"Advice to writers: Skip the scenery"
William December Starr
cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
<http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
<http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
than one literary novel
By Laura Miller
Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 16:01 ET
Recently, I was asked to speak to a class of writing students
on what critics look for in debut novels. After canvassing my
colleagues, I had a few answers -- a distinctive voice, an
interesting perspective, strong writing and so on -- but they
didn't seem especially helpful. Presumably, every writer
already starts out with the most distinctive voice and
interesting perspective he or she can conjure. How about
telling them what to avoid instead?
By far the most common gripe from readers was too much
description, particularly environmental description -- that is,
of landscape, weather and interiors.
[ etc. ]
To which list I might add, especially in fantasy, clothing/costumery
and heraldry. And also foodstuffs, though I may be in the minority
there -- I'm one of those people who eats rather than dines.
[ jump to conclusion: ]
Of course, a writer of genius can get away with just about
anything, and novelists are certainly entitled to write whatever
they want. So too, though, are readers entitled to read whatever
they want, including only the more interesting parts of the books
in their hands. The most ravishing descriptions in the world are
wasted if they aren't read in the first place. [Elmore Leonard's
famous list of 10 rules for writing][1] ends with a rule that
bears repeating: "Try to leave out the part that readers tend to
skip." Is there any doubt that the most skipped parts of novels,
even popular novels, are the descriptions of landscape and
weather? The longer a novelist makes them, the more readers end
up skipping, until it occurs to them to skip the whole thing
altogether.
*1: <http://tinyurl.com/cwwshg>,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy-adverbs-exclamation-points-especially-hooptedoodle.html>
-- wds
Kurt Busiek
--
>
> wds
I really like to read material with a strong sense of place and
atmosphere, so I like scenery and weather, if done well. It's easy to
say that "too much" is a problem, but "too much" is subjective. A
well-crafted paragraph may be just the thing, while two pages may be a
disaster and a minimal scene setting may be flat and empty.
Also, I think that Elmore Leonard's style suits the kind of spare
approach he advocates, but I wouldn't want everyone to follow in his
footsteps. I've read a number of books where I thought, "I like this
story, but I'd be more involved if the stage setting had more
character. Okay, we've reached another village, but tell me why this
village feels like a different place than the last village, or it
doesn't feel like we're going anywhere."
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
erilar
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> [ jump to conclusion: ]
>
> Of course, a writer of genius can get away with just about
> anything, and novelists are certainly entitled to write whatever
> they want. So too, though, are readers entitled to read whatever
> they want, including only the more interesting parts of the books
> in their hands. The most ravishing descriptions in the world are
> wasted if they aren't read in the first place. [Elmore Leonard's
> famous list of 10 rules for writing][1] ends with a rule that
> bears repeating: "Try to leave out the part that readers tend to
> skip." Is there any doubt that the most skipped parts of novels,
> even popular novels, are the descriptions of landscape and
> weather? The longer a novelist makes them, the more readers end
> up skipping, until it occurs to them to skip the whole thing
> altogether.
Another skippable thing is long, detailed, blow by blow description of a
whole series of battles. Just read an otherwise fairly good historical
novel(an OLD historical novel) which suffered terribly from that.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Wayne Throop
: Another skippable thing is long, detailed, blow by blow description of
: a whole series of battles. Just read an otherwise fairly good
: historical novel(an OLD historical novel) which suffered terribly from
: that.
Is there any historical case as bad as the Harringtonverse?
Is there anybody else who can make "they fired their guns and
the british kept a-coming. but there wasn't quite as many as there
was a while ago" last five or ten pages? (And then "they ran through
the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go" last another ten?)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Suzanne Blom
description that I "skip", which is to say let my eye roam down the page
without stopping at lines. I do pick up a word here and there and that
with the sensation of going somewhere and all the description I don't
skip helps the book's atmosphere.
Brenda Clough
All you need is some slush or student ms. There are PLENTY of stories
that are carrying twenty extra pounds of exposition.
Brenda
--
My latest novel SPEAK TO OUR DESIRES is available exclusively from Book
View Cafe.
http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Brenda-Clough/Novels/Speak-to-Our-Desires-Chapter-01
Brian M. Scott
<thr...@sheol.org> wrote in <news:12998...@sheol.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
>: erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>
>: Another skippable thing is long, detailed, blow by blow
>: description of a whole series of battles. Just read an
>: otherwise fairly good historical novel(an OLD historical
>: novel) which suffered terribly from that.
> Is there any historical case as bad as the Harringtonverse?
Or, depending on one's point of view, as good.
> Is there anybody else who can make "they fired their guns
> and the british kept a-coming. but there wasn't quite as
> many as there was a while ago" last five or ten pages?
> (And then "they ran through the bushes where a rabbit
> couldn't go" last another ten?)
There may be one or two, but offhand I can't think of any
battle description by Weber, however long and detailed, that
fits that description.
Brian
Robert A. Woodward
I did a quick check. The chase of the Sirius in _On Basilisk
Station_ lasted 3 chapters, a total of 45 pages. However, the
actual shooting was the last half of that and comprised of about 27
pages. The big battle in _At All Costs_ took 5 chapters, a total of
73 pages (though the preliminary maneuvers took up one chapter, so
only 4 chapters, 56 pages actually saw shooting). This was a truly
massive battle with at least 3 phases (arguably 4, maybe even 5),
so this is an analog to a description of the Battle of Waterloo
(which can run to a LOT of pages).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
More importantly, in a space military saga, presumably the battle is
one of the main draws. If you have a 65 chapter book that builds up to a
climactic battle and dispense with that battle in one chapter, your
customers may well feel cheated, and rightly so.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
erilar
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Well, in my case, I never skip Weber's battle details.
Bill Snyder
Me neither, but I also don't read them.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Robert Bannister
He certainly does battles very well, but does he write anything else
these days?
--
Rob Bannister
Brian M. Scott
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:8u2b46...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 12/03/11 10:32 PM, erilar wrote:
[...]
>> Well, in my case, I never skip Weber's battle details.
> He certainly does battles very well, but does he write
> anything else these days?
Certainly: interpersonal relations are always at least as
important in his books as battles. There's rarely a
shortage of intrigue of one sort or another, either. And
sometime this year we're supposed to get _A Beautiful
Friendship_, the first in a YA series focussing on Stephanie
Harrington, in which I doubt that battles will be front and
centre.
Brian
Ahasuerus
> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>
> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>
> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> than one literary novel
>
> By Laura Miller
> Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 16:01 ET
Hm. What about _Lord Valentine's Castle_, which had a lot of detailed
descriptions of forests, gardens, etc? It was an avowedly commercial
book, so Silverberg presumably thought that they would attract
readers. Judging by the fact that it was a success, he was right.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
IIRC, though, the actual COST of LVC turned out to be much higher than
the publisher originally thought.
However, I consider the entire book to be one of the most beautiful
things I've ever read, and makes me want to run downstairs and get it
out so I can read it again.
Ahasuerus
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/11 7:29 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 3:17 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
> >> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
> >> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>
> >> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>
> >> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> >> than one literary novel
>
> >> By Laura Miller
> >> Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 16:01 ET
> > [snip]
>
> > Hm. What about _Lord Valentine's Castle_, which had a lot of detailed
> > descriptions of forests, gardens, etc? It was an avowedly commercial
> > book, so Silverberg presumably thought that they would attract
> > readers. Judging by the fact that it was a success, he was right.
>
> IIRC, though, the actual COST of LVC turned out to be much
> higher than the publisher originally thought.
Well, it took a while to write. The first few drafts didn't go
anywhere.
> However, I consider the entire book to be one of the most beautiful
> things I've ever read, and makes me want to run downstairs and get it
> out so I can read it again.
Perhaps you first read it when it came out and you were still quite
young (late 1979-early 1980)? Even so, did you not find it more than a
little purple? An illicit child of C. L. Moore and H. P. Lovecraft
raised by A. Merritt in a jungle hut and fed a steady diet of _Planet
Stories_? Not that there is anything *wrong* with that, but...
Ilmari Karonen
>
> Also, I think that Elmore Leonard's style suits the kind of spare
> approach he advocates, but I wouldn't want everyone to follow in his
> footsteps. I've read a number of books where I thought, "I like this
> story, but I'd be more involved if the stage setting had more
> character. Okay, we've reached another village, but tell me why this
> village feels like a different place than the last village, or it
> doesn't feel like we're going anywhere."
At least from this reader's viewpoint, it's more a matter of "how
well" than of "how much". If all your villages are made of identical
cardboard cutouts, it doesn't matter how much you describe them.
Conversely, if they're genuinely different, the differences are likely
to show through even outside deliberate scenery descriptions.
--
Ilmari Karonen
To reply by e-mail, please replace ".invalid" with ".net" in address.
Brenda Clough
With one caveat: that the genuine differences in the villages are
actually important to the plot or character. If these villages are
indeed nothing but interchangeable backdrops that contribute nothing of
importance, then the less focus on them the better. Why waste the
reader's time on travelogue that will have no impact on the story?
Or better yet, combine them all into one slightly less uninteresting
village.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, I first read it many, many years later; I thought it was relatively
new at the time and didn't realize that it was something dating from my
high school years. I think I was in my 30s.
> Even so, did you not find it more than a
> little purple?
Golden, more. Doc Smith is purple -- well, ultraviolet, and exuberantly
so, and I love his stuff. But Lord Valentine's Castle is *beautiful* in
a way that Doc's work isn't.
Derek Lyons
>This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
>cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>
><http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
><http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>
> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>
> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> than one literary novel
That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
standards than the more ordinary ones.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Kurt Busiek
> On 3/13/2011 12:11 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>> On 2011-03-11, Kurt Busiek<ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I think that Elmore Leonard's style suits the kind of spare
>>> approach he advocates, but I wouldn't want everyone to follow in his
>>> footsteps. I've read a number of books where I thought, "I like this
>>> story, but I'd be more involved if the stage setting had more
>>> character. Okay, we've reached another village, but tell me why this
>>> village feels like a different place than the last village, or it
>>> doesn't feel like we're going anywhere."
>>
>> At least from this reader's viewpoint, it's more a matter of "how
>> well" than of "how much". If all your villages are made of identical
>> cardboard cutouts, it doesn't matter how much you describe them.
>> Conversely, if they're genuinely different, the differences are likely
>> to show through even outside deliberate scenery descriptions.
>
> With one caveat: that the genuine differences in the villages are
> actually important to the plot or character. If these villages are
> indeed nothing but interchangeable backdrops that contribute nothing of
> importance, then the less focus on them the better. Why waste the
> reader's time on travelogue that will have no impact on the story?
> Or better yet, combine them all into one slightly less uninteresting village.
Ultimately, it's all about character. The settings should have character,
the weather should have character, the people, their clothing, and so on.
And the story should reveal that character, to the extent that it serves
the story.
Whether it's terse or florid, intense or languid, reflective or pell-mell
with momentum, it'll work if it's interesting and serves the story. So on
that score, it's very much 'how well' over 'how much' -- and 'is it
important to plot or character' is a subset of 'how well.'
kdb
--
David DeLaney
>Ultimately, it's all about character. The settings should have character,
>the weather should have character, the people, their clothing, and so on.
>And the story should reveal that character, to the extent that it serves
>the story.
Pursuant to this aim, the third edition of the Nobilis RPG is available for
purchase now (though RIGHT now only in a signed edition and .pdf, the actual
physical edition will be within a month or two).
>Whether it's terse or florid, intense or languid, reflective or pell-mell
>with momentum, it'll work if it's interesting and serves the story. So on
>that score, it's very much 'how well' over 'how much' -- and 'is it
>important to plot or character' is a subset of 'how well.'
And of course how the various character(ization)s interact with each other
should have at least a bit of importance. If Old Man Muntz living on the edge
of the village is chock-full of character, and it's interestingly described,
it's still not a good thing if he never then interacts with the storyline(s).
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> Ultimately, it's all about character. The settings should have character,
>> the weather should have character, the people, their clothing, and so on.
>> And the story should reveal that character, to the extent that it serves
>> the story.
>
> Pursuant to this aim, the third edition of the Nobilis RPG is available for
> purchase now (though RIGHT now only in a signed edition and .pdf, the actual
> physical edition will be within a month or two).
What's the connection?
>> Whether it's terse or florid, intense or languid, reflective or pell-mell
>> with momentum, it'll work if it's interesting and serves the story. So on
>> that score, it's very much 'how well' over 'how much' -- and 'is it
>> important to plot or character' is a subset of 'how well.'
>
> And of course how the various character(ization)s interact with each other
> should have at least a bit of importance. If Old Man Muntz living on the edge
> of the village is chock-full of character, and it's interestingly described,
> it's still not a good thing if he never then interacts with the storyline(s).
That doesn't seem to me to be an addition so much as a restatement of what
Brenda said -- included above as "...and serves the story."
Ahasuerus
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/11 9:34 PM, Ahasuerus wrote: [snip]
> > Even so, did you not find it more than a little purple?
>
> Golden, more. Doc Smith is purple -- well, ultraviolet, and exuberantly
> so, and I love his stuff. But Lord Valentine's Castle is *beautiful* in
> a way that Doc's work isn't.
Apparently, a lot of readers agreed and Majipoor remains Silverberg's
most popular creation. Which should be punishment enough for going
commercial. (At least Jack Vance didn't sue :-)
BTW, here is Silverberg's take on the issue of "scenery" (http://
www.asimovs.com/_issue_1003/ref.shtml):
Science fiction seems to require such commentary, because so much of
it deals with unfamiliar worlds far removed from ours in space or
time. One can drop one’s characters down in modern-day New York or
London or in a pine forest in Spain and let readers shift for
themselves, and sooner or later they will figure things out, but when
the readers are presented with the New York of AD 3874, or with a
starship arriving on Betelgeuse XVI, it does appear useful to give the
reader a few hints about what’s what in those strange surroundings.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Mar 13, 12:58 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 9:34 PM, Ahasuerus wrote: [snip]
>>> Even so, did you not find it more than a little purple?
>>
>> Golden, more. Doc Smith is purple -- well, ultraviolet, and exuberantly
>> so, and I love his stuff. But Lord Valentine's Castle is *beautiful* in
>> a way that Doc's work isn't.
>
> Apparently, a lot of readers agreed and Majipoor remains Silverberg's
> most popular creation. Which should be punishment enough for going
> commercial.
He still seemed very happy with it when I saw him at Worldcon a few
years back; specifically, when I had him autograph it I said "I re-read
this one a lot, because it always makes me happy to read." and he leaned
across to me and said quietly, with a smile, "Sometimes I do, too."
Mike Schilling
"Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote in message
news:7adc3648-084f-4246...@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 12:58 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> Apparently, a lot of readers agreed and Majipoor remains Silverberg's
> most popular creation. Which should be punishment enough for going
> commercial. (At least Jack Vance didn't sue :-)
It's a big planet, but it's not Big Planet.
My impression of LVC was "There's no suspense here. Valentine is going to
survive every peril and regain his true position. Yawn." I finished it,
but have never had any urge to reread it.
Mike Schilling
----------------------------------------------------------
It was a crisp and spicy morning in early October. The lilacs and laburnums,
lit with the glory-fires of autumn, hung burning and flashing in the upper
air, a fairy bridge provided by kind Nature for the wingless wild things
that have their homes in the tree-tops and would visit together; the larch
and the pomegranate flung their purple and yellow flames in brilliant broad
splashes along the slanting sweep of the woodland; the sensuous fragrance of
innumerable deciduous flowers rose upon the swooning atmosphere; far in the
empty sky a solitary esophagus slept upon motionless wing; everywhere
brooded stillness, serenity, and the peace of God.
----------------------------------------------------------
(Mike, again) If you ran across this paragraph in a story, you would let
your eyes glide along it, recognizing that the words all made sense
individually and were attempting to draw some sort of picture you couldn't
be bothered to construct, up until you got to "esophagus", which would bring
you up short. You might wonder briefly whether that word had a meaning you
were unfamiliar with, and then reread from the beginning, to see if it made
more sense in context. And, now that you're paying attention, you realize
that the whole thing is nonsense from start to finish, but without the
one-word clue Twain was kind enough to provide, you would never have known
it, and might even recall vaguely that the story contained some very pretty
word-painting.
Mike Schilling
Brian M. Scott
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:3e9ade1b-ddf7-4745...@p11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Mar 12, 7:46 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 7:29 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
[...]
>>> Hm. What about _Lord Valentine's Castle_, which had a
>>> lot of detailed descriptions of forests, gardens, etc?
>>> It was an avowedly commercial book, so Silverberg
>>> presumably thought that they would attract readers.
>>> Judging by the fact that it was a success, he was
>>> right.
[...]
>> However, I consider the entire book to be one of
>> the most beautiful things I've ever read, and makes me
>> want to run downstairs and get it out so I can read it
>> again.
I'd not go that far, but it and the other Majipoor books are
certainly the most readable of his novels. My reaction was
that he does a pretty good Vance.
> Perhaps you first read it when it came out and you were
> still quite young (late 1979-early 1980)? Even so, did
> you not find it more than a little purple? An illicit
> child of C. L. Moore and H. P. Lovecraft raised by A.
> Merritt in a jungle hut and fed a steady diet of _Planet
> Stories_? Not that there is anything *wrong* with that,
> but...
No; at most I'd call it a bit lush. (I did read it when it
came out, but I was then in my early 30s.)
Brian
Ahasuerus
wrote:
> "Ahasuerus" <ahasue...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7adc3648-084f-4246...@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 13, 12:58 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > Apparently, a lot of readers agreed and Majipoor remains Silverberg's
> > most popular creation. Which should be punishment enough for going
> > commercial. (At least Jack Vance didn't sue :-)
>
> It's a big planet, but it's not Big Planet.
Sort of (http://www.hourwolf.com/chats/silverberg.html) :
"Vance was an influence so far as the design of the planet was
concerned -- I borrowed his Big Planet concept, though I designed my
own."
But it's more than the Big Planet concept. To quote Jon Davis, the
maintainer of the Quasi-Official Silverberg site (http://
www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=677):
"it reminds me of Jack Vance's writing: a boggle of invention, all
described colorfully, with characters romping from one quirky society
to the next."
Personally, I thought that Silverberg did an OK job of channeling
Vance, but deep inside it wasn't his "thing", so the result felt
artificial. And the constant reminders that the world was "huge, huge,
I am telling you!" and full of wonders were irritating -- the old
"show vs. tell" problem.
> My impression of LVC was "There's no suspense here. Valentine is going
> to survive every peril and regain his true position. Yawn." I finished it,
> but have never had any urge to reread it.
It was a bit of a letdown after his virtuoso (if occasionally
overwrought) New Wave period in the late 1960s and 1970s. But hey, it
worked for many people, including Locus voters -- http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ay.cgi?Lc1981
Mike Schilling
>> My impression of LVC was "There's no suspense here. Valentine is going
>> to survive every peril and regain his true position. Yawn." I finished
>> it,
>> but have never had any urge to reread it.
>
> It was a bit of a letdown after his virtuoso (if occasionally
> overwrought) New Wave period in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Exactly. From The Time Hoppers till Dying Inside, he was the most
consistently brilliant novelist in SF.
William December Starr
Brenda Clough <Brenda...@yahoo.com> said:
> With one caveat: that the genuine differences in the villages are
> actually important to the plot or character. If these villages
> are indeed nothing but interchangeable backdrops that contribute
> nothing of importance, then the less focus on them the better.
> Why waste the reader's time on travelogue that will have no impact
> on the story? Or better yet, combine them all into one slightly
> less uninteresting village.
"Over the summer we passed through a series of villages: Oxnow,
Rothbard, Demier, Far Demier, Nottcott, and I can't remember the
names of the rest. Nottcott was interesting in that for some reason
the streets were set up in a radiating-circles-and-spokes
configuration with (of course) a church at the middle; other than
that they were equally forgettable."
-- wds
William December Starr
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> (Mike, again) If you ran across this paragraph in a story, you
> would let your eyes glide along it, recognizing that the words all
> made sense individually and were attempting to draw some sort of
> picture you couldn't be bothered to construct, up until you got to
> "esophagus", which would bring you up short. You might wonder
> briefly whether that word had a meaning you were unfamiliar with,
> and then reread from the beginning, to see if it made more sense
> in context. And, now that you're paying attention, you realize
> that the whole thing is nonsense from start to finish, but without
> the one-word clue Twain was kind enough to provide, you would
> never have known it, and might even recall vaguely that the story
> contained some very pretty word-painting.
Alas, as is always a risk for parodists the parody of crap X --
prose, in this case -- was so much like real crap X that my eyes
glazed over it. I didn't know there was the word "esophagus" in
there until you mentioned it, and even then, I had to use my
editor's 'find' fnction to locate it.
-- wds
William December Starr
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> My impression of [Lord Valentine's Castle] was "There's no
> suspense here. Valentine is going to survive every peril and
> regain his true position. Yawn." I finished it, but have
> never had any urge to reread it.
Me too, with a side order of "You know, juggling is neither as
cool nor as interesting as the author apparently wishes us to
believe."
-- wds
William December Starr
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> "Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote
>
>> It was a bit of a letdown after [Silverberg's] virtuoso (if
>> occasionally overwrought) New Wave period in the late 1960s and
>> 1970s.
>
> Exactly. From The Time Hoppers till Dying Inside, he was the most
> consistently brilliant novelist in SF.
Hmm, would DYING INSIDE be a contender over in the "most depressing
sf novel" thread? I don't know, because I gave up early into it
because it seemed, er, too depressing.
-- wds
Brenda Clough
> Kurt Busiek<ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> Ultimately, it's all about character. The settings should have character,
>> the weather should have character, the people, their clothing, and so on.
>> And the story should reveal that character, to the extent that it serves
>> the story.
>
> Pursuant to this aim, the third edition of the Nobilis RPG is available for
> purchase now (though RIGHT now only in a signed edition and .pdf, the actual
> physical edition will be within a month or two).
>
>> Whether it's terse or florid, intense or languid, reflective or pell-mell
>> with momentum, it'll work if it's interesting and serves the story. So on
>> that score, it's very much 'how well' over 'how much' -- and 'is it
>> important to plot or character' is a subset of 'how well.'
>
> And of course how the various character(ization)s interact with each other
> should have at least a bit of importance. If Old Man Muntz living on the edge
> of the village is chock-full of character, and it's interestingly described,
> it's still not a good thing if he never then interacts with the storyline(s).
>
> Dave
Yes -- the "Tom Bombadil" problem. Also a thrilling and deep venue that
the story never returns to, and that has no impact on the characters, is
a waste of page and word.
Ideally, in a story, the important things get more page time. The more
impportant -- to plot and character -- the more wordage. The less
important an item is, the less you see of it, until by the time you get
to the cattle naming traditions of the Elf Lords and the type of
patterns they preferred on their drawing-room carpets, it gets no pages
at all and is demoted to vol. 9 of your notes.
Brenda Clough
It is also perfectly appropriate to summarize, "After a summer of
tedious slogging across the prairie, dining on the native cuisine of
RingDings, Doritos and HoHos, we were glad to get back to the Realms of
Man."
Wayne Throop
: Alas, as is always a risk for parodists the parody of crap X -- prose,
: in this case -- was so much like real crap X that my eyes glazed over
: it. I didn't know there was the word "esophagus" in there until you
: mentioned it, and even then, I had to use my editor's 'find' fnction
: to locate it.
Eh. I noted it easily enough, even though mine eyes glazed over.
In such buckets of purple, I tend to look around for the point of such
passages towards the end, even while skipping most of the verbiage,
and that's pretty much where the esophagus was lurking.
Just the two of us
In an esophagus
It's time to get this mission rolling
I don't wanna make a fuss
But that was the pancreas
Slow down before we reach the colon
On the Hemoglobin Highway
In a mini submarine
If you're going my way
You'll see what I mean
Hang a left at the spleen
--- Phineas and Ferb, "Hemoglobin Highway"
from "Journey to the Center of Candace"
"Creepy on *so* many levels" --- Ferb
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mike Schilling
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:iljef9$k1$1...@panix1.panix.com...
Sort of like the poison that isn't deadly only because it quickly induces
vomiting.
Robert Bannister
I certainly agree with "how well" part. Just to pick on one word: what
exactly is meant by "village"? A village in England is not the same as a
village in Africa or a village in Japan (ignoring the many internal
differences in those areas), and some countries don't even use a word
like "village" at all, considering even the smallest hamlet to be a
"town". So in/on an alien world, if it is to feel truly alien, some
description is vital.
Clever authors seem to be able to use fewer words - a few brush-strokes
hint at the broader picture, which is revealed in more detail, little by
little as the story progresses. I also feel characters are best
described by their actions and a very few, well-chosen words. Yesterday,
I read "Her eyes were large with pupils the color of newly-turned, rich
soil" - this immediately gave me a picture of eyes that were moist,
slightly red and full of retreating worms, which is probably not quite
what the author intended - perhaps the soil round her way isn't red and
contains no worms; perhaps it is grey or yellowish - who knows?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Well, put. I had never really worked out why I so disliked the Tom
Bombadil episode. I loved your "cattle naming traditions" - some writers
really do go into that kind of thing.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:41:07 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> <news:8u2b46...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On 12/03/11 10:32 PM, erilar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Well, in my case, I never skip Weber's battle details.
>
>> He certainly does battles very well, but does he write
>> anything else these days?
>
> Certainly: interpersonal relations are always at least as
> important in his books as battles. There's rarely a
> shortage of intrigue of one sort or another, either. And
> sometime this year we're supposed to get _A Beautiful
> Friendship_, the first in a YA series focussing on Stephanie
> Harrington, in which I doubt that battles will be front and
> centre.
Something to look forward to then.
--
Rob Bannister
Brian M. Scott
<Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:iljf5k$vga$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Yes -- the "Tom Bombadil" problem. Also a thrilling and
> deep venue that the story never returns to, and that has
> no impact on the characters, is a waste of page and
> word.
Nonsense. It's an early stage of the hobbits' exposure to
the dangerous world outside the Shire, one of the first
steps in a long process of change. It also throws
additional light on one of the most interesting characters
in the book, Middle Earth itself. It's precisely that sort
of 'unnecessary' detail that makes Middle Earth more
substantial than most creations.
Brian
Robert Bannister
> On Mar 13, 12:58 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 9:34 PM, Ahasuerus wrote: [snip]
>>> Even so, did you not find it more than a little purple?
>>
>> Golden, more. Doc Smith is purple -- well, ultraviolet, and exuberantly
>> so, and I love his stuff. But Lord Valentine's Castle is *beautiful* in
>> a way that Doc's work isn't.
>
> Apparently, a lot of readers agreed and Majipoor remains Silverberg's
> most popular creation. Which should be punishment enough for going
> commercial. (At least Jack Vance didn't sue :-)
>
> BTW, here is Silverberg's take on the issue of "scenery" (http://
> www.asimovs.com/_issue_1003/ref.shtml):
Thank you for giving us the link to that excellent article.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Does every story require suspense? I thoroughly enjoyed the first two
books of "Majipoor" - it dragged a bit towards the end of the series.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
>> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
>> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>>
>> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>>
>> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
>> than one literary novel
>
> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
> standards than the more ordinary ones.
Is this the definition where "literary" equals "boring"? Regrettably,
this is too often the case, but certainly not always.
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Schilling
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:8u51m...@mid.individual.net...
> On 14/03/11 3:21 AM, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:7adc3648-084f-4246...@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 13, 12:58 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>> Apparently, a lot of readers agreed and Majipoor remains Silverberg's
>>> most popular creation. Which should be punishment enough for going
>>> commercial. (At least Jack Vance didn't sue :-)
>>
>> It's a big planet, but it's not Big Planet.
>>
>> My impression of LVC was "There's no suspense here. Valentine is going
>> to survive every peril and regain his true position. Yawn." I finished
>> it, but have never had any urge to reread it.
>
> Does every story require suspense?
If it's an adventure story where the hero is constantly braving dangers, I
find it does help for the dangers to feel somewhat, well, dangerous.
Mike Schilling
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:16i485ttg6e5b.1svm81razq2g0$.dlg@40tude.net...
And it stops the story dead in its tracks before it's had much of a chance
to get going.
Brian M. Scott
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:iljm37$m9b$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
For some readers it apparently does. I've never really
understood this reaction, though: to me it was (and is)
obviously part of the story.
Brian
Brenda Clough
I am very sad to report that JRRT did exactly that. He was a
world-class procastinator, and when a farmer wrote in to him asking if
it was okay to name the prize Hereford bull "Elrond" he spent a couple
days working out what cattle are named in all the Elvish tongues, before
writing the fan back. It's in LETTERS OF JRRT. And yes, he did the
carpet designs too -- anything to avoid actually writing. His editors
were a long-suffering lot.
Brenda Clough
The fact that it is not obvious to -everybody- is a problem. If it is
so important to the work, we should not be able to so easily overlook
that importance. Do we debate the importance of Anduril to the work, or
the inheritance of the rulers of Gondor?
Robert Carnegie
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> On 2011-03-11, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
> >
> > Also, I think that Elmore Leonard's style suits the kind of spare
> > approach he advocates, but I wouldn't want everyone to follow in his
> > footsteps. I've read a number of books where I thought, "I like this
> > story, but I'd be more involved if the stage setting had more
> > character. Okay, we've reached another village, but tell me why this
> > village feels like a different place than the last village, or it
> > doesn't feel like we're going anywhere."
>
> At least from this reader's viewpoint, it's more a matter of "how
> well" than of "how much". If all your villages are made of identical
> cardboard cutouts, it doesn't matter how much you describe them.
> Conversely, if they're genuinely different, the differences are likely
> to show through even outside deliberate scenery descriptions.
Real places are all different for reasons of geography and economics,
although not necessarily very much different. Imaginary places are
different from one another if the writer makes them so, and in a
certain type of book, villages are likely to exist to provide the
heroes with somewhere to sleep indoors each night as they walk or ride
across a great continent, and for local farm workers, much the same
plus the chance to see the faces of sophonts and get drunk with
them.
And they may be, for instance, the place where the heroes happen to be
when someone mentions something significant, but not particularly
because of where they are.
erilar
fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> >This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
> >cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
> >
> ><http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
> ><http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
> >
> > Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
> >
> > Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> > than one literary novel
>
> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
> standards than the more ordinary ones.
For me, "literary" applied to an example of any genre I like is the kiss
of death. It tends to mean "consciously literary and lacking in plot
and/or characterization"
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> Ultimately, it's all about character. The settings should have character,
>>> the weather should have character, the people, their clothing, and so on.
>>> And the story should reveal that character, to the extent that it serves
>>> the story.
>>
>> Pursuant to this aim, the third edition of the Nobilis RPG is available for
>> purchase now (though RIGHT now only in a signed edition and .pdf, the actual
>> physical edition will be within a month or two).
>
One of the things about Mythic Earth, in that game, is that everything DOES
have character, and personality, and can be interacted with if you focus
on it enough. As though they were people, though a great many of them would
be VERY odd people in normal Prosaic Earth. You can use a miracle to try to
cause opponent's gun to misfire - or you can have a quick talk with the cylinder
mechanism and see if you can persuade it to decide to go in squares rather than
circles, or possibly the particular wind passing between you two will owe you
a favor and agree to carry the bullets off for Happy Fun Cliff Playtime.
And the storytelling part of the RPG is enriched thereby, I think.
>>> Whether it's terse or florid, intense or languid, reflective or pell-mell
>>> with momentum, it'll work if it's interesting and serves the story. So on
>>> that score, it's very much 'how well' over 'how much' -- and 'is it
>>> important to plot or character' is a subset of 'how well.'
>>
>> And of course how the various character(ization)s interact with each other
>> should have at least a bit of importance. If Old Man Muntz living on the edge
>> of the village is chock-full of character, and it's interestingly described,
>> it's still not a good thing if he never then interacts with the storyline(s).
>
>That doesn't seem to me to be an addition so much as a restatement of what
>Brenda said -- included above as "...and serves the story."
Hmmm okay. Perhaps it works an expansion or clarification of that bit?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
erilar
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Funny I never noticed that.
Brian M. Scott
<Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:iljon9$ibd$2...@news.eternal-september.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>> [...]
> The fact that it is not obvious to -everybody- is a problem.
Only to those to whom it is not obvious. Why on earth would
you expect it to be obvious to every reader?!
> If it is so important to the work, we should not be able
> to so easily overlook that importance.
You're moving the goalposts. I did not say that it was 'so
important'; I said that far from being a waste of page and
word, it serves a useful narrative purpose and adds
something worthwhile to the work.
> Do we debate the importance of Anduril to the work, or
> the inheritance of the rulers of Gondor?
I've no idea, but one could certainly do so with about as
much justification. Or the ents.
Brian
Mike Schilling
"erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:drache-ED1DDB....@news.eternal-september.org...
It's such a good book in so many ways that many of its faults as a story are
easy to overlook, for instance:
The book is named after Sauron, but he's offstage for the whole thing except
for the moment just preceding his fall. And we never do learn anything
about his motives, other than being Evil. He's a completely faceless
villain.
Gandalf suspects right away that Bilbo's found one of the Rings of Power,
and probably the One, but he lets that go for 70 years or so before doing
anything about it. (Admittedly, that comes from bad continuity. In The
Hobbit-verse, wizards and magical rings are a dime a dozen. In the
LOTR-verse, there are 5 and 20 respectively.)
The Nazgul have been set up as the scariest and baddest of the bad guys, yet
they disappear from the story post-Rivendell (until the final battle,
anyway. And that was just the chief one: where are the other eight?)
Forced to choose between going after Frodo and Sam, in whose hands are The
Fate Of The World, and the other two hobbits, who are just these guys,
Aragorn and company choose the latter.
Howard Brazee
<Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>With one caveat: that the genuine differences in the villages are
>actually important to the plot or character. If these villages are
>indeed nothing but interchangeable backdrops that contribute nothing of
>importance, then the less focus on them the better. Why waste the
>reader's time on travelogue that will have no impact on the story?
>Or better yet, combine them all into one slightly less uninteresting
>village.
Sometimes a character's development can be shown well even with
unchanging backdrops which he interacts with.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Eh. I noted it easily enough, even though mine eyes glazed over.
>In such buckets of purple, I tend to look around for the point of such
>passages towards the end, even while skipping most of the verbiage,
>and that's pretty much where the esophagus was lurking.
Two Songs:
1. On the Amazon, by Don McLean:
There's a danger zone, not a stranger zone
Than the little plot I walk on that I call my home
Full of eerie sights, weird and skeery sights
Ev'ry vicious animal that creeps and crawls and bites!!
On the Amazon, the prophylactics prowl On the Amazon, the hypodermics
howl On
the Amazon, you'll hear a scarab scowl and sting zodiacs on the wing
All the stalactites and vicious vertebrae
Hunt the stalagmites while laryngitis slay
All that parasites that come from Paraguay in the spring
Hmm, hmm hmmm
Snarling equinox among the rocks will seize you
And the fahrenheit comes out at night to freeze you
Wild duodenum are lurking in the trees
And the jungle swarms with green apostrophes
Oh, the Amazon is calling me
On the Amazon, the pax vobiscum bite
On the Amazon, the epiglottis fight
On the Amazon, the hemispheres at night all slink where the agnostics
drink
All the hippodromes that lie concealed in mud
Hunt the metronomes that live in swamp and flood
Then the kodachromes run out and drink their blood, poor ginks
While velocipedes among the weeds will scare you
And the menopause with hungry jaws ensnares you
Frenzied adenoids infest the hills and slopes
Everyone avoids the deadly stethoscopes
Oh, the Amazon is calling
Yes, the Amazon is calling
Oh, the Amazon is calling me-ee!!
And more on topic:
Stream Of Consciousness Blues, by Steven Brust:
Word association footballs
to the wallflower bedroom
eyes of the world will
one by wonder who it who cries
tears of salt and pepper
hair brain schematic circuit views
from every sidewalk surfing
down the stream of consciousness blues.
Baby bunting down the first base on the coke ads
life insurance premiums are
do be do you know my wife
married to my job security guard
your assets, debits, dues,
payable up stream of consciousness blues.
You'd better take it bacteriological result,
is outside my field
cause I may throw or consult a shrink
or else I might lose my mind your P's or Q's
and get those floating
down the stream of consciousness blues.
Ę
I've been reading Carlos casting bread
upon the water works as well as any other wise guy
drinking Scotch and soda jerks ate an
Ęice cream Sunday paper cut
blood read the news and
got those floating gently
down the stream of consciousness blues.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Starr) wrote:
>In article <ilj5ge$sl3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> My impression of [Lord Valentine's Castle] was "There's no
>> suspense here. Valentine is going to survive every peril and
>> regain his true position. Yawn." I finished it, but have
>> never had any urge to reread it.
>
>Me too, with a side order of "You know, juggling is neither as
>cool nor as interesting as the author apparently wishes us to
>believe."
Yeah, I basically saw the entire plot coming from the first couple of
pages. I read it anyway, hoping that Silverberg would surprise me,
but he didn't.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.ethshar.com/TheFinalCalling01.html
Moriarty
wrote:
> "erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
<flaws in LOTR>
> > Funny I never noticed that.
>
> It's such a good book in so many ways that many of its faults as a story are
> easy to overlook, for instance:
>
> The book is named after Sauron, but he's offstage for the whole thing except
> for the moment just preceding his fall. And we never do learn anything
> about his motives, other than being Evil. He's a completely faceless
> villain.
>
> Gandalf suspects right away that Bilbo's found one of the Rings of Power,
> and probably the One, but he lets that go for 70 years or so before doing
> anything about it. (Admittedly, that comes from bad continuity. In The
> Hobbit-verse, wizards and magical rings are a dime a dozen. In the
> LOTR-verse, there are 5 and 20 respectively.)
>
> The Nazgul have been set up as the scariest and baddest of the bad guys, yet
> they disappear from the story post-Rivendell (until the final battle,
> anyway. And that was just the chief one: where are the other eight?)
>
> Forced to choose between going after Frodo and Sam, in whose hands are The
> Fate Of The World, and the other two hobbits, who are just these guys,
> Aragorn and company choose the latter.
Gandalf is surprised to find a Balrog in Moria. The "Ai! Ai! A Balrog
is come!" makes great drama but zero sense.
-Moriarty
Derek Lyons
This is the definition where "literarly" means "appeal to
critics/guardians who proclaim the emperors new clothes wonderful, and
the legions of synchophants who agree with them".
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Mike Schilling
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d7e9989....@news.supernews.com...
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>On 14/03/11 1:13 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
>>>> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
>>>> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>>>>
>>>> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>>>>
>>>> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
>>>> than one literary novel
>>>
>>> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
>>> standards than the more ordinary ones.
>>
>>Is this the definition where "literary" equals "boring"? Regrettably,
>>this is too often the case, but certainly not always.
>
> This is the definition where "literarly" means "appeal to
> critics/guardians who proclaim the emperors new clothes wonderful, and
> the legions of synchophants who agree with them".
That is, the paranoid fear the the academics are trying to take away our
right to read anything they disapprove of, combined with the inability to
appreciate anything that's unfamiliar and the unwillingness to believe that
books can do anything other than what Doc Smith, Heinlein, and Tolkien did.
Ran Garoo
If I could continue an interaction with any of the Ring
personalities, Bombadil would be highest on my list.
All the regular Dramatis Personae serve their purpose, but
don't really have much beyond their designated story.
I suspect even for JRR Bombadil had many more beginnings
than endings.
Derek Lyons
To put it simply, no. You confuse a creation of your own with
something I said. Back to the foot of line and try again.
Ken from Chicago
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ile012$8dl$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>
> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>
> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> than one literary novel
<snip>
Ah, is the genre novel considered a "literary novel"?
In SF, the setting tends to have a far greater role than contemporary or
even historical fiction. A city is a city, a pick up truck is a pick up
truck, a horse is a horse, an Old West saloon is an Old West saloon, a ninja
is a ninja, a knight is a knight.
But what's a city on planet Krypton or planet Aurora or 31st century Earth
like? The setting is far more important.
Then again, considering the flood of contemporary fantasy / urban fantasy /
paranormal romance that are set in contemporary times, then setting isn't so
important except when it differs from the norm (e.g., an elf driving a mack
truck, an alien levitating a bike, etc.).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Brenda Clough" <Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iljf5k$vga$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 3/13/2011 2:17 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek<ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> Ultimately, it's all about character. The settings should have
>>> character,
>>> the weather should have character, the people, their clothing, and so
>>> on.
>>> And the story should reveal that character, to the extent that it serves
>>> the story.
>>
>> Pursuant to this aim, the third edition of the Nobilis RPG is available
>> for
>> purchase now (though RIGHT now only in a signed edition and .pdf, the
>> actual
>> physical edition will be within a month or two).
>>
>>> Whether it's terse or florid, intense or languid, reflective or
>>> pell-mell
>>> with momentum, it'll work if it's interesting and serves the story. So
>>> on
>>> that score, it's very much 'how well' over 'how much' -- and 'is it
>>> important to plot or character' is a subset of 'how well.'
>>
>> And of course how the various character(ization)s interact with each
>> other
>> should have at least a bit of importance. If Old Man Muntz living on the
>> edge
>> of the village is chock-full of character, and it's interestingly
>> described,
>> it's still not a good thing if he never then interacts with the
>> storyline(s).
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> Yes -- the "Tom Bombadil" problem. Also a thrilling and deep venue that
> the story never returns to, and that has no impact on the characters, is a
> waste of page and word.
Ah, the tyranny of Chekov's Gun. In travelogue style of story, characters
can come across people, places and events that don't pertain to the
overarcing plot and act as an "intermission" from the main arc of the story.
They are nice in a world-building way, showing there are other stuff going
on than what's directly affecting Our Heroes.
Altho the key is moderation or proportionality. In a novel, a chapter or
several chapters of "intermission" can be refreshing, but in a novella or
short(er) story you lack the space for such diversions.
> Ideally, in a story, the important things get more page time. The more
> impportant -- to plot and character -- the more wordage. The less
> important an item is, the less you see of it, until by the time you get to
> the cattle naming traditions of the Elf Lords and the type of patterns
> they preferred on their drawing-room carpets, it gets no pages at all and
> is demoted to vol. 9 of your notes.
>
> Brenda
>
> --
> My latest novel SPEAK TO OUR DESIRES is available exclusively from Book
> View Cafe.
> http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Brenda-Clough/Novels/Speak-to-Our-Desires-Chapter-01
But what if I REALLY wanna know how cattle named the Elf Lords and picked
out the style of carpeting used in their drawing rooms?
Fortunately in an online age it's easy to post such notes, the "Extended
edition", for fans of stories to get the "behind the scenes" look at the
settings and world-building used for a given story.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:drache-324E9D....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <ile012$8dl$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> [ jump to conclusion: ]
>>
>> Of course, a writer of genius can get away with just about
>> anything, and novelists are certainly entitled to write whatever
>> they want. So too, though, are readers entitled to read whatever
>> they want, including only the more interesting parts of the books
>> in their hands. The most ravishing descriptions in the world are
>> wasted if they aren't read in the first place. [Elmore Leonard's
>> famous list of 10 rules for writing][1] ends with a rule that
>> bears repeating: "Try to leave out the part that readers tend to
>> skip." Is there any doubt that the most skipped parts of novels,
>> even popular novels, are the descriptions of landscape and
>> weather? The longer a novelist makes them, the more readers end
>> up skipping, until it occurs to them to skip the whole thing
>> altogether.
>
> Another skippable thing is long, detailed, blow by blow description of a
> whole series of battles. Just read an otherwise fairly good historical
> novel(an OLD historical novel) which suffered terribly from that.
>
> --
> Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
>
>
> http://www.mosaictelecom.com/~erilarlo
I didn't know Laurel Hamilton wrote historical novels. Nothing like taking a
page to describe creeping up the stairs to enter one's apartment.
-- Ken from Chicago
Robert Carnegie
>
> >>> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
> >>> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>
> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
> >>> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>
> >>> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>
> >>> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> >>> than one literary novel
>
> >> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
> >> standards than the more ordinary ones.
>
> >Is this the definition where "literary" equals "boring"? Regrettably,
> >this is too often the case, but certainly not always.
>
> This is the definition where "literarly" means "appeal to
> critics/guardians who proclaim the emperors new clothes wonderful, and
> the legions of synchophants who agree with them".
I suspect that if something interesting happens in a book -
interesting if you don't already came about the characters - then it
isn't literary. For instance, a murder is interesting. Having a baby
isn't interesting. What I mean is, if you heard it was happening
across the street to someone you don't know, would you look?
And that is why science fiction isn't literary.
I suppose literary fiction is a refined taste which some ancient Greek
philosopher, I forget which, would have approved of, but unrefined
tastes are more fun and generally cheaper, although more often
unhealthy.
Chris
> On 3/13/2011 8:24 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:05:00 -0700, Mike Schilling
> > <news:iljm37$m9b$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
> > rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> >> "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> >>news:16i485ttg6e5b.1svm81razq2g0$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> >>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:06:31 -0400, Brenda Clough
I found the Bombadil episode really interesting, and I think it did
serve essential plot elements- and it had the potential to do more
(sadly, that potential was never realized). First, and most important,
it got the Hobbits out of a really nasty scrape with the wight. There
_had_ to be some sort of significant danger for Merry to get the sword
that helped strike down the Witch-King- it surely would not have been
credible to find an ancient Numenorean blade in a pawn shop in Bree.
Second, in the Old Forest, we're introduced to semi-animate trees. Old
Man Willow strikes me as a sort of degenerate Ent- the type that
Treebeard says has gone bad.
And the Ent situation seemed like it could have been resolved through
Bombadil. IIRC at the beginning of the FotR, Sam mentions a cousin in
the North Farthing who claimed to have seen a walking tree- obviously
an Entwife. If prodded, Bombadil could have been the vehicle that
reunites the Entwives with the Ents.
Sadly, it didn't happen- and I never could figure out why Sam never
mentioned it to Treebeard later.
Chris
William December Starr
Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> said:
> I found the Bombadil episode really interesting, and I think it
> did serve essential plot elements- and it had the potential to do
> more (sadly, that potential was never realized). First, and most
> important, it got the Hobbits out of a really nasty scrape with
> the wight. There _had_ to be some sort of significant danger for
> Merry to get the sword that helped strike down the Witch-King- it
> surely would not have been credible to find an ancient Numenorean
> blade in a pawn shop in Bree.
The problem is, sometimes a storyteller has a situation where there
is _no_ good way to make X happen. And when that happens, using a
not-so-good way doesn't really help.
-- wds
William December Starr
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> said:
> Gandalf is surprised to find a Balrog in Moria. The "Ai! Ai! A
> Balrog is come!" makes great drama but zero sense.
Can it be interpreted as "Oh fuck, I was hoping we wouldn't -- oh
well"?
-- wds
William December Starr
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> Ah, the tyranny of Chekov's Gun.
The Russian writer's name is, I believe, almost universally
transliterated as Chekhov. Chekov-without-the-second-h is the
Star Trek character.
-- wds
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
> Ah, the tyranny of Chekov's Gun.
This one?
<http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitleurwof45r56ea>
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Howard Brazee
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I suspect that if something interesting happens in a book -
>interesting if you don't already came about the characters - then it
>isn't literary. For instance, a murder is interesting. Having a baby
>isn't interesting. What I mean is, if you heard it was happening
>across the street to someone you don't know, would you look?
Are you implying that you'd go look at a murder and not at a
childbirth, or visa versa?
Richard R. Hershberger
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/11 1:49 AM, Robert A. Woodward wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article<1gtk7j9tavqv1$.ws6l195vuwry$....@40tude.net>,
> > "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:48:16 GMT, Wayne Throop
> >> <thro...@sheol.org> wrote in<news:12998...@sheol.org> in
> >> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> >>> : erilar<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>
>
> >>> : Another skippable thing is long, detailed, blow by blow
> >>> : description of a whole series of battles. Just read an
> >>> : otherwise fairly good historical novel(an OLD historical
> >>> : novel) which suffered terribly from that.
>
>
> >> Or, depending on one's point of view, as good.
>
> >>> Is there anybody else who can make "they fired their guns
> >>> and the british kept a-coming. but there wasn't quite as
> >>> many as there was a while ago" last five or ten pages?
> >>> (And then "they ran through the bushes where a rabbit
> >>> couldn't go" last another ten?)
>
> >> There may be one or two, but offhand I can't think of any
> >> battle description by Weber, however long and detailed, that
> >> fits that description.
>
> > I did a quick check. The chase of the Sirius in _On Basilisk
> > Station_ lasted 3 chapters, a total of 45 pages. However, the
> > actual shooting was the last half of that and comprised of about 27
> > pages. The big battle in _At All Costs_ took 5 chapters, a total of
> > 73 pages (though the preliminary maneuvers took up one chapter, so
> > only 4 chapters, 56 pages actually saw shooting). This was a truly
> > massive battle with at least 3 phases (arguably 4, maybe even 5),
> > so this is an analog to a description of the Battle of Waterloo
> > (which can run to a LOT of pages).
>
> More importantly, in a space military saga, presumably the battle is
> one of the main draws. If you have a 65 chapter book that builds up to a
> climactic battle and dispense with that battle in one chapter, your
> customers may well feel cheated, and rightly so.
Counter-example: Pat O'Brien's Jack Aubrey books often do essentially
this, and they are greatly admired.
Richard R. Hershberger
Robert Carnegie
> I found the Bombadil episode really interesting, and I think it did
> serve essential plot elements- and it had the potential to do more
> (sadly, that potential was never realized). First, and most important,
> it got the Hobbits out of a really nasty scrape with the wight. There
> _had_ to be some sort of significant danger for Merry to get the sword
> that helped strike down the Witch-King- it surely would not have been
> credible to find an ancient Numenorean blade in a pawn shop in Bree.
How about, while the Riders invade the Prancing Pony and beat the heck
out of Butterbur's spare linen, the hobbits are outside stealing their
horses and spare gear. With mixed success. Or does that fit _Bored
of the Rings_ better?
Or is it what actually happened, I forget.
Kurt Busiek
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:18:10 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> Eh. I noted it easily enough, even though mine eyes glazed over.
>> In such buckets of purple, I tend to look around for the point of such
>> passages towards the end, even while skipping most of the verbiage,
>> and that's pretty much where the esophagus was lurking.
>
> Two Songs:
> 1. On the Amazon, by Don McLean:
Love that song.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Kurt Busiek
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/11 1:13 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
>>>> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
>>>> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>>>>
>>>> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>>>>
>>>> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
>>>> than one literary novel
>>>
>>> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
>>> standards than the more ordinary ones.
>>
>> Is this the definition where "literary" equals "boring"? Regrettably,
>> this is too often the case, but certainly not always.
>
> This is the definition where "literarly" means "appeal to
> critics/guardians who proclaim the emperors new clothes wonderful, and
> the legions of synchophants who agree with them".
You tell 'em.
People who don't like what you like are just pretending to like it.
It's a conspiracy. They'd really like what you like if only they were
honest, right-thinking Americans.
Kurt Busiek
> On 3/13/2011 16:11, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:06:31 -0400, Brenda Clough
>> <Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <news:iljf5k$vga$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Yes -- the "Tom Bombadil" problem. Also a thrilling and
>>> deep venue that the story never returns to, and that has
>>> no impact on the characters, is a waste of page and
>>> word.
>>
>> Nonsense. It's an early stage of the hobbits' exposure to
>> the dangerous world outside the Shire, one of the first
>> steps in a long process of change. It also throws
>> additional light on one of the most interesting characters
>> in the book, Middle Earth itself. It's precisely that sort
>> of 'unnecessary' detail that makes Middle Earth more
>> substantial than most creations.
>>
>> Brian
>
> If I could continue an interaction with any of the Ring
> personalities, Bombadil would be highest on my list.
I don't want to talk to anyone whose idea of a good time is singing
songs to himself about what a great guy he is.
Kurt Busiek
> On Mar 14, 4:30 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>> Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On 14/03/11 1:13 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>>>> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
>>>>> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>>
>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
>>>>> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>>
>>>>> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>>
>>>>> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
>>>>> than one literary novel
>>
>>>> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
>>>> standards than the more ordinary ones.
>>
>>> Is this the definition where "literary" equals "boring"? Regrettably,
>>> this is too often the case, but certainly not always.
>>
>> This is the definition where "literarly" means "appeal to
>> critics/guardians who proclaim the emperors new clothes wonderful, and
>> the legions of synchophants who agree with them".
>
> I suspect that if something interesting happens in a book -
> interesting if you don't already came about the characters - then it
> isn't literary. For instance, a murder is interesting. Having a baby
> isn't interesting.
The hell it isn't.
Conversely, of course, murder can be boring.
Robert Carnegie
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> >isn't literary. For instance, a murder is interesting. Having a baby
> >isn't interesting. What I mean is, if you heard it was happening
> >across the street to someone you don't know, would you look?
> >
>
> Are you implying that you'd go look at a murder and not at a
> childbirth, or visa versa?
/Go/ look is rather different.
If it's happening /in/ the street, I'll at least briefly look at
either. I won't go over there unless I think I can and should do
something positive. (I don't know first aid. Maybe I should. I also
don't know karate or anything.)
If it's happening in a house across the street, to people I don't
know, well, I'm much more likely to take an interest in the murder
than in the childbirth.
To steer towards literature, if I read about it in the local
newspaper, almost any type of murder is interesting, but you have to
give birth with more than commonly amusing attendant circustances for
me to take much interest, if I don't know you. Frankly, at home when
planning to drive to the hospital but overtaken by events, or by the
roadside, or in the hospital car park, are all commonplace nowadays.
If the mother drives /herself/ to the hospital, with one foot out each
car window, (probably working the pedals with husband's golf clubs or
something, since he's... oh, that has to be "gone fishing" then - or
vice versa), sure, tell me the story.
Kurt Busiek
> On Mar 14, 4:42 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> I suspect that if something interesting happens in a book -
>>> interesting if you don't already care* about the characters - then it
>>> isn't literary. For instance, a murder is interesting. Having a baby
>>> isn't interesting. What I mean is, if you heard it was happening
>>> across the street to someone you don't know, would you look?
>>>
>>> * Oops, fixed.
>>
>> Are you implying that you'd go look at a murder and not at a
>> childbirth, or visa versa?
>
> /Go/ look is rather different.
>
> If it's happening /in/ the street, I'll at least briefly look at
> either. I won't go over there unless I think I can and should do
> something positive. (I don't know first aid. Maybe I should. I also
> don't know karate or anything.)
>
> If it's happening in a house across the street, to people I don't
> know, well, I'm much more likely to take an interest in the murder
> than in the childbirth.
>
> To steer towards literature, if I read about it in the local
> newspaper, almost any type of murder is interesting, but you have to
> give birth with more than commonly amusing attendant circustances for
> me to take much interest, if I don't know you.
How things are reported in the local newspaper, though, is not genre writing.
Genre writing includes, for instance, stories of poor girls getting
jobs as governi, only to ultimately marry the lord of the manor, and
other such tales in which murder, aliens or cattle rustlers need not
crop up. That's not likely something that would make you go look, were
it happening across the street, but it's still genre.
Frankly, the idea that genre writing is writing where being interested
in the characters is optional is more insulting to genre than to
literary writing.
Ahasuerus
> On 2011-03-13 21:30:32 -0700, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) said:
>
> >>>> This is more apropos to rec.arts.sf.composition -- and may have been
> >>>> cited there for all I know -- but I think it's worth mentioning here:
>
> >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/4fxz3hr>
> >>>> <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/03/01/description>
>
> >>>> Advice to writers: Skip the scenery
>
> >>>> Too much description of landscape and weather has ruined more
> >>>> than one literary novel
>
> >>> That's the literary novel - which is written to rather different
> >>> standards than the more ordinary ones.
>
> >> Is this the definition where "literary" equals "boring"? Regrettably,
> >> this is too often the case, but certainly not always.
>
> > This is the definition where "literarly" means "appeal to
> > critics/guardians who proclaim the emperors new clothes wonderful, and
> > the legions of synchophants who agree with them".
>
> You tell 'em.
>
> People who don't like what you like are just pretending to like it.
I am particularly impressed with romance fans. Clearly, the whole
genre is drowning in dreck which no one could possibly like. Yet they
go out of their way to pretend that they enjoy it, buy millions and
millions of books which make them nauseous, set up fan sites for
authors that they detest and even attend conventions which they can't
stand. That's dedication for you!
Ran Garoo
That's why I find the various incarnations of the Christian Bible
boring, but Bombadil just communicates that way.
Bombadil was first and probably was alone until the first acorn came.
His Weltanschauung would be egocentric. Not a real fault for him.
As Goldberry said, "He is."
Anyway - would you not be receptive to the dreams like Frodo had while
at Withywindle?
Kurt Busiek
> On 3/14/2011 10:20, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2011-03-13 21:51:32 -0700, Ran Garoo <rang...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> If I could continue an interaction with any of the Ring
>>> personalities, Bombadil would be highest on my list.
>>
>> I don't want to talk to anyone whose idea of a good time is singing
>> songs to himself about what a great guy he is.
>
> That's why I find the various incarnations of the Christian Bible
> boring, but Bombadil just communicates that way.
I'd find it insanely annoying.
If Gandalf, for example, went around giggling to himself and singing:
"Gandalf the Grey, Gandalf the Grey!
Castin' all them spells 'cause he's a wizard all the way
Rides around on Shadowfax, faster than the breeze
Ladies all love Gandalf and he never cuts the cheese!"
...I wouldn't want to spend much time with him, either.
> Bombadil was first and probably was alone until the first acorn came.
> His Weltanschauung would be egocentric. Not a real fault for him.
> As Goldberry said, "He is."
The idea wasn't whether it was understandable that he's annoying as
hell, but whether one would want to interact with him.
> Anyway - would you not be receptive to the dreams like Frodo had while
> at Withywindle?
They sound very nice. But Bombadil still annoys the crap out of me and
feels like a digression rather than a valid part of the story. It feels
like self-indulgence -- Tolkien forcing in Bombadil to show off this
stuff he's made up, even though it doesn't really belong in this
particular tale.
A work in which he was key -- a separate novel about him, for instance
-- might be more interesting, but I expect I'd still find his manner
grating. The two poems about him, in which he charms and commands
others with the power of his voice, don't get me interested because
Tolkien tells me about his voice, but I don't particularly feel it --
he just seems annoying to me, so it feels like the author telling me
that all that annoying crap is really charming.
Kurt Busiek
Soap opera fans, too!
William December Starr
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
> Genre writing includes, for instance, stories of poor girls
> getting jobs as governi,
Governae, no?
> only to ultimately marry the lord of the manor, and other such
> tales in which murder, aliens or cattle rustlers need not crop up.
>
> That's not likely something that would make you go look, were it
> happening across the street, but it's still genre.
>
> Frankly, the idea that genre writing is writing where being
> interested in the characters is optional is more insulting to
> genre than to literary writing.
How about rather than "being interested in the characters" try
"being interested enough in the (apparent) subject matter to start
reading the story in the first place"?
-- wds
Derek Lyons
>And the Ent situation seemed like it could have been resolved through
>Bombadil. IIRC at the beginning of the FotR, Sam mentions a cousin in
>the North Farthing who claimed to have seen a walking tree- obviously
>an Entwife. If prodded, Bombadil could have been the vehicle that
>reunites the Entwives with the Ents.
Why is it 'obviously' an Entwife - and not (as Treebeard describes) a
widely ranging Ent in search of an Entwife?
William December Starr
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
There _are_, though, legions of compulsory-school teachers who force
children to read books which have been deemed "literature" or
"classics." Which, of course, is the best known method outside of
Room 101 to instill a loathing of either category.
-- wds
Derek Lyons
>
>"Brenda Clough" <Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:iljf5k$vga$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> the story never returns to, and that has no impact on the characters, is a
>> waste of page and word.
>
>Ah, the tyranny of Chekov's Gun. In travelogue style of story, characters
>can come across people, places and events that don't pertain to the
>overarcing plot and act as an "intermission" from the main arc of the story.
>They are nice in a world-building way, showing there are other stuff going
>on than what's directly affecting Our Heroes.
>
>Altho the key is moderation or proportionality. In a novel, a chapter or
>several chapters of "intermission" can be refreshing, but in a novella or
>short(er) story you lack the space for such diversions.
My problem was the implication(s) of showing Tom Bombadil so early.
He wasn't depicted as a mere distraction along the way, but as a Great
and Ancient Magic - and I figured like the other Great and Ancient
Magics referenced in the story (rings, Ents, Paths of the Dead,
Palantiri, etc...) he'd show up later a key part of the plot. But he
didn't.
Derek Lyons
You're confusing a creation of your own mind with what I actually
said. Back to the foot of the line and try again.
Brian M. Scott
<wds...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:illnad$ism$1...@panix3.panix.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <illk14$v7m$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
>> Genre writing includes, for instance, stories of poor girls
>> getting jobs as governi,
> Governae, no?
No. If one's going to play that game, it's <gubernatrices>,
singular <gubernatrix>.
[...]
Brian
David Goldfarb
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>Gandalf is surprised to find a Balrog in Moria. The "Ai! Ai! A Balrog
>is come!" makes great drama but zero sense.
You do remember that it was Legolas who said that particular line,
don't you?
--
David Goldfarb | From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "You will have gold pieces by the bushel."
Kurt Busiek
If you think that, you're not remembering "The Emperor's New Clothes"
correctly.
And possibly not what a sycophant is, to boot.
Kurt Busiek
Why do we need a new definition of genre?
Kurt Busiek
We've had this discussion before, too.
When it boils over into claims that the teachers know that the work is
crap and are ramming it down the kids' throats out of fear that, um,
something something, and kids aren't allowed to know Shakespeare wrote
comedies, that's when I start to laugh.
The idea that some kids will resist schoolwork and dislike whatever
they're assigned to read is an unfortunate inevitability, along with
the sad case that some teachers aren't very good.
But as methods of instilling loathing go, it certainly seems to have
wildly variable results. Those who hated their assigned reading often
seem to think everyone who was assigned reading agrees with them, but
that's as shaky an assumption as the people who discovered wonderful
things assuming that everyone else did, too.
The bottom line seems to be that people who don't like what the
observer likes may be appreciating different things, and for all that
the lit-crowd looks down on genre, objecting to it by engaging in the
same behaviour in reverse strikes me as a bad idea.
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>> Ah, the tyranny of Chekov's Gun.
>
>The Russian writer's name is, I believe, almost universally
>transliterated as Chekhov. Chekov-without-the-second-h is the
>Star Trek character.
Did he have a tyrannical gun?
William December Starr
We may be foundering on whether X is a definition of Y or merely an
observation about it. I wasn't trying to change any definition of
genre; just to suggest an alternate formulation, still consistent
with what Robert Carnegie had been saying, to the idea that you
(correctly) cited as insulting.
That is, "Genre writing is writing where [the reader] being
interested in the characters is optional" is insulting to genre
writing; "Genre writing is writing where [the reader] being
interested in the subject matter is required" might not be so.
-- wds
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I don't see the first as insulting in the least. There is no need to be
at all interested in characters to appreciate many genre stories, nor is
there any requirement for the characters to exist as other than plot
objects. Assuming there are any characters at all -- there aren't any in
some small number of cases.
There is no FORBIDDANCE of writing character-centered stories with the
plot being a mere excrescence of the characters, either.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com