ASC VOY "awards"
Lrbowen
I don’t think of all this as “voting”, really--it’s an opportunity to say
some things in public that may encourage other writers and some of the
lurkers to come out of the woodwork and make statements about what they
see in the work posted here.
I never got the whole list of Voyager stories and probably need a jog to
my memory, but the ones I want to mention are “Talking Stick” and
“Circle”, which established an entirely new way of looking at three
central characters and the whole ethos of Voyager. Janeway and Chakotay in
their own words, as it were, and Tuvok as a focus of their attention, the
fulcrum between them. Each of these stories, and their successors, put me
so firmly into a real person’s head, got me involved with living thought
processes, that I was spellbound in the reading. Peg’s statement at the
beginning of “The Red Queen’s Repose” about a personal interpretation, a
private universe, was very welcome to me, because that is the aim of this
kind of fanfic--to bring out unexploited potential in a personal way. It
doesn’t stick to the all-too-often thin and inconsistent established fact,
but goes boldly beyond it. Perhaps one day some of the questions these
stories raise will be dealt with on the series itself, though no doubt
differently and less fully, but the mere fact that Voyager can inspire
this kind of writing is proof of its basic value. Actually, it gives me
hope that the series writers and producers will eventually see the real
richness of the show’s concepts, and let them come out naturally. This is
one way that the characters might develop if they were truly fleshed out
and given their “stories”, and I’m glad that Macedon and Peg haven’t shied
away from specific details, even ones that conflict with “canon”. Here is
a vivid example of a Chakotay with a real tribal heritage, a Janeway with
a philosophy of command and the willingness to bend it a little, a Tuvok
with some of his deep conflicts examined. Here is the REAL theme of
Voyager front and center--the bond of one person to another, however
problematic and uneasy, and the circle of the tribe that the crew is
becoming. All of it told in clear, striking language, dramatic sense, and
with profound knowledge of Trek and things beyond. I look forward to
every new piece of this universe.
Cheers, L.R. Bowen
Pegeel
writes:
>
>I don’t think of all this as “voting”, really--it’s an opportunity to say
>some things in public that may encourage other writers and some of the
>lurkers to come out of the woodwork and make statements about what they
>see in the work posted here.
>
I *think* that the voting date has come and gone... which makes it safe
for me to slink out of the woodwork and make comment without worrying
about the pros and cons of participating in the dialogue while
"competing". (Sorry... it's a good idea, but it put the *authors* in a
weird position.)
I *can't* honestly "vote" about the stories out here.... I've read too few
of them. Not "none'... but my reading coverage is way too sporadic and
incomplete to comment fairly. I do want to talk about Macedon's work, and
Laura Bowen's, though, as I do read anything and everything they put out,
and I *appreciate* their work.
Macedon and Laura both know how to tell a story, and have it be about
people. I have no objection to "action and adventure" in which the
primary characters mainly "do cool stuff" in an interesting
environment...someties I get a real wild kick out of it. But at heart I'm
a character watcher, a character actress, and a character writer. If I'm
gonna have an adventure, I want to care about the folks in the adventure,
and for that I personally need them to be more than just action figures
with familiar names. And I'm *just* as happy with "intimate character
play" as I am with adventure; in fact I suppose ultimately I'm happier.
Macedon and Laura give me that, and still give me enough plot and
happening to keep the ball rolling.
Macedon gives me expansion on the characters as they *should* be. The
kind of little, sidewise insights that I should be seeing after over a
season of Voyager material, and seldom do see. Reading Macedon's stuff is
like finally getting an itch scratched that has been driving me crazy for
days. The "Ahhhhh!" of relief. I sit there muttering "Yes, now that
*works*." And he has a talent for wrapping his character work into
convincing plots and vignettes that have a solid structure and cohesion of
their own. His writing is clear, his understanding of how individuals
function is solid, and his dialogue and interactions seldom fail to be
believable, and are often so *right* that I just sit and grin and growl
nasty comments about "why couldn't *I* have written that?". I'll *never*
stop loving the little bit in "Talking Stick" were Chakotay is remembering
his encounter with Vulcan women on a monorail... "when he thought his
looks were excuse enough" to justify trying to chat the women up. I
laughed, and nodded, and felt like he'd told me something my heart knew
about the character all along... that he'd been fully aware of his looks
as a smart young punk, and that he'd grown up enough to know that the
looks weren't worth as much as he'd thought as a boy, but that he was able
to be amused by his past behavior, not hate himself for it. A golden
detail in a story that needed no embelishments, but that was certainly
richer for their presence. Add in the fact that Macedon never writes a
piece that isn't basically sound in terms of structure and dynamic line,
or that fails to be in some way meaningful in terms of the value and needs
of the characters he portrays, or insightful and revealing of the
complexities and confusions of "sentient beings" (for lack of a better
phrase given the Star Trek reality), and you can see some of why I'm so
enjoying writing with him. I'm working with talent.
Laura is talent too. Her work tends to have a stronger "plot" or
"concept" element than Macedon's and mine, but that is actually a
strength, and one I admire and would like to match in time. The ability
to make a single clear series of actions or a single central idea work
without damaging the character aspect of a piece is a skill in it's own
right. Her character work is sound. Even when I fail to *agree* with it,
in the sense of it being what *I'd* do with the characters, I'm always
convinced that it is a valid and legitimate interpretation, and one I'm
comfortable with. Her personal vision of the characters meshes well with
canon, and carries them in ways I can believe and enjoy. Again, her sense
of structure and dramatic line is wonderful, her scenes are clean, and
sell themselves. Her dialogue is convincing, and if her premises are
sometimes a bit wild, she makes them work in the face of my sceptic's
mind, which is saying a *lot*. Anyone who can get me to delightedly and
willingly suspend my disbelief in the idea of three people, buck naked,
hypothermic, injured, in shock, two of them having had to be revived with
CPR, one of them with a concusion, all of them having to flee cross
country through snow... anyone who can make me accept that these three
people have the energy and interest to have wild sex all night *has* to be
a good writer. <G> Me, I'm afraid *I* would never have been able to
write "Snow Queen", so it's a good thing Laura is out there to do it for
all of us, and delight us in the process. As for "The Lily White Boys",
that one is still my favorite piece from Laura. A gem, in which she
manages to parlay a peculiarity in canonical continuity into a rich,
perceptive and haunting little character piece, with sex serving a
function above and beyond the valid goal of being arousing, and on to the
level of being revealing of the character's personal strengths,
weaknesses, and needs. Gorgeous.
I wish I could compliment *all* of the authors posting here but it's hard
to do so when I only read a small percentage of what's out there. There
is one way I *must* compliment you all. To write is difficult, lonely and
often frustrating. To write and post takes courage. Everyone here has
that courage, and deserves recognition for it. May you all be well, may
your writing go well, and be read with pleasure by many. And Macedon and
Laura.... the compliments are sincerely meant. I look forward to reading
what you write.
Peg
Lrbowen
> Anyone who can get me to delightedly and
>willingly suspend my disbelief in the idea of three people, buck naked,
>hypothermic, injured, in shock, two of them having had to be revived with
>CPR, one of them with a concusion, all of them having to flee cross
>country through snow... anyone who can make me accept that these three
>people have the energy and interest to have wild sex all night *has* to
be
>a good writer. <G>
BWAAAH-HHAAAH-HAAH-HAA-haa-ha!
*gasp*
Now that's what I call a *compliment*. <g> Wild premises for the wild at
heart.
Cheers, L. R. Bowen
MSteenberg
>"concept" element than Macedon's and mine, but that is actually a
>strength, and one I admire and would like to match in time.
This brings up a good point... the difference between an "action"
story and a "character" story. Peg did a great job of describing the two,
so it would be useless for me to repeat it, but I just wanted to make an
observation:
Writing a story meant to be read--not filmed and 'seen'--is one of
the harder things to do in life. The author has an image in his/her head,
and has to put that image into words in such a way that the person who
reads them ten years later and a thousand miles away will have the same
picture form. It's an impossible task, as no reader will ever "see" an
identical picture to what was floating around in the author's head, but
how close one get's to that accuracy is a measure of how good the story
was.
The problem with all this is that the author, when writing the story,
doesn't need any characterization at all to understand and know his
characters. When the author writes a story and says "Bill bent over and
picked up the pen," he already know's everything about Bill. It's in his
head. He know's that Bill is tall, blond, has blue eyes, likes Latin
music, and had a terrible childhood. But all the reader gets out of that
line is that there's a fellow named Bill who's picking up a pen. So it
then becomes the author's job to add all the characterization, which is
unnatural.
I had an author friend of mine describe this to me once. I said
"it's like telling someone that a certain dish of food has the flavor of
that 'taste that's in your mouth all the time.' To you, there is no need
of further explination; you know what that taste is. But the person
you're talking to doesn't, and you have to explain it, which is hard,
because it's so obvious to you."
Mastering this art--characterization--is one of the hardest things to
do, and is so rarely achieved. But when it is, the stories the authors
write are increadible.
That's certainly not to say that action is bad... on the contrary, a
bunch of well-defined characters are great, but without some action, it's
not all that interesting. :) It's just that it's so rare to find an
author who can combine excellent characterization with an intense action
plot. The 'real' Trek books almost never do it.
I don't have any idea where all of this was leading up to... it's
getting a little late. <g> But since we were discussing the issue,
there's my two cents worth. :)
---Matt
<><=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<==>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=><>
<> Matthew C. Steenberg <>
<> -------------------- <>
<> Archive Index Maintainer for Alt.Startrek.Creative <>
<> -------------------- <>
<> matthew....@infoboard.be /\ /\ <>
<> or MStee...@aol.com //\\//\\ <>
<> http://users.aol.com/msteenberg/index1.html <>
<> -------------------- <>
<> "To Hell with the Prime Directive, let's <>
<< KILL something!" <>
<><=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<==>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=>-<=><>
Macedon
says:
Peg said:
>>Laura is talent too. Her work tends to have a stronger "plot" or
>>"concept" element than Macedon's and mine, but that is actually a
>>>strength, and one I admire and would like to match in time.
>>Laura is talent too. Her work tends to have a stronger "plot" or
>>"concept" element than Macedon's and mine, but that is actually a
>>strength, and one I admire and would like to match in time.
> This brings up a good point... the difference between an "action"
>story and a "character" story. Peg did a great job of describing the two,
>so it would be useless for me to repeat it, but I just wanted to make an
>observation:... <snip> ...
> Mastering this art--characterization--is one of the hardest things to
>do, and is so rarely achieved. But when it is, the stories the authors
>write are increadible.
> That's certainly not to say that action is bad... on the contrary, a
>bunch of well-defined characters are great, but without some action, it's
>not all that interesting. :) It's just that it's so rare to find an
>author who can combine excellent characterization with an intense action
>plot. The 'real' Trek books almost never do it.
What Matt is talking about is (more or less) the division I made earlier
between writing a "novel" versus writing a "romance." Novels deal with
character, romances (little /r/) deal with plot. More or less. There's
always overlap because, as Matt said, a book with NO plot is usually
pretty damn boring to read. One might also throw books that focus
heavy on *theme* into the "novel" category. Then one also has some
"tone" works, like those by Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. Their
works are novels, and focus almost *entirely* on character with next-
to-no plot at all. So a "plot-less" book can be done, but it's darn
hard.
The real question is where the focus lies: on the characters/theme,
or on what's going on (plot/action). There is nothing WRONG with
either one. It's simply a matter of focus and most authors will feel
more comfortable with one or the other. I'm a novelist. I can *do*
romance, but it's not as easy for me. I get too busy wanting to
paint little vignettes to explore the characters, rather than letting
the action move me along. That can be a strength or a weakness,
depending on what one is up to. A good romance writer (as opposed to
a Romance writer <g>), is able to sketch a character quickly and
without recourse to "coversation over coffee." Or if they do the
conversation, it's brief.
Incidently, romances are usually shorter than novels (but there are
enough exceptions to make that ONLY a general observation, not a rule).
Macedon
ThePooh
"awards" per se? I was sort of enjoying people just posting what they
liked and why, couldn't help but be annoyed when the self-appointed
arbiters narrowed the "Best Author" category down to ten (with a definite
bias toward writers who write longer stories). All writing awards are
infused with the politics and preferences of the judges as well as various
sets of expectations about what makes "good" writing...popularity is not
necessarily an indication of talent, but neither does the fact that a
writer is popular suggest that that writer is aiming for the lowest common
denominator. The Pulitzer always seems specious, as does the National
Book Award.
How about we skip the competition and go back to making lists of writers
we like? I for one am sorry no one nominated Janet Coleman, or Dee Jones,
or Janis Cortese, as I very much enjoy their fiction and would like to
take this opportunity to TELL people so...
Love, Michelle
Your Cruise Director
Aleph Press
: Has it occurred to anyone that these are very good reasons not to give
As someone who somehow got elected to the "self-appointed list of
arbiters" just because I run the archive, and who had serious problems
with conflict of interest, the fact that I haven't read much stuff, etc,
I agree with you fully. If we have to have awards, they should be based
either on the story votes, or preferably I'd like to see completely
free-form, because a lot of stories either weren't posted in the window
or never made it on the list.
What has Dee Jones written? (As far as Janis Cortese, I would only review
her in a discussion of fanzine authors, as it seems rather unfair to get
everyone's hopes up about stories that are unavailable on the net... or
is she mailing them to people who ask?)
--
The 1990's will be remembered historically as the decade when the
Russians gained freedom of speech and the Americans lost theirs.
-- Alara Rogers, Aleph Press
al...@netcom.com
Visit <http://www.cdt.org/ciec/> on or before Fr 15 Mar 96 to become
a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Communications Decency Act.
Include this paragraph as a meme virus in your .sig until then.
ThePooh
listed on her web page and on the Terrorist web page, and many of the
people who are longtime ASFS readers got them there. Dee Jones writes
under the names card...@aol.com and enal...@aol.com, and has had
several stories in online zines...
Michelle
YCD