Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
We've had some truly excellent writing posted here lately. Great, adventurous stories packed with powerful emotions and levels of deeper meaning. Humorous stories with reader misdirection and Aesop-like morals. Simple stories, yet with a powerful grip on the heart-strings that profoundly affect the readers. I love all of these!
And then... Perhaps because of all the excellent stories I've read here lately, I'm seeing serious problems with one or two of the other stories. I think authors need to take note. Regardless of how important they think some social issues are that plague Western Civilization, either in general or in the current circumstances, if they just write paragraphs of dialog in which characters expound upon this, without at least establishing some milieu in which the characters should be discussing this, and with distinct personalities of their own, it's not going to read realistically. It will just read as an author's non-fictional monologue on a social issue.
It's fine to have opinions, and to express them in a story, but the first job of fiction should be to seduce the reader into accepting an imaginary setting as a believable environment. Characters should act and sound like people. Social situations have to have a relationship to that environment. And messages and morals, for better or worse, have to be more illustrated than simply said.
Sadly, I suspect the authors who might benefit from this constructive advice might be very defensive, so rather than contact anyone directly, I've decided to blog this and open it up for discussion in a very general way.
Comments
It depends
I don't question your statement that the first job of fiction is to seduce the reader into acceptance, but without knowing who you are aiming this at, I can't help thinking that maybe the message that's been given is so far away from your own beliefs that no matter how good the message was, you would reject it.
Seduction will never convince those totally opposed to do what they are totally against; it will only work on those who are willing to be seduced.
So, was that the case this time - the message was something totally the opposite of what you believe?
Not In The Least
My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of any exposition. I was trying to speak to my view that such exposition should be blended into a story, and not simply dumped. Read Angela Rasch's comment below for a better idea of what I'm talking about.
As far as the use of the word "seduced" goes, I didn't mean in the least that the reader should be seduced into believing whatever the author does. I was talking about the basic art of story-telling: the ability to make stuff up out of your imagination and yet make it real for the reader -- that is a form of seduction, getting the readers to want to suspend disbelief and submerge themselves in your story.
In the instances I have in mind in this particular case, the presented viewpoints didn't differ much from my own. They merely stood out like a sore thumb because they weren't, in my view, properly integrated into the story. Nothing is a bigger story-killer.
There are numerous tricks and techniques used by authors and playwrights where the "fourth wall" is broken, and the author speaks directly to the audience/reader. We really shouldn't accept any hard and fast rules in art. Some argue that conventions are meant to be defied. But, to get away with that, you have to have an artistic vision that, sorry to use this word again, seduces the reader/viewer/audience on some level, tickles their funnybone, expounds grand irony, or does something new and interesting, or you're walking into the landof Fail.
But, I wasn't talking about failed art in this case. I was talking about a failure to even try, or perhaps a misunderstanding of what storytelling is about. A desire to present one's viewpoints in a story does not mean that you can just skip the story and present your viewpoints. That's what blogs are for.
The worst real-world example of this I can think of is a comic strip that appeared in the NY Daily News for some time, apparently intended as a counterbalance to the purported political bias of strips like Doonesbury. I was so offended by the unveiled manipulation of the comics page, that I stopped reading or buying the News, so I can't tell you if the strip is still running. It was called "State Of The Union" and didn't have any characters or storyline. Each daily strip was merely some broadside in three or four frames against some caricatured real-life politician or celebrity who offended their sensibilities. The constant subtext was simply "Ha! Take that!"
Doonesbury, Boondocks, Pogo and other edgy comic strips with an arguably political viewpoint were always character-based, with long-running storylines that let you follow the characters' viewpoints and adventures. You could laugh at them as well as commiserate with them from time to time. State of the Union couldn't even be dignified with the word "screed," as it had no continuity from day to day at all. It was just a grab-bag of potshots, none of them clever enough for the editorial cartoon slots on the op-ed page. I like to think that I could have tolerated their viewpoint in a comic strip, if they had only bothered to write a comic strip instead of a series of blatantly bellicose belittlings.
State of the Union
http://comics.com/state_of_the_union/2009-12-17/
There are a bunch of them on-line, so one can form one's own opinion...
Cheers,
Liobhan
-
Cheers,
Liobhan
Political Strip Tease
Thanks for posting that. I really hadn't looked at any in something like 2 years. I see they're skewering fewer people on my favorite side of the aisle, at least directly, than they were last I looked. I guess elections do make a difference. Either that, or they're dabbling on the fringes of subtlety.
But, I don't see any change in my analysis. It's not a comic strip in the sense that most people understand comic strips. It's a series of mediocre and/or heavy-handed political cartoons, very few, if any, good enough for the editorial pages. There are far superior political cartoonists out there, all across the political spectrum. And as far as comic strips go, it's totally lame -- no signature characters, no storyline. You have to sink pretty low to make Gasoline Alley and Little Orphan Annie in their current incarnations look good.
Play It For Me, Pippa
You're right.
In addition, one of the big "faults" in writing I've noticed is the tendency to start a story out with an information dump. Think about the beginning of "It's a Wonderful Life" where the movie spends several minutes "setting the stage".
Evidently that work years ago. Readers of today are impatient. They want action from the first sentence. If you have a lot of exposition to bring in, blend it in with ongoing action so that your readers don't get board.
Think of it in terms of playing a new board game. Do you like reading instructions? Most people don't. They want to play the game. Likewise, readers don't want to read a manual about the characters before they get to the "Good Stuff".
Writers often tell me that when they got to the dialogue the story just flowed. Great --that should tell them that they should start the story with the dialogue and bring the exposition in -- in small doses from there.
Another thing that bothers me are writers who mix two or more characters' actions, words, and thoughts in one paragraph. It is much easier to write when you stick to a rule of one character's thoughts words and actions per paragraph.
That way you know Tom is speaking in the following paragraph.
Tom relaxed the muscles in his shoulders. "You look like a peppermint in that blouse."
What are your thoughts on one character per paragraph?
And another thing Pippa -- Merry Christmas!!!!
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Paragraphs
Paragraphs are partially artificial, and partly natural.
As a rhetorical device, one expects to see well-formed paragraphs in stories about clever people with a decent education.
As natural speech elements, paragraph faults are caused either by not reading one's story aloud (and listening to how one really speaks, and where one inserts pauses, and how long those pauses are) or typing with excessive speed and simply forgetting what the return key is for, although it's something of a metaphor these days.
As an authorial tool, the lack of proper indications of who's saying what is merely rude, making life hard for readers who haven't done any harm that I know of.
It's also a typographical sin, something like slurring one's words in speech, since the English language depends on separations in both written and spoken speech, and making the page too "dark," allowing no room for white space, is like taking black crayon and scribbling on the page. Everything is still there, but it's much more difficult to read.
The same holds true when characters are constantly "butting in" on other people's words, jumbling their words in with all the other characters in the same paragraphs, which is something like trying to hold a conversation in the middle of drunken assemblage of hog callers, all plying their trade at once.
On the other hand, it's not necessary that every character know everything there is to know about didactics. Some people really do speak in run-on sentences and fragments, and treat pauses for clarity as something akin to poison.
There is a story, Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes, which uses epistolary language (much out of favour these days) to good effect to trace the intellectual awakening and decline of the protagonist, but a little goes a long way for most people, although these bad habits don't seem to have done much to discourage people from reading the Bible, to use a trivial example.
Cheers,
Liobhan
-
Cheers,
Liobhan
Nothing ...
... puts me off a story more than being confronted with a sold block of text. In fact it puts me off so much I won't even attempt to read it. The layout of a story is very important for me and not separating paragraphs/characters is a cardinal sin. Not to do so is insulting your readers. It's in everyone's interest to make assimilation as easy as possible.
In Pippa's original point, if I detect a dumped load of data I tend to skip it or, at least, rewrite it in my head :) I particularly dislike the thumbnail character sketch which even some popular writers seem unable to resist. I don't want to read a bare description of a character's appearance and family circumstances I want it to be revealed through what happens. It's much more interesting that way. I guess I'm repeating the old maxim 'Show not tell'. If the data dump is some kind of philosophical/political position I just skip it.
btw Angela, I just wonder if the reader you mention in para. 3 was board stiff or merely bored. I just know that a writer of your quality always writes exactly as she intends ;)
Robi
Yes...And I do remember that meeting we had...
...just before the Big Party...you remember...of course you do!
Andrea: You're tedious...(said with more than a little teasing.)
Jill: A Wordsmith is never tedious, Andrea Baggins, nor is she verbose....She writes precisely what she means to.
Possa Dio riccamente vi benedica, tutto il mio amore, Andrea
Buon Natale a tutti i miei cari amici qui.
Love, Andrea Lena
Bringing home the Christmas Bacon
It may surprise some to learn that once I went to school. For several years indeed. Consecutive ones at that.
There I was taught about essay writing. Francis Bacon was held up as a shining example to all who would aspire to practice the craft. As I recall purely because he didn't bugger around but got on with it.
Famously so. 'Of Truth' beginning "What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer". 'Of Marriage' beginning "He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune".
To my mind an essay is the goose to a short story's gander. And if the principle holds good for a short story then surely it also does for a long?
It probably holds good for a comment too. In which case I should re-write this one.
Of course a paragraph should be limited to one character. The sole exception being if it is the writer's intention to bore to death those readers intrepid enough to read more than two pages. And to frighten the rest from ever starting. Large blocks of text are quite the most intimidating weapon in a writer's armoury apart from being incomprehensible in practice. As characters should never be allowed to ramble on without interruption this provides an automatic restraint on paragraph length.
It should be noted that soliliques are off bounds for amateurs. And should be for the great majority of professionals.
Merry Christmas all.
Hugs,
Offender
I'm one of the offenders as far as infor dumps go. That is one of the pains one has to deal with when writing about realities that differ too very much from the one we're all familiar with. Sci-Fi and Fantasy both has the problem of explaining what this particular world is like, but has to do in an interesting way as to not chase away your readers. I decided for my Once a Hero to try an Wiki like entry to fill in everyone one the basic background.
Even I thought that was dry and added a new intro to precede it as to catch my readers attention. I honestly have no idea of how well it may or may not have worked. The comments have been positive so far and no one has mentioned my Bikipedia entry. :) So did it work?
Good blog Pippa!
hugs!
Grover
Happy Holidays and/or a Merry Christmas!
It's difficult
It's difficult when your world is so different from normal (whatever that is), but there are well established techniques to get round this (at least in the SF world). Think about "Dune", where you get a little bit of a dictionary entry or a paragraph out of an 'old' history book at the beginning of every chapter to help the reader flesh out the world where the characters live.
Personally I like the literary technique of dribbling bits and pieces out as the plot goes along. Seemed to work for "The State does not make mistakes". I think it's the fact that the reader doesn't know what's going on that is the hook that draws them in, so to speak. It excites the reader's curiosity and each new fact is a little 'ping' of pleasure as she discovers more about the world the author's built.
You don't have to tell the reader everything that's in your mind if you don't want to. Sometimes it's just filler that can detract from the pace of the plot. So long as what your characters do seems consistent with the reality they are in, the reader will usually gloss over any unexplained details (providing they aren't too essential, of course!).
There is a school of thought that an author should pare out anything that doesn't actually advance the plot, but I don't think I'd go that far. Sometimes the view from the window can be just as rewarding as the end of the journey.
Penny
In For A Penny
Yes indeed. The way you (Penny) handled the exposition in The State Never Makes a Mistake was excellent. Often when you're describing something other worldly it's what you don't say that hooks the reader.
I agree with your last paragraph as long as the gaze out the window is the exception and doesn't turn into a Ronald Reagan speech.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)