terrorists of their day. Witches, who resisted the teachings of Protestant and Catholic religions were something to be abhorred, even more disgusting than terrorists - they were heathens, orgiasts, baby killers and Satanic vessels, deserving of nothing but rape and death. Even in modern terms, mankind has used words like "Savages" to describe Native Americans or African Americans - because they were the "enemy" that threatened our own lives, our selfish expansion of culture.
"Witches Are Terrorists"
Everybody loves a hero and despises a villain because that's what evokes emotion and emotion incites war.
In my book, "The End of the Magical Kingdom", witches are terrorists or "horrorists", as the civilized world calls them. Some are merely labeled that way because they are enemies of the state. Others are self-identified because their mission is to overthrow the government and start a new change - the very thing Trump supporters wanted months ago, and now the very thing Hillary followers crave more than anything.
The point being that to describe something as less than human, as something as disgusting and soulless as an animal (er, except dogs and cats, because they don't deserve the death and torture that cows and pigs are subject to because of their immoral lifestyles) is to justify the most vile and exploitative behavior we are capable of - to show us the harrowing mob justice mankind dispenses, once he is driven into an emotional stampede.
Terrorists are not human. They are witches, they are roaches, they are evil, and they are godless (or they don't believe in Science like we believe in Science). They are stupid, they are unworthy of procreation, they deserve imprisonment, they deserve disease, old age and suffering.
The easy route is to declare all terrorists, and anyone that disagrees with the government, as a threat to national security. To stamp them out, to cleanse the human race, and to destroy their families while we're at it. The more challenging route, the more "evil" and unpatriotic thing to do, is to try to determine how to end the war - how to negotiate a compromise that can bring some stability, not just to one region, but well beyond the borders. It is the very thing that politicians promise to do and a higher standard we should continue to uphold.
But yes, to call a terrorist "sexy" is a very tasteless thing to do.
"Is Mary Melancholy a terrible feminist and does she set the feminist movement back to the Snow White 1930s era?" This is a t...
Modern psychology speculates that the reason people love rainy days is because, although the sky is dreary, the human spirit rejoices in tim...
Mitchell Warren and Floren Felvturn's Cry On Cue is awaiting its publication in December 2004. This tale of two antiheroes forced...
Original Interview with Late Mitchell Warren, 2004, Attempted Rapture Release Original collector’s item covers. Sent in by fan...