Interviewed: Cleolinda Jones
For this issue, we interviewed Cleolinda Jones, author of the "Movies in Fifteen Minutes" series of parodies. There was a bit of confusion at the start as we both had "Lauren" as our MSN screen names - the first clue to the real Cleolinda! - but soon got into the thick of it.
What made you start writing the movies in fifteen minutes?
Well, I came home from seeing Van Helsing, and I started writing the bit about Anna and Velkan and the wolf hunt, just as a random little thing to post in the middle of an entry, and... I just kept going. So I posted the whole thing, and everyone went crazy. I wasn't expecting that at all. And then the next Sunday (I think?) I saw Troy and did the same thing. And then the following Thursday, a British editor emailed me and said that someone had sent him the Troy link, and would I be interested in doing a book of parodies. It was the craziest, most random thing ever.
That sounds like some amazing luck.
Heh, seriously. I'd spent my entire life writing fiction, sending off novels and getting turned down by publishers, and all of a sudden I do this one thing and they come to me.
I guess that's because people love a good commentary on popular culture?
Well, the thing about that is that it's something they immediately know they're interested in. Humor is one of the quickest things to hook people--people always love to laugh--and when you're writing about something they already know they like (books, movies), it's a lot easier to get their attention than with some random new story they've never heard of before. I'm guilty of it myself--a lot of times I'd rather read nonfiction on a subject I know I'm interested in rather than give new fiction a try.
That's a very good point. You also make a lot of other pop culture references in them, but I think it's good that you link to explanations in case your readers don't know where they come from. Do you do this on purpose to get people trying new things that you like and 'spreading' it, so to speak, or is it just part of your writing style?
That's the one thing I really, really regretted about doing a book, that I didn't have the option of hypertext. I could have done footnotes, but they just seemed too intrusive--like I didn't trust the reader to get the reference. With a link, they can click it if they're curious or ignore it if they already know. I think it's just part of my style, though--everything reminds me of something else, somehow. I guess it would be a good way to bring something new to people, something I really wanted them to see but in a subtle way, but... it never occurred to me. At the same time, it might not have occurred to me because I already have a much more direct outlet for that on my journal, where I often say directly, "Hey guys, this was totally awesome and I want to tell you about it." Back to the references, though--I guess it's just part of my sense of humor. I like that moment of surprise, where you go, "Man, that really IS kind of like that, how funny." You have to be careful not to stretch too hard, though. , I do always make the links open in a new window, so at least people have the parody still open. But at the same time, yeah--I have had some criticism that I stuff in too many references. I got some comments to that effect on the last one, 300. And there probably were; I have it on my mental list of persistent habits to watch.
Well, for what it's worth, I like the references because like you said it does draw on the similarities between the other thing and the story, and usually they're kinda funny. The part in POA where you compared the dementor to a wringwraith was pretty good.
Aww, thanks. Yeah, I think sometimes the similarities are so pointed that you have to deal with them; that one was almost ridiculously similar. Sometimes it gets to the point where something's so obvious that it's almost just too easy and you don't even want to mention it, but you have to, because if you don't people will wonder if you were just too dense to notice it at all (heh). Harry on the hippogriff in a very Titanic fashion was one of those.
Where you asked for a better joke.
Heh. That kind of thing is usually me trying to get around a joke that's so obvious you have to make it, you have to deal with it somehow. I'm trying to think of another--possibly "Stella!" in Troy, although I then had a ton of people ask me what that was even about. Apparently The Kids Today aren't as familiar with "A Streetcar Named Desire" as I thought.
Have you seen the movies (specifically the Harry Potter ones) since writing the stories?
I've seen GOF several times, but it's on HBO pretty much every day. POA was my favorite, so I've been known to watch it when it's on as well--they tend to show the movies on TV around Christmas (or before a new one's released, for that matter) and a lot of times I'll have those on in the background. It's kind of weird, though, because of course I think of what I wrote. The things I found funny the first time around are still funny to me, of course. But then, I pretty much find 90% of everything funny on some level.
I think people who didn't like the original get to have the fun of laughing at it, and the people who did like it can have the fun of laughing with it. A lot of my humor is affectionate--it's not unlike Rocky Horror Picture Show get-togethers, you know? You wouldn't put 5000 words' worth of time into something you just hated, but at the same time you want to be able to ding something that's legitimately off or badly done.
So in some instances you humourise the best parts, and basically applaud them, while you also critique parts which you think aren't as well done as they should be, almost like a critical review, albeit one which comes in the form of a humourous story?
Well, I think I've actually said, in GOF's example, "Nothing is better than this line." Because seriously, you can't work with something that's already funny; you can't do it better. So yeah, sometimes you're just sort of laughing along with how awesome something is. Other times--well, a lot of times I'm poking fun at plot holes or what I call Movie Logic. Even good movies have it; it's just how movies work, because they're not real life; you can't really do a movie in real time. Well, you can--wasn't Nick of Time in real time?--but you have a very, very limited time frame. So, you know, things are simplified and interconnected in ways that would be ridiculous in real life. So the villain is often the only character in the movie who doesn't have any other purpose. That kind of logic. Not in a Harry Potter sense--in a thriller/suspense sense, I mean. Well, at any rate, sometimes Movie Logic works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's just ridiculous, and of course you want to ding that; sometimes it does work, but you can still point it out as being funny.
And then there are always the goofs, like Hagrid's hut suddenly moving in location for POA and nobody finding it odd.
Heh, yeah. Did I mention something about the nice new bridge in POA? I feel like I pointed something like that out at some point. I think a lot of my sense of humor is based on absurdity--things that make you go, "Wait, what?"
Absurdity is one of the funniest things in life, though.
Well, exactly. A lot of times it's that juxtaposition of two things that are completely normal by themselves, but put them together and it's like, "What?" Probably the other element is the idea--I mean, I don't consciously go through and do this, but it occurred to me a few months ago, the idea that the ideal response to a joke or a punchline is for the reader/listener to think, "How in the world did she think of that?" And then a split-second later, "I can't believe I didn't think of that sooner." It's both a surprise and yet completely makes sense. I think a lot of the references work that way--the juxtaposition is surprising, until you think about it and wonder if it was even intended that way in the actual movie, as some kind of reference or homage, because it's just so there.
Perhaps your ability to make these subtle connections is what makes your work such compulsive reading?
Well, I can't speak to whether it's like that or not, but I think a sense of recognition--you read it and you think, "I know exactly what she's talking about, she thinks the way I do." Or rather, if you do think that, if our senses of humor are compatible that way, you're drawn into it. I think humor's a big part of it, though. It's a pretty strong draw for people--you laugh, you feel good. The other thing about making so many references or connections is that you know no one person will get exactly what you meant every single time. But you have a much greater chance of everyone getting *some* of them. I think MST3K and Dennis Miller's show back in the '90s on HBO taught me a lot about that--they were both just constant references, a lot of which I didn't get, but at the rate the jokes were coming if you didn't get this one, you'd get the next one. And both shows trusted the viewers to be smart enough to get them, and that they'd be okay if they didn't get every single joke. Basically, if you cast a wide enough net, everyone will find something.
So much in the references is bound up in popular culture though - do you ever worry that your work will be dated by the references it contains?
I do, I do. I still really regret using so much internet speak in the early ones--"hor," that kind of thing, because while "wtf" and "omg" gained even more currency--I think I actually saw an Entertainment Weekly blogger use "WTF" without even blinking, so to speak, earlier this week--a lot of the slang really bothers me now. I really tried to avoid that kind of thing for the book, but that was more about reaching a wider (and possibly older) audience than a date issue. It's funny, though--it's jokes that reference older things that sometimes fall flat, like...the Guy Fawkes/phoenix joke in V for Vendetta, even though those are fairly timeless references. But yeah, that's why working with the inherent silliness of the movie or the plot holes works, because it's in the original itself--if you're reading the parody, you've very likely seen the movie, and if you haven't, you're aware that there are jokes particular to the actual movie you probably won't get. I'm trying to think of an example of a joke that could possibly go stale too soon--I'm sure there are some, I just can't think. "O RLY" in GOF, maybe, but that was another Had to Be Done joke, so it was an acceptable risk.
Well whether or not people find it amusing, I'm sure they'll at least understand it for a while to come...
Well, you hope so. It's funny how some internet or fannish jokes die on the vine pretty quickly, but a surprising number have just gained even more ground. lolcats, for example. I didn't expect them to keep going the way they did--I Can Has Cheezburger is huge now. My favorite is still "This is bat country!," which is itself a reference a lot of people don't get. I'm not sure I would have gotten it if I hadn't recognized the hat and the car..."Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," which I haven't actually seen. The cats are dressed up like Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro driving through the desert, and the text is a line from the movie. Which I found out after I hit the IMDB. I think sometimes you can give people enough context that they can tell there's a joke there somewhere, and they have an idea of what it might be, and with a well-placed link, they can get the whole thing. I mean, that's how the cat macro worked for me.
Well that's one of the main strengths of the internet, isn't it? The ability to find whole sites full of information with just a couple of clicks.
See, and that's why I love it so much. My senior quote in high school was "Only connect," and that was before I even got on the internet. It's just the way I think, I guess. I love books, and I hate reading e-books and straining my eyes, but the ability to put in unobtrusive links is just fantastic.
Yeah, e-books leave a lot to be desired. I don't think the printed word is dead just yet, thank goodness. Fanfiction has really flourished online though, I think the internet is pretty fundamental in facilitating fandom as a whole.
Oh, it's been huge. I mean, fandom has been around a lot longer than that; I've heard some great fandom oldbie stories about print zines and cons, and there was a fantastic story about a giant flamewar at a con in *the 30s*. But I don't know that fandom's ever been so connected as it is now. People who never would have gotten involved before are encouraged by seeing that other people love what they love, and websites and message boards provide centralized meeting places, you know? I was huge into the X-Files in high school and early college, but I only knew a couple of people who were really into the show at all. And meanwhile--I found out when I got my own computer in 1998 or so, sophomore year in college--that the X-Files had a huge fan community, a huge online presence.
You've become quite involved in online fandom since then, haven't you?
Well--because I think I know the answer to this question--how would you define "involved"?
I guess just being a part of it in general - for example, moderating at Fandom Lounge, the parodies etc.
Heh, Fandom Lounge. Basically, it's an offshoot of FW, where anything that isn't actually wanky can be posted--a "Hey guys, look at this!" type thing. Usually it's things you'd enjoy or want to see. Mods are there only in case a fire breaks out, as it were; I didn't even know I was one until someone mentioned it one day. I am one of the mods at a general-entertainment board, very quiet and friendly so there's hardly anything to do there either (and I mean that in a good way). And I talk about fannish things on my journal--I guess I just have a lot of enthusiasm for movies in general. But it's funny, because I know people who are soooo much more involved than I am. I make icons and I write the occasional parody. I don't write narrative fanfiction; I'm writing commentary, not bringing new material to the table at all, really. I don't hang out at any fandom-oriented boards--mostly because I just don't have the time. I'm very interested in multiple fandoms, but I don't know that I really contribute all that much to any of them, aside from a parody or two.
Which fandoms are you particularly interested in?
I sat back and realized a few weeks ago that I'm a sucker for fantasy, really. The X-Files was probably my first fandom, or rather, the thing I was a really big fan of, and then Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Oh, and I was so into Narnia as a kid--I cried when I saw the first trailer in the theater, and I cried through the entire first fifteen minutes of the movie, just because it was such an integral part of my childhood. In fact, I think I cried through the first fifteen minutes the first three or four times I saw the movie, every time. I'm really excited about the His Dark Materials books becoming movies. Loved Lemony Snicket, and I thought they did a fairly good job with the movie...I'm really excited about the new League of Extraordinary Gentlemen coming out in November, and of course there's the Pirates movies, I love those. There's probably others, but that's what comes to mind immediately.
You definitely like your fantasy then.
Yeah, seriously. I think it's because you get the whole package with fantasy. Drama, romance, usually comedy or at least some humor, action, and pretty costumes.
That's a good point. The costumes in fantasy usually are better lol.
Well, and it's why I like historical dramas as well. I'll watch just about anything with costumes and/or swordfighting at least once.
No wonder you like Pirates of the Caribbean then, it's a double whammy!
Heh, seriously. And Lord of the Rings was just catnip for me.
And since you mentioned Harry Potter, I just have to ask...do you have a view on Wizard Rock?
Oh, hell... I'm not even sure what Wizard Rock is. You mean like the tribute bands? Harry and the Potters, I want to say?
Yes, there are actually over 200 bands now, singing songs about Harry Potter. (edit: there are now at least 360, according to a list held by Jess, aka Ministry of Awesome. Isn't that amazing?)
Holy God, no kidding. I knew about Harry and the Potter and Draco and the Malfoys, and I knew offhand that there were others, but--200? Good Lord. That's awesome. I haven't actually listened to anything, but I've read some of the lyrics, and they're hilarious...! It just seems like such a fun take on the whole thing.
Yeah, there are so many different points of view. it's like fanfiction set to music.
I wonder what the copyright issues are there? My instinct is that it's considered commentary--I find those boundary issues fascinating. It's such a great way to be creative and still stay within the legal boundaries.
That's a good point, in an interview for MTV Kristina from the Parselmouths said that she didn't think JK would have an issue with wizard rock because it was basically fanfiction set to music and she didn't have a problem with allowing fanfiction to be written.
Yeah, but that's still sticky. She still has to--or had to--avoid reading any fanfic to protect herself legally, and no matter what she's said, I'm sure her lawyers would jump all over someone trying to turn a profit. I think it's really to an author's benefit to allow fanfic--I think John Scalzi was the one who said he was okay with it because it meant people actually liked his work. You know, the idea that fanfic is part of a healthy fandom, and obviously as a writer you hope that you'll have fans. You know you've made it when there's fanfic, in other words. But you still have to watch the legal aspects of it, to protect yourself. I want to say it was Marion Zimmer Bradley who had to shelve an entire novel because of a fanfic issue...But music seems a lot safer, if only because it's a completely different medium, you know? There's additional creativity involved, the actual musical composition, that a writer can't be accused of copying because that's just not the medium she's working in anyway.
You're right about the music, although to be fair a lot of the main wizard rockers are making money from it. It's going toward touring and donations to literacy charities though. CD and merchandise sales, you know.
Seriously. I learned about the whole plausible deniability issue pretty early on--when I was in college, I got it into my head that I'd try to write a script for the X-Files, and it was promptly returned to me unopened--by the production office's lawyers, with a very polite letter to the effect that they just couldn't look at it. It might be the greatest script ever, but they couldn't even open it. Yeah, I think it's the different medium and the commentary angle that make it safer than narrative fanfiction. Although charity is probably the right way to go with that. And you know, a Potter band could easily be heard by someone who would say, "I really like your sound, do you have any original material?" It's the same with the Fifteen Minutes parodies--because of them, I have an agent and a relationship with a publisher; I've at least got someone who's willing to give me the time of day when my novel's finished. That's probably the most valuable thing you can gain from fandom activities, if you also want to be creative professionally--the chance that someone will read or see or hear your fan works and want to see your original material. Just getting someone's eyes or ears can be half the battle. Not even half--80%, almost.
Like Cassandra Claire? I saw recently she's had/having a novel published.(remembering the whole Cassandra Claire fandom wank issue, and knowing Cleo is into that stuff, hoping to draw her out on it...)
I think it's come out already. I may be dealing with a slightly different situation, though, because I ended up getting a contract for a project that was so, so different from what I usually write. I could show up with a novel and have people go, "Uh, where's the funny stuff?" Even considering that, though, there's a whole different issue about moving from fanfic to original work, and that's the world building. With--well, let's say Harry Potter fanfic, you've already got such a rich world there, and you don't *want* to dwell too much on it; people already know the characters and the setting. They want you to move on with the story...I once beta'd a story in a writing community for someone I didn't know. My critique was along the lines of not really being able to follow the story and wanting more background on the characters, and it turned out to be fanfic for a fandom I'd never heard of. If I'd been a fan, I might have really liked the story, and felt like it had just the right amount of information. That kind of thing. When you turn to original work, you can be in danger of not doing enough world building, or borrowing too much from whichever fandom(s) you're used to writing for. I'm not saying that's automatically going to happen, but it's a possible trap.
So if you were to give advice to fanfic writers who would like to make the transition to original fiction, that would be the main point?
Hmm. Probably, in that that's really the main difference between the two. A lot of critics--of fandom and fanfiction in general--talk about fanfic as if it's some kind of inferior effort, but I can't imagine why you'd put less effort or craft into something just because it was for fun. I don't go through 50 revisions of a journal entry, obviously, and they're written on the fly, but whatever quality writer I am, it's there whether I've written for fun or not. The writer you are, that's what comes through no matter what you write. So when you remove fandom from the equation, you're removing exactly what people came to fandom for in the first place: the characters and the worlds. You've got to create your own. And maybe writing in someone else's world has been like training wheels, maybe it's shown you the kind of thing you're going to need to do for yourself. Without having actually written narrative fanfiction, I still look at what JK Rowling's said about her process in terms of planning out a long series. What do you give away, how soon do you give it away--her decision to move Horcrux info from Chamber of Secrets to a later book, that kind of thing. But you're also in danger of having steeped in someone else's world for so long that you write your own thing, and it's like everything everyone's already seen. I think that's one of my biggest worries, being original enough. I do think that reading helps--reading as widely as you can, to dilute the influence of any one work or author.
Who's your favourite Harry Potter character?
Obviously, there's Harry--he got to be so wonderfully snarky as the series went on. It probably helps that Daniel Radcliffe does some great line deliveries as well. And I love that Hermione's both bookish and can-do, such a great role model. And... man, I have a feeling this is going to be a little controversial, but I love Ginny. When I first read the second book, it was like, oh God, now we have the little sister tagging along. But when she reappeared at some point she was so fun and confident. I really loved that JKR had her be her own person, outgoing and athletic and not still mooning around after Harry. She got a little bratty in the sixth book, but it didn't bother me the way I've heard it bothered a lot of people.
And the big question: do you have an OTP? Because there are a lot of slash references in your parodies...
Hee. I knew that was coming eventually. You know, for me, the slash references were more references to the fact that so many *fans* have slash preferences. I'm not actually into slash at all, although I definitely see subtext when it's there. I mean, some of the Cedric scenes in the GOF movie had just insane levels of hoyay in there. Baths, hugging wet boys, that kind of thing. I definitely thought something was up with Dumbledore and Grindelwald, and--you know, I actually like Lupin with Tonks, although I do think that entire relationship was handled pretty abruptly, but okay. But I can still see where the Lupin/Sirius thing comes from, particularly in OOTP--don't they give Harry a joint Christmas present? And I think the filmmakers saw it too-- well, there was even something on Leaky today about Thewlis saying that he and Cuaron talked about Lupin possibly being gay. And wasn't there a Snape line about "like an old married couple"? So it's not that I don't see it. I guess I just don't really go out of my way to pair up characters that aren't paired up in the books. I either say, "Yeah, I totally see that" or "Man, where did that come from?," but I'm generally pretty content with the way things shook out. Ron and Hermione seemed pretty concrete from the Yule Ball in GOF at the very latest, but if she'd ended up with Harry, I could have seen that. But for some reason, I really liked Harry and Ginny together. Maybe that's my OTP. I'm really pretty vanilla, unfortunately.
Just because it's canon doesn't mean it's vanilla, though - someone actually complained about that on Livejournal, and a girl made a list of harry/ginny fics that specifically were a bit more interesting or risque...worth checking out if you like them.
Heh, well, true. And even in the last book there's, uh, Ginny's birthday present to Harry. I can just see people being annoyed that I'm very by-the-book, literally. But then, shipping's a very sensitive thing anyway.
Finally...there's just one more thing I've got to ask. When you see the movies now...do you ever find yourself laughing at what appears to be nothing, so that people tell you to shush and think you're insane, when really you're remembering some reference from the parody?
I feel really awful, but yeah. Of course, I laugh at apparently nothing during movies all the time, whether I've written anything or not on it. But yeah, if it was funny to me at the time, it's still funny now--if the joke was what I thought at the time, I'm still thinking it now, you know? And then I feel terrible, because it's like I'm laughing at my own jokes.
Well if it's any consolation...all over the world, other people are laughing at them too.
Aww, bless.