Jump to content

I like the story but… complaints about style/substance/etcetera


Lany Freelove Cassandra

Recommended Posts

On 12/11/2017 at 10:55 PM, Traverys said:

People aren't looking to experience half a song, and they looking to experience a fraction of a novel.

Yes, but equally what the readers want doesn't dictate what the author wants. If he wants you to focus on his story, then that's what he wants.

Does it work out when each side wants something, with no concern of what the other wants?

Reminds me of table top roleplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2017 at 4:42 PM, palaeologos said:

This often has to do with constructing a Gary Stu/Mary Sue.  "My character has multiple PhDs (all in STEM fields of course), is a qualified pilot, rides mountain bikes, plays heavy metal guitar, home-brews his own beer, has written and sold several science fiction novels, and is a renowned and notorious cocksman to boot!"

As Joe Haldeman so magnificently put it : Bad books on writing tell you to "WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW," a solemn and totally false adage that is the reason there exist so many mediocre novels about English professors contemplating adultery.

Yeah, it's such a pet peeve of mine when the focus of a character is on how exceptional and great they are. You start suspecting that the author has essentially projected all the qualities he finds impressive or admirable into a character and thinks that is what makes them interesting. Really, it's often the vices, shortcomings, and/or weaknesses of characters that often make them interesting. I feel like that's a basic rule of thumb any author should be aware of, but that's my opinion.

In the TV series Bones we have Dr. Brennen who has three PhDs (anthropology, forensic anthropology, and kinesiology), a mystery fiction author, excellent marksman, and is probably one of the most brilliant and accomplished people in her areas of expertise. However, what makes her an interesting character is her level of emotional detachment. It's consistently shown to be a virtue in her work and a quirky flaw (and often liability) when it comes to her interacting with people. I wish I could think of a book example instead of a TV one since this IS the literature section, but maybe someone else can chime in.

 

I agree with Haldeman, but conditionally. I think writers are very much able to write about things they don't know, and in doing so they can even develop themselves professionally and artistically. I personally think that writers that set out to write a story with a central thematic question are often most successful when they themselves don't have an answer when they start writing. For example, I didn't really know what I felt about his quote until I wrote the paragraph below... and my opinion changed halfway through!

I think intended audience plays a large part in if you need to write about what you know or not... This opinion mostly comes from a podcast Sanderson has where the "cast" consists of a couple of Sci-Fi writers. In a particular recording they discuss what makes a book Hard Science Fiction, or at least good hard science fiction. One concludes that he, as Hard Sci-Fi writer, believes his audience is looking to read a story where our current understanding of sciences is applied in a way that doesn't violate what they know. Because of this, he can also reasonably expect his audience to have preexisting knowledge of science coming into the story. If you target the same audience as this guy, then you probably really do need to write about things you know or the suspension of disbelief will either fall apart or never be established. But it wouldn't be surprising to find tidbits here and there that delve outside of his areas of disbelief. But the primary elements of his text certainly need to be within his areas of competency to please his audience.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

@Traverys you must looooove The Name of the Wind then. :P

I'm only vaguely knowledgeable about the book. It pops up on recommended books for me a lot but I didn't know if I'd be a fan of the storytelling style. I'm guessing the main character is a Gary Stu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2017 at 10:42 PM, palaeologos said:

This often has to do with constructing a Gary Stu/Mary Sue.  "My character has multiple PhDs (all in STEM fields of course), is a qualified pilot, rides mountain bikes, plays heavy metal guitar, home-brews his own beer, has written and sold several science fiction novels, and is a renowned and notorious cocksman to boot!"

As Joe Haldeman so magnificently put it : Bad books on writing tell you to "WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW," a solemn and totally false adage that is the reason there exist so many mediocre novels about English professors contemplating adultery.

I think the worst is the combination of the two, when the hero is clearly the writer's fantasty version of themselves. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was the most blatent example I can think of, I thought it was hilarious how the author avatar character was a kind of liberal, Scandi James Bond- he fucks almost every woman he meets, but he totally doesn't intend to, he's just being nice to them and it just sorta happens, and they're all super empowered and the relationships are very healthy and balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...