![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So we has this dragon dead in the midst of Yellowstone, and the children ask why no one notices. What does the adult blame? Logic! After all, a dragon is illogical, is not?
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
witch hunts
Aug. 6th, 2013 11:40 pmgrumble grumble grouse grouse grouse. . . .
Read a bit of world-building where a writer was talking about a Dark Ages analog in his world. And then threw in a comment about having latter concepts such as inquisitions -- and witch trials.
( Read more... )
Read a bit of world-building where a writer was talking about a Dark Ages analog in his world. And then threw in a comment about having latter concepts such as inquisitions -- and witch trials.
( Read more... )
grumble about transplants
Dec. 29th, 2012 01:56 pmFor some reason, I have recently happened to read stories in which brain transplants are used to achieve immortality -- for the transplanted one, not the poor soul nominated for it.
Ehem.
( Read more... )
Ehem.
( Read more... )
babies in world-building
Jul. 7th, 2010 09:33 pmOne world building error that I find as often in SF as in fantasy: many, many, many writers neglect to figure out Where Babies Come From and Why It Matters.
( Read more... )
Update: I am now screening comments to this to prevent its going off on tangents. Even non-tangential things will get unscreened as I have time to deal with them.
( Read more... )
Update: I am now screening comments to this to prevent its going off on tangents. Even non-tangential things will get unscreened as I have time to deal with them.
People's ignorance of fairy tales can be Very, Very Annoying. Starting with ill-educated geese who think that unicorns are a fairy tale motif, or that nothing terrible happens in fairy tales. But then they aren't writing articles about them. . . .
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
answer the question
Jan. 5th, 2010 11:56 pmOr, how to avoid writing a shaggy dog story.
The story will raise questions in your reader's mind. (We hope. If not, go work on that first. 0:)
You want to answer that question in a surprising and unusual manner. That means you need to answer that question and no other. Switching the question you will answer is bad story-telling. It deforms the story.
I remember some. . . .
( Read more... )
The story will raise questions in your reader's mind. (We hope. If not, go work on that first. 0:)
You want to answer that question in a surprising and unusual manner. That means you need to answer that question and no other. Switching the question you will answer is bad story-telling. It deforms the story.
I remember some. . . .
( Read more... )
flash forward
Dec. 10th, 2009 11:44 pmHe didn't know it, but he would be dead in fifteen minutes. . . .
Ah, the flash forward. Rarely seen -- and with good reason.
Once in a blue moon, I have seen it used effectively. A first-person narrator is doing something and comments that afterwards, people who watched him noticed this, that, or the other thing that it would be implausible -- or ridiculous -- for him to notice. Occasionally, a chatty narrator -- whether first-person or omniscient -- can get away with it, if it fits the voice, and the voice is interesting enough to lure me along without suspense. Because that's the fundamental problem with it. You might as well wave a flag and announce, "Hey, Readers! I can't think of making this suspenseful or interesting, so I'm going to bait this with what's going on ahead."
Even Ciaphas Cain, much as I enjoy the books, can be annoying when he declares that if he had only known that his careful selection of the safest-looking place would precipitate him into danger.
And in third-person limited, where there is no narrator to be chatty or who knows how it will turn out, it just doesn't work.
Ah, the flash forward. Rarely seen -- and with good reason.
Once in a blue moon, I have seen it used effectively. A first-person narrator is doing something and comments that afterwards, people who watched him noticed this, that, or the other thing that it would be implausible -- or ridiculous -- for him to notice. Occasionally, a chatty narrator -- whether first-person or omniscient -- can get away with it, if it fits the voice, and the voice is interesting enough to lure me along without suspense. Because that's the fundamental problem with it. You might as well wave a flag and announce, "Hey, Readers! I can't think of making this suspenseful or interesting, so I'm going to bait this with what's going on ahead."
Even Ciaphas Cain, much as I enjoy the books, can be annoying when he declares that if he had only known that his careful selection of the safest-looking place would precipitate him into danger.
And in third-person limited, where there is no narrator to be chatty or who knows how it will turn out, it just doesn't work.
apostrophes
Sep. 1st, 2009 08:55 pmApostrophes. You want to keep some of them around for your contractions, and some for your possessives.
What you don't want is to keep them around for your names. At least, I don't want you to.
What is the point of putting an apostrophe in a name? If you have a two-part name, what's wrong with the grand old traditional hyphenated name?
All right, I will concede this much: if the names are contractions of longer names, you can use them, but you have to let me know that this is the case. Probably letting me know what the long name is, too.
What you don't want is to keep them around for your names. At least, I don't want you to.
What is the point of putting an apostrophe in a name? If you have a two-part name, what's wrong with the grand old traditional hyphenated name?
All right, I will concede this much: if the names are contractions of longer names, you can use them, but you have to let me know that this is the case. Probably letting me know what the long name is, too.
the gods and belief
Jun. 24th, 2009 08:25 pmA lot of writers, constructing their religions, make the gods absolutely dependent on human belief. Some invoke the obvious reason: the gods were made by belief.
And I hate, hate, hate it.
I think the worst case was Harry Turtledove's Case of the Toxic Spelldump, where the main character purports to be a Jew. Goes to the synagogue, even. He's an idolater. He explicitly thinks that his belief (lumped in with others) creates that which he worships. Silly, silly, silly.
But it's seldom better in explicitly polytheistic systems. It seldom allows the Powers That Be to be noticeably numinous. And, oddly enough, it tends toward the gods acting like three-year-olds. Despite the obvious problem of -- if the humans made them like this, why oh why are the humans any better?
And I hate, hate, hate it.
I think the worst case was Harry Turtledove's Case of the Toxic Spelldump, where the main character purports to be a Jew. Goes to the synagogue, even. He's an idolater. He explicitly thinks that his belief (lumped in with others) creates that which he worships. Silly, silly, silly.
But it's seldom better in explicitly polytheistic systems. It seldom allows the Powers That Be to be noticeably numinous. And, oddly enough, it tends toward the gods acting like three-year-olds. Despite the obvious problem of -- if the humans made them like this, why oh why are the humans any better?
magic vs. tech
Jun. 4th, 2009 10:16 pmOne thing in world-building is that a lot of writers -- particularly those with cross-world travel in their worlds -- say that "technology" doesn't work in the magical world. Just because it's magic.
I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. If your gunpowder doesn't explode, you should be dead, and your fire shouldn't be burning; they all run on the same process. If your watch doesn't run, lightning shouldn't strike -- or else that mill shouldn't be grinding grain and the carts going to it should not have their wheels turning. Technology doesn't use some fundamentally different processes than everything else.
And, anyway, what is technology? Why is the steam engine technology and the water mill not?
And worst of it, it's never caused. If Lud the Purple had cast a spell to ensure it, it would have to be motivated -- with difficulty -- and defined, and I would be very suspicious if people didn't try to pry around the edges. But it's treated as a natural aspect of magic. As spontaneous as the sun rising. Selectively turning off the laws of nature for certain applications developed after a certain era leaves the question of why.
I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. If your gunpowder doesn't explode, you should be dead, and your fire shouldn't be burning; they all run on the same process. If your watch doesn't run, lightning shouldn't strike -- or else that mill shouldn't be grinding grain and the carts going to it should not have their wheels turning. Technology doesn't use some fundamentally different processes than everything else.
And, anyway, what is technology? Why is the steam engine technology and the water mill not?
And worst of it, it's never caused. If Lud the Purple had cast a spell to ensure it, it would have to be motivated -- with difficulty -- and defined, and I would be very suspicious if people didn't try to pry around the edges. But it's treated as a natural aspect of magic. As spontaneous as the sun rising. Selectively turning off the laws of nature for certain applications developed after a certain era leaves the question of why.
idiot plots
May. 28th, 2009 09:46 pmIdiot plots! I have a particular hatred of them. I hate it when the hero acts like an idiot, I hate it when the villain acts like an idiot, I hate it when the comic sidekick acts like an idiot, I hate it when the bystanders act like idiots. . . .
Ran across an example lately where the opening was all the characters acting like idiots. All of them were given the swollen heads necessary to explain why they all underestimated each other -- but to explain or even justify something is not to make me like it. One of them acts like he has acquired a great insight into the universe, and then we had some characters not acting like idiots, but the idiots killed them -- and at the very end, the characters learn they were idiots because the mastermind is idiot enough to reveal himself, expecting them to greet him with great glee now that they learn they were lied to. It gets him killed, but while the idiot who kills him momentarily feels guilty about having killed the non-idiotic character, before the kill, as soon as it is done, he forgets the guilt and still acts like he has a great insight in the universe. He doesn't even feel the need to atone. . . .
Not that I like it even in small doses. And even motivated stupidity can be very hard to take.
Ran across an example lately where the opening was all the characters acting like idiots. All of them were given the swollen heads necessary to explain why they all underestimated each other -- but to explain or even justify something is not to make me like it. One of them acts like he has acquired a great insight into the universe, and then we had some characters not acting like idiots, but the idiots killed them -- and at the very end, the characters learn they were idiots because the mastermind is idiot enough to reveal himself, expecting them to greet him with great glee now that they learn they were lied to. It gets him killed, but while the idiot who kills him momentarily feels guilty about having killed the non-idiotic character, before the kill, as soon as it is done, he forgets the guilt and still acts like he has a great insight in the universe. He doesn't even feel the need to atone. . . .
Not that I like it even in small doses. And even motivated stupidity can be very hard to take.
grumble on fairy tales
Feb. 16th, 2009 08:15 pmWas reading something about fairy tales. A recommendation to read non-European fairy tales -- and why? Because if you are only familiar with Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, you don't get an idea for the variant possible.
To which I say, if you think Snow White and Sleeping Beauty exhaust the potential of European fairy tales, you probably ought to read more of them as well.
Especially since this person went on to say that if Snow White had not been a princess, she would not have featured in a fairy tale. Oh? Bella Venezia is the daughter of an innkeeper. Myrsina is the youngest of three impoverished orphaned sisters. Nourie Hadig is the daughter of peasants. And all three of them come from European variants of Snow White.
(grumble, grumble, grump, grump, grump. GROUSE.)
To which I say, if you think Snow White and Sleeping Beauty exhaust the potential of European fairy tales, you probably ought to read more of them as well.
Especially since this person went on to say that if Snow White had not been a princess, she would not have featured in a fairy tale. Oh? Bella Venezia is the daughter of an innkeeper. Myrsina is the youngest of three impoverished orphaned sisters. Nourie Hadig is the daughter of peasants. And all three of them come from European variants of Snow White.
(grumble, grumble, grump, grump, grump. GROUSE.)
One thing I find frustrating in a fantasy work is simply and obviously useful magic items.
This can be all right if the item is sufficiently trivial, but the MacGuffin is another kettle of fish. If a powerful item is straightforward, it needs to be something where the characters can't use it all the time -- or better yet, can use if only they figure out how. I have a ring that controls water -- how can I defeat the stone golem with it? It can't drown! (Erosion, on the other hand. . . . ) Indeed, this is better even for the trivial items.
Then there are the items of enormous power and potency. But no perversity. They do not act oddly, or unpredictably. The worst one I remember was the sword "Need". It would give a woman whatever skill she most needed. However, never in all the stories that it appeared, did it ever produce the reaction "Why on earth would it think that I need that?" It was chiefly used by a wizard-woman who did not know swordplay, and no story ever opened with her staring at it and wondering why it was no longer giving her the ability to use a sword without knowing how. That would have been a straightforward example even: the sword thought that what she most needed was to stop depending on it and learn how to use a sword on her own. But, no, never. And the possibilities get more interesting from there.
The best magic item I ever read of was in Piers Anthony's Castle Roogna. A ring claimed to be a wishing ring. When you made a wish, it claimed to be working on it. So you went and did it yourself -- and it claimed credit. But -- every wish made on that ring came true, sooner or later. That's the sort of quirk that makes a magic item really worth creating.
This can be all right if the item is sufficiently trivial, but the MacGuffin is another kettle of fish. If a powerful item is straightforward, it needs to be something where the characters can't use it all the time -- or better yet, can use if only they figure out how. I have a ring that controls water -- how can I defeat the stone golem with it? It can't drown! (Erosion, on the other hand. . . . ) Indeed, this is better even for the trivial items.
Then there are the items of enormous power and potency. But no perversity. They do not act oddly, or unpredictably. The worst one I remember was the sword "Need". It would give a woman whatever skill she most needed. However, never in all the stories that it appeared, did it ever produce the reaction "Why on earth would it think that I need that?" It was chiefly used by a wizard-woman who did not know swordplay, and no story ever opened with her staring at it and wondering why it was no longer giving her the ability to use a sword without knowing how. That would have been a straightforward example even: the sword thought that what she most needed was to stop depending on it and learn how to use a sword on her own. But, no, never. And the possibilities get more interesting from there.
The best magic item I ever read of was in Piers Anthony's Castle Roogna. A ring claimed to be a wishing ring. When you made a wish, it claimed to be working on it. So you went and did it yourself -- and it claimed credit. But -- every wish made on that ring came true, sooner or later. That's the sort of quirk that makes a magic item really worth creating.
aesthetics is aesthetics
Oct. 2nd, 2008 07:24 pmAnd only aesthetics is aesthetics.
Which means that only aesthetic considerations affect it.
And that means that:
1. Historical significance is a moot point. However ground-breaking a work was, we are allowed to give it a gimlet eye and say, "Nope, that's not a good use of that technique or other thingee." Or even "That's a crashingly bad piece of work that was running purely on novelty power." Just because some works are both ground-breaking and masterpieces, and other works are both ground-breaking and competent does not mean that any ground-breaking work must have any inherent goodness.
Young idiots who think the earlier work is the derivative one are, of course, young idiots, but they aren't making an aesthetic claim, only a historical one.
2. Author's intentions are a moot point. If you change a book into a movie and alter something because you think it unsuitable for the target audience of children -- if it introduces an aesthetic flaw, you have made the movie worse. And the same goes for any other agenda. They are not defenses of aesthetic flaws.
grumble, grumble, grump
Which means that only aesthetic considerations affect it.
And that means that:
1. Historical significance is a moot point. However ground-breaking a work was, we are allowed to give it a gimlet eye and say, "Nope, that's not a good use of that technique or other thingee." Or even "That's a crashingly bad piece of work that was running purely on novelty power." Just because some works are both ground-breaking and masterpieces, and other works are both ground-breaking and competent does not mean that any ground-breaking work must have any inherent goodness.
Young idiots who think the earlier work is the derivative one are, of course, young idiots, but they aren't making an aesthetic claim, only a historical one.
2. Author's intentions are a moot point. If you change a book into a movie and alter something because you think it unsuitable for the target audience of children -- if it introduces an aesthetic flaw, you have made the movie worse. And the same goes for any other agenda. They are not defenses of aesthetic flaws.
grumble, grumble, grump
Pariah Elite
Aug. 2nd, 2008 09:19 pmThe poor (sob), suffering (sob), oppressed (sob) group of wizards or people with special powers --
Have I mentioned how I hate it yet?
It's a specially nasty subtrope of the "only some people can do magic" trope, and it has its variations. Like, say, mutants. I read a lot of the X-men comics and enjoyed them, but they arne't really about persecution, they're about persecution complexes. The one tenet of the Evil Priests in Red is that they persecute poor, innocent little us.
One Christmas, I put in a DVD present -- the X-men movie -- and my mother happened to be in the room, correcting papers. She must have watched; she not only stayed until the end, she asked how her parents managed to change Rogue's diapers. I explained that mutant abilities kick on in adolescence. And her reaction was "oh!" And she has since used the X-men to explain things to a fellow teacher, because, really, the attitude of high school sophomores doesn't differ, it's just they don't get the powers.
Have I mentioned how I hate it yet?
It's a specially nasty subtrope of the "only some people can do magic" trope, and it has its variations. Like, say, mutants. I read a lot of the X-men comics and enjoyed them, but they arne't really about persecution, they're about persecution complexes. The one tenet of the Evil Priests in Red is that they persecute poor, innocent little us.
One Christmas, I put in a DVD present -- the X-men movie -- and my mother happened to be in the room, correcting papers. She must have watched; she not only stayed until the end, she asked how her parents managed to change Rogue's diapers. I explained that mutant abilities kick on in adolescence. And her reaction was "oh!" And she has since used the X-men to explain things to a fellow teacher, because, really, the attitude of high school sophomores doesn't differ, it's just they don't get the powers.
Elitism and Magic
Jul. 27th, 2008 07:45 pmEither you've got it or you don't. Either you can study and end up turning your city into glass with a miscast spell, or you can never so much as light a candle by magic.
I hate it.
I particularly hate it if the writer uses it to make a poor (sob), suffering (sob), universally despised (sob) cadre of magicians, who, despite their sterling character, are dumped on by everyone else, but I hate it even when your magicians are well-respected.
Unique, freakish abilities, not quite under control, work, but not magic in general.
Tolkien's wizards are not as bad as the general run-of-the-mill trope, because they weren't human; no one who's human can do magic in LOTR. Even Aragorn, with his healing hands, has just a drop of non-human blood (being Elrond's great-to-the-nth-grandnephew). Still I think they were a bad influence. Sure, there are people who practice magic and people who don't in Sword & Sorcery, but I've never read a work where this was a difference in kind. (Gray Mouser, for instance, even knew some magic.) And in early fantasy, folklore, legend, and myth, either you weren't completely human, or you did something that everyone else could -- in theory -- do.
Much as I like Harry Potter, I prefer a setting like Operation Chaos, where you have magic in the modern world and everyone knows.
I hate it.
I particularly hate it if the writer uses it to make a poor (sob), suffering (sob), universally despised (sob) cadre of magicians, who, despite their sterling character, are dumped on by everyone else, but I hate it even when your magicians are well-respected.
Unique, freakish abilities, not quite under control, work, but not magic in general.
Tolkien's wizards are not as bad as the general run-of-the-mill trope, because they weren't human; no one who's human can do magic in LOTR. Even Aragorn, with his healing hands, has just a drop of non-human blood (being Elrond's great-to-the-nth-grandnephew). Still I think they were a bad influence. Sure, there are people who practice magic and people who don't in Sword & Sorcery, but I've never read a work where this was a difference in kind. (Gray Mouser, for instance, even knew some magic.) And in early fantasy, folklore, legend, and myth, either you weren't completely human, or you did something that everyone else could -- in theory -- do.
Much as I like Harry Potter, I prefer a setting like Operation Chaos, where you have magic in the modern world and everyone knows.
Is this elf necessary?
Jul. 13th, 2008 10:35 pmA good question for writers. I distilled it myself when I was too much under the influence of J.R.R. Tolkien, and rapidly found that it turned my fantasy stories into human-only affairs.
I wish some fantasy writers asked it more often. I read one too many book in which there are inexplicable human beings with pointy ears roaming about. And not even humans from a very distinct culture. Very little reading about in primary source material would turn up human beings who would look exotic next to the elf -- or the humans he associates with. Try distinguishing people by some cultural differences.
It applies to other imaginary races, too. I still remember the story I critiqued where the main character was a centaur. I found this out two pages in. Every now and again, the story would say, "She's a centaur" -- and never would it have the least effect on anyone's reactions, or on anything she did.
I wish some fantasy writers asked it more often. I read one too many book in which there are inexplicable human beings with pointy ears roaming about. And not even humans from a very distinct culture. Very little reading about in primary source material would turn up human beings who would look exotic next to the elf -- or the humans he associates with. Try distinguishing people by some cultural differences.
It applies to other imaginary races, too. I still remember the story I critiqued where the main character was a centaur. I found this out two pages in. Every now and again, the story would say, "She's a centaur" -- and never would it have the least effect on anyone's reactions, or on anything she did.
