Anti-Author Terminology

[Richard]

Sudden and abrupt solutions to seemingly insoluble problems are not necessarily inconsistent with good storytelling. Hence, as a coherent and meaningful criticism, I find it hard to see much meaning in the phrase "Deus Ex Machina".

Yes, exactly - the problem arises because the slouched-behind-the-desk constituency have confused the semantics of "criticism". DeM is a perfectly useful critical term, i.e. a descriptive piece of terminology for use in literary critical appreciation. It is not (necessarily) any form of critical attack.

The narrative resolves with a dazzling display of deus ex machina and the reader is forced to re-examine almost every assumption made where these characters are concerned

is clearly not a criticism. critical attack (sleepy, sorry)

The tiresome procession of deus ex machina with which the narrative is continually rescued from bogging down is likely to frustrate all but the most dedicated fans

clearly is.

Edit: NB the way it's hard to imagine two contrasting examples like these for the term "Gary Stu" or "plot armour"

[Larry of the Lawn]

Can't a deus ex machina also just be character coming in at the end to wrap things up neatly, even if its been foreshadowed or setup beforehand? I've always considered stuff like Jeeves sweeping in to save the day (and get exactly what he wants) to be a deus ex machina.

I do agree though that the terms in the OP tend to be used in a hostile abd belittling manner much of the time, often by the same people that says stuff like "stannis rules dany drools" or "who would win in a fight, sansa or bronn?".

[Errant Bard]

It is possible to use those terms in a nuanced fashion, it just doesn't tend to happen.

I'm staying unconvinced. Considering your latter post, for you "nuanced" seems to mean "used in a positive, glowing review", but I have witnessed countless arguments with those terms used, and although they were used for their negative connotation, they were also used within a criticism of a work that the orator/poster/writer was otherwise engaged with and not at all "hostile" against entirely.

Not the "slouched behind the desk" guy, as you qualify it, but rather the guy in the first rank that knows the school book by heart and tells you that exercises ten to twenty are useless and will never teach anything to those who do them.

The terms themselves are fairly ill-formed/ill-considered/ill deployed - for example, IIRC, the term Mary Sue emerges from Star Trek fan fiction and deals with fan fic implanted characters who sidle in and warp the entire existing cast around their (necessarily secondary) character concerns. But the term has migrated badly and is now attached willy nilly to characters up to and including protagonists. But it's not a term that you can apply meaningfully to the protagonist of a piece of fiction - of course the protagonist is "a Mary Sue/Gary Stu", that's the whole point of a protagonist. The failure to grasp this is exactly the Clueless dynamic I'm talking about.

The thread already went over this though: although terms may have a fuzzy meaning and be used in a different capacity than their original one, their current use reflects a global understanding of a new meaning. There must have been like three or four pages on the term "mary sue" alone, and it totally is a term you can apply to the protagonist of a fiction piece, not all but some, and also some non-protagonists too.... just like you can use the term "deus ex machina" in some endings description, but not all.

You are writing this as if readers posting on internet should only use dead words, that everyone interpret the same way, that always had a single meaning, it is passingly strange.

You talk about a "failure to grasp" that some concepts are necessarily present in a fiction work, citing "Mary Sue" as an example of concept that necessarily overlaps with "protagonist". Leaving aside the argument about whether or not that's actually true, don't you feel that you are somewhat disingenuous again there, considering nobody actually describes all the books they read as having "Mary Sue" protagonists, using the term for a limited selection of books instead? There clearly are criteria beyond the "hostility" of the "slouched behind his desk" guy, reasons for the use of the term, and thus, meaning.

Yes, exactly - the problem arises because the slouched-behind-the-desk constituency have confused the semantics of "criticism". DeM is a perfectly useful critical term, i.e. a descriptive piece of terminology for use in literary critical appreciation. It is not (necessarily) any form of critical attack.

The narrative resolves with a dazzling display of deus ex machina and the reader is forced to re-examine almost every assumption made where these characters are concerned

is clearly not a criticism.

The tiresome procession of deus ex machina with which the narrative is continually rescued from bogging down is likely to frustrate all but the most dedicated fans

clearly is.

I get that you really want to attack those ex-students of yours but:

• Both of your examples are criticisms, the first one is a positive criticism, the second one is negative.
• As you show, it is entirely possible to write a good, descriptive yet negative criticism
• It is rather insulting and, as far as I can judge, inaccurate, to imply that those who offer negative criticism of a literary piece do it because they
  • think themselves professional critics
  • Think critics are always negative
  The very vast majority don't have the lofty ambitions you attribute to them, they are just readers saying what they think and sharing with other people in their circle, there is no soapbox, no motivation to "confuse the semantics of the word criticism". What you describe confines itself mostly to amateur "literari review" blogs. You say you are an author, it's almost as if you had an axe to grind with one or two bloggers like that.

ETA: I did not want to doubt, consciously, that you were an author. (Also, while I'm at it, let me tell you that your SF rocks while offering some interesting idea on our own society, and TK is not a Gary Stu in my book :P)

[polishgenius]

You say you are an author,

:laugh:

ETA: even though I agree with the broad thrust of your comments, especially the bit about most people bitching in forums on the internet being singularly uninterested in affecting literary criticisms in anyway, rather just being a bunch of people chatting with their mates.

[Errant Bard]

:laugh:

Oh damn, you're right, why did I write that. Especially as I love his books.

[emberling]

But it is symptomatic of the issue, which IMHO is this; there exists a bizarre mindset out there amongst (some - obviously - not all or even most) genre readers, which takes an almost combative, sometimes downright hostile approach to the consumption of literature. The idea seems to be not to enjoy the book, but, in some curious way to beat it. To be smarter than it, to not be wowed by it in any way. It's the literary equivalent of the student in the back row of class, slouched down in his chair, legs stretched out, arms folded across his chest, head tilted, lip curled, transmitting the message - Huh. Go on then - teach me, why don't you. I'm way-ay-ay too cool for 'at shit.

Well isn't this high-minded of you.

Let me offer an alternate theory:

People read books, hoping to be entertained. Sometimes they discover that a book fails to entertain them.

Certainly, when they later try to justify their feelings many people fail at illuminating any "objectively" bad elements that may have led to their subjective experiences. Or critics of the criticism feel that the troublesome elements exist but should be ignored, and that failing to ignore them is the same thing as deciding to be hostile to the text (e.g. you see this a lot with feminist concerns).

The idea that earnest (if clumsy) negative criticism comes from hate-reading is absurd and condescending to readers though. If you want to see hate-reading, check the Goodkind threads.

Plus the increasingly blurred line between children's fiction and adult fiction, into a vast no-man's-land of tweaked product called YA.

Ladles and gentlespoons, these are the words of our tireless champion of nuance, our warrior against preconceived disdain for the text. Take heed.

[maarsen]

If you want to blame anybody, blame the baby boomers for the styles of literary criticism prevailing today. Every time a new style of writing is tried, a new plotting device is unveiled, every time the gun in Act 1 misfires in Act 3, it becomes overworked just by the sheer numbers of writers eager to glom onto anything that can set them apart from the herd. It is a numbers game in that there are only so many permutations of the basic plots, dangers, escapes, experiences, superpowers, gods or sexual acts. Eventually you will run out of new plotting devices. There is always the old fallback, the which the ability to write coherent sentences that draw a mental picture for the reader that draws him/her in so that the words blur and and recede leaving only fantastical images that play behind your eyes. Then you have a great read.

[ChillyPolly]

Can't a deus ex machina also just be character coming in at the end to wrap things up neatly, even if its been foreshadowed or setup beforehand? I've always considered stuff like Jeeves sweeping in to save the day (and get exactly what he wants) to be a deus ex machina.

Hah, yes. Jeeves could be one example.

There is a sense that the hero should be in control; that his success should be produced by inherent virtue, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and rational calculation. Which is part of the reason for modern contempt for the "Deus Ex Machina". But Wooster utterly fails to embody these virtues.

But if success is rational calculation, what becomes of morality? As Darth Helmet famously said, "Evil will always win, because Good is Stupid". Except that reality DOES have an incalculable aspect. Or, as the Golux said to the Prince in THE THIRTEEN CLOCKS: "I am the Golux, the only Golux in the world, and not a mere Device". Of course, the meddlings of the Golux were to much enrage the Evil Duke, who later sputters in rage "You mere Device! You Golux Ex Machina!"

[Darth Richard II]

I like what this Richard guy is sayig. If only he had like, already published works or something that I could read. Alas.

Yeah but really I should get to those. (shifts 500+ TBR pile)

[Sci-2]

I like what this Richard guy is sayig. If only he had like, already published works or something that I could read. Alas.

Yeah but really I should get to those. (shifts 500+ TBR pile)

Jesus dude, your pile just keeps growing and growing. Don't the cats get annoyed? :-)

[red snow]

Following the last few comments, I'd say it depends on the reviewer. I think a professional reviewer is less likely to take insult at not enjoying a book (which is odd as they HAVE to read it - a casual reader can always drop it). Us casual reviewers can take a bad review far too personally and may also see it solely as the author's fault. There's plenty of books I hate but some love them so I have to think the author was writing for them and not me, I think Richard's analogie of "beating the book" fits with the lengths some of us go to justify why the author was at fault and not us when we don't like a book, BEat the author also applies to some weird need to find fault with the things we enjoy as well. In all fairness, if we were truly casual readers we probably wouldn't be joining in on this forum. It pre-selects for us to (over) analyze books.

I know some people on the board are professional reviewers though (or at least have highly respect blogs if they aren't paid). It'd be good to see what their consensus is. I'll try and do a quick recount of those who've already contributed.

[Darth Richard II]

Jesus dude, your pile just keeps growing and growing. Don't the cats get annoyed? :-)

Heh, it actually stays steady at around 500. I seem to buy books at the rate that I read them.

[sologdin]

the only way that i can make sense of 'plot armor' is with something like the x-files, wherein the protagonists could be assassinated with impunity at any time by the syndicate, but are allowed to live, expressly so as to avoid martyring them (uh, whatever), but really so we can have a long running tv show. without the armor, show is over with the pilot. that said, who fucking cares? the show is great.

[Richard]

Considering your latter post, for you "nuanced" seems to mean "used in a positive, glowing review"

Uhm, no - read the second deus ex example.

What you describe confines itself mostly to amateur "literari review" blogs.

Perhaps - but then I never said it didn't.

In fact, what I would say is that it's a pretty common property of the general blogosphere, including message boards like this one. And that's not exactly some small ghettoised part of the literary world anymore, plus the people who write these blogs and comments are real people, out in the real world with real opinions and attitudes. So I'd say simply that there's a lot of it about.

It is rather insulting and, as far as I can judge, inaccurate, to imply that those who offer negative criticism of a literary piece do it because they

• think themselves professional critics

Think critics are always negative

Well, since I neither said nor implied that, I'm not going to argue with you there. Go back and have a look at what I actually said.

You are writing this as if readers posting on internet should only use dead words, that everyone interpret the same way, that always had a single meaning, it is passingly strange.

In discourse generally, I'd say it's a good idea to use words that everyone interprets the same way. Wouldn't you? That way, you can have an intelligible discussion.

Otherwise, things inevitably degenerate into a recursive series of "but what do you mean when you say X?" and "well, that's not how I understand that term." And guess what, this does turn out to be another irritating feature of much blogosphere-driven discourse - the obsessive and continual reframing of terms rather than a focus on the substantive matter of the debate.

(Not sure, incidentally, what "dead words" is supposed to mean - seems like some weird kind of anti-rational post-modernist kick? A dead word, surely, is one that no-one uses anymore, not one that everybody uses and agrees on.)

I'd agree with you and Polish G that much of this discussion is of the down-the-pub bitching session variety, rather than any kind of serious critical appreciation. But the OP was talking about specific supposedly "critical" terms which he dislikes and finds anti-authorial, and that's the point I'm addressing. Thing is, down the pub (or its internet equivalent) you can perfectly well sit there and say "this book is shit, I fucking hate it" (and be opposed by someone else yelling "bullshit, it's fucking awesome"), and no-one's going to call you on it. That's subjective opinion, perfectly valid as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far. The use of critical terminology (effective, like DeM, or ineffective like "Gary Stu") represents an attempt to up the game, to make these subjective feelings more objective, ultimately to lend them a certain level of gravitas. And the takeaway is simple - the terms themselves confer nothing; cogent critical argument does.

[Richard]

@ Emberling

Tell me, which part of my comment on YA did you not find nuanced enough - the claim that it's a vast field, the claim that it purports not to be (and largely isn't) either adult or children's fiction, or the claim that it's tweaked to suit?

Let me offer an alternate theory:

People read books, hoping to be entertained. Sometimes they discover that a book fails to entertain them.

Let me point out that your (rather sweeping) alternative theory in no way disproves my original - in fact people read books for any number of often quite complex reasons; hoping to be entertained is one such reason, up at the simpler end of things. But it isn't the whole story, nor anything close. You will see if you look back that I quite carefully stated that I was talking about a certain constituency within the genre readership, not all, not even a majority. Address that point, not the sweeping assault you seem to think I've made.

[maarsen]

I like what this Richard guy is sayig. If only he had like, already published works or something that I could read. Alas.

Yeah but really I should get to those. (shifts 500+ TBR pile)

I wish I had that much in my TBR pile. Of course if I did, my wife would burn them and then divorce me.

[emberling]

Tell me, which part of my comment on YA did you not find nuanced enough - the claim that it's a vast field, the claim that it purports not to be (and largely isn't) either adult or children's fiction, or the claim that it's tweaked to suit?

You well know that those three claims don't encompass the meaning of "vast no-mans'-land of tweaked product." If by "tweaked to suit" you are referring to something other than the same processes of acquisition, editing, marketing that your own books go through, then I do dispute it. "Tweaked product" would seem to apply more to packaged childrens' fiction, category romance, or licensed SFF - except those aren't on the rise, so they're harder to make apocalyptic predictions with.

As an illustration of how variable the willingness to engage a text is: I had, earlier that day, already read two articles linking YA to the rising infantilization of society and the (to at least one of the authors) lamentable decline of patriarchy, and several debunking these. Given that, your offhand dismissal - even though it was tangential to your main point - was going to destroy my willingness to engage with your post other than providing my own offhand dismissal. On a different day, I would probably - well I tend not to let YA-bashing slide without comment, it's one of my big pet peeves, but I would have tried a good deal harder to keep that from coloring the rest of my response.

That's my main objection to your portrayal: you speak as if approaching the text with hostility is something that certain people do habitually. That there exists an ill-defined subculture of geeks who actively avoid being entertained by things. I doubt I've encountered such a unicorn. I've encountered plenty of people who hate things I love, who give reasons that appear to me to be fucking stupid, willfully blind, missing the point, etc. But they're plenty capable of enjoying things, of engaging positively - just not with those particular things.

BTW, I'm running on the assumption that we are discussing entertainment criticism rather than literary criticism - i.e., terms like "Mary Sue" and "plot armor" are connotatively evaluative. They are used largely for discussion of whether a piece of media or commercial fiction is worthy, or worth one's time, or enjoyable. It is proper to expect those things to be actively engaging; that is what they are for. That doesn't mean they should be expected to convert preemptively hostile readers, but it does mean that authors clucking at readers for failure to engage implicitly invalidates not only those readers, but others who approached in earnest and found the text itself detrimental to engagement.

Are there preemptively hostile readers? Absolutely. But I submit that there is no major constituency of such. There are plenty of triggers for preemptive hostility - if you read something due to cajolement or coercion, if the author writes things online you find reflective of a distasteful worldview, if the author has a poor reputation in some circles that you intersect, if your previous readings of the author have been mixed or poor, if the book's conventions (genre, historical period, etc.) are too unfamiliar, if the book represents a stylistic or canonic departure relative to existing fandom, on and on. That's enough so that any book, however good, is going to have a significant cadre who approach that single book with that combative attitude, looking for ways to "beat" it.

That is sufficient to explain the observable phenomenon, as far as I've seen. The idea that a significant number of people read primarily in order to have that kind of negative experience, or hoping to have it, is a fairly exceptional claim, as it requires people to repeatedly act against their own interests in a rather silly way. I'd have to see some significant evidence to give that any credence.

Seems to me that teaching a classroom, as you have, is a good way to surround oneself with conditional hostile engagement, though - because students generally don't choose what texts to read, preventing them from avoiding things they do not expect to enjoy; and because a classroom setting will likely ask for engagement on a significantly deeper level than many people are used to reading. There is, IME, a constituency of anti-intellectuals in geekdom/fandom, spurred in part by the not-unwarranted perception that literary and intellectual types (though only in truth a constituency thereof) sneer at their genres, at their crass focus on enjoying things, at their willingness to participate uncritically in capitalism. So I wonder if this is the group you are describing - who you imagine in classrooms, sullenly refusing to consider that even a whiz-bang action story carries thematic weight, while I imagine them on blogs, enthusiastically lauding some things and panning others, reflective of their personal tastes, cheerfully nonchalant towards the idea that somewhere else, some other person is discussing thematic weight.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

the only way that i can make sense of 'plot armor' is with something like the x-files, wherein the protagonists could be assassinated with impunity at any time by the syndicate, but are allowed to live, expressly so as to avoid martyring them (uh, whatever), but really so we can have a long running tv show. without the armor, show is over with the pilot. that said, who fucking cares? the show is great.

I think of plot armor this way:

If for some reason, your plot requires Spiderman to knock out the Hulk one on one, make it plausible (in the sense that a story about a giant green radioactive rage machine and a spunky teenager who swings through the New York Cityscape like Tarzan in the jungle can be plausible) and don't drastically change what's already established by the characters. Don't suddenly make Spiderman as strong as the Hulk and don't make the Hulk suddenly so slow and stupid that Spiderman can just dance around him for hours without getting hit. Let Peter Parker synthesive a gas that can calm Hulk down or let him collapse a building on Hulk. Or better yet, don't write yourself into a corner where Spiderman has to beat the Hulk by himself.

[polishgenius]

I think of plot armor this way:

If for some reason, your plot requires Spiderman to knock out the Hulk one on one, make it plausible (in the sense that a story about a giant green radioactive rage machine and a spunky teenager who swings through the New York Cityscape like Tarzan in the jungle can be plausible) and don't drastically change what's already established by the characters. Don't suddenly make Spiderman as strong as the Hulk and don't make the Hulk suddenly so slow and stupid that Spiderman can just dance around him for hours without getting hit. Let Peter Parker synthesive a gas that can calm Hulk down or let him collapse a building on Hulk. Or better yet, don't write yourself into a corner where Spiderman has to beat the Hulk by himself.

That's not plot armour, that's nerfing (or levelling up, depending on which character changes).

Plot armour is simply when a character doesn't die when they really should. To a certain extent, any protagonist in a risky situation might have some on, but there are degrees (if a main character rides into a pitched battle, you know they're probably not going to die, but generally, someone survives every battle, so not a huge issue. If your character rides into a pitched battle and everyone on his side is getting slaughtered, then it's a bit more obvious), and it only really becomes a negative issue when you're chucking your main character into probably-unsurvivable events just so they can survive. If everyone on his side gets slaughtered and that becomes the driving motivation for the future of the plot, or if there's a reason for him to be riding into it so something's at stake even if not his life, fine. If everyone on his side gets slaughtered and it's brushed off, there's an issue.

[Larry of the Lawn]

To me the most egregious example of plot armor is in Blood Meridian when the kid rides into Mexico the first time, before he hooks up with the Glanton gang.

all the partisans are slaughtered by natives except the kid and the guy with the infected maggoty arm. Toyally unrealistic. The kid should have died there and ended the book.

Still would have been a classic ending it right there on page 60 or whatever. Who needs the Judge and company?

Shakespeare also probably should have ended Julius Caesar with Brutus refusing to take part in the plot and just ratting out Cassius and co to Caesar and Antony. Would have been much more realistic than the plot gift old Billy Shakes gave the conspirators. It was so distracting I couldn't enjoy it. /sarcasm