|
Mel Mudkiper posted:EDIT: Which lead to "Can an acorn be a dragon?" to which I replied "If the acorn is the apex predator of the fantasy world, then yes" But if you put an acorn atop a mountain on the cover of a book no-one would know it's a fantasy novel, so no.
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:What if the acorn was fighting a chick with titty armor Then it's probably sci-fi and the acorn is now an alien or space man.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
In a dose of authors being so, so close. https://twitter.com/ChuckWendig/status/1127965203335745536 Stories are for children.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:What is he "so, so close" to? ""Plot-Driven" is something of a myth. It's kinda mostly sorta not a thing" - Plot isn't a thing. Plot forward writing is no better than a wikipedia article. Although novels are artificial, created by someone, it should be up to the reader to do the most human of things and turn it into their story. If the writing is grounded in the immediate experience, the effect of the words and prose, it's the flow of ideas in a moment that translates to an effect felt, maybe intellectualised, appreciated. "What happens next" isn't true to lived experienced, you can feel anticipation for what is to come, but the anticipation is the first level of effect not the "next thing" that can't be known. Story, narrative, plot are all higher level experiences, made retrospectively, to make sense of what was experienced. "Plot-driven" is a contextualisation of experience, of events, without giving credence to what was experienced, what the truth of those events were in their instance. If you look at it like a history of events, history has to make sense of what's happened, but it isn't giving the historian the experience of what's happening. I'd say a reader is both living the events and the historian afterwards, cataloguing and making sense of those events. Plot-driven is making the reader into the historian after the event while they're still in the moment of reading.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I feel this is a criticism of the term rather than the feeling. Like, when people say they want to read on to see what happens next, I think it's fair to interpret that as they're enjoying the immediate feeling of suspense and uncertainty. So criticism of "plot driven" novels is kind of silly, it should be criticisn of, I dunno, anticipatory novels, that have the expectation of epiphany. It's mostly a farty way of saying the prose has to come first. The immediate effects of the words is brought to bear far sooner, and on a more primary basis than the effect of the plot. The plot, and the construction of the story is a secondary action for the reader, as they experience the words firstly, then work to put it in a frame from what came before, and what is likely to come after. To use extremes as an example, the most exciting storyline ever will never be taken in if the process of getting that story, experiencing the immediate words is dull as ditch-water. However an extremely involved experience of reading might make a dull story come to life due to the words instant effect. It's just a case of which is the more experienced aspect of reading, and the immediately experienced is the words, which has to carry the whole thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
nankeen posted:fantasy, science fiction, horror, magical realism, "young adult", all of these terms are just insulting and unnecessary attempts to define the indefinable, and from now on i will make it my mission that if i hear any man invoke these terms, i will slay him A true psychological thriller of a post.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
There's also the seeking of "unputdownable." The idea that reading is a bingeing experience, that you simply have to get to the end of. That something could be heavy, even off-putting as a reading experience, or at least need to be taken in controlled measures and still be seductive is a tough nut to crack. Strangely, I have a gut feeling sci-fi and fantasy should be better for this. They can have a whole experience promised, an entire concept that would keep drawing the reader back despite the weight and pressure of reading it. A book about the madness of the maternal feeling, or the solitude of losing social standing and purpose, while important, doesn't have the allure of something wildly exotic that can carry a SFF's premise (presuming that's what's wanted from SFF.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
I'm reading the absolute worst of genre fiction: television show official offshoot fiction. Specifically the stories that continue on after Star Trek: DS9. I haven't read any genre in quite a while, but the most offensive thing about it is how so obviously laid out everything is. Everything is signed or pointed to, every characters emotion and thought made explicit. Every beat unraveled at length. The author pretty much wants to inject the final meaning of the writing straight into you, with no allowance for personal interpretation or deviation from their intent. No allowance for imagination, let alone reader personality and perspective. If it wasn't for the DS9 book that preceded it (actually written by one of the DS9 actors) I'd have thought it was some editorial decision to stop the reader from getting too much from it. Really it's just horrendous writing where they're pretty much trying to directly insert something complete into your perception. And I don't even mean the fully complete part to mean a failing in subtext, everything is just so explicitly written. When ham writers talk about show not tell, this is what they're referring to. And it's not for an author with some control over their writing, with some ability to let silence do its work, it's for the trash that thinks their readers are simpletons (which may very well be true, seeing as I'm reading Star Trek fiction.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:It's literally a blow-by-blow-by-item-drop description of someone playing a game. I'm writing a mental blow-by-blow account of someone recovering from psychosis. After the success of my previously shared story I'm hoping to share this all new, all improved, less indulgent story soon. Lots of stat boosts for negative symptoms while acute symptoms are debuffed. Big area of effects to lack of showering.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
I imagine it's for a very specific kind of brokebrain that can only process the world as a game. They've grown up on games, see their identity as a gamer, and relate everything they encounter through gamer memes, gamer bravado, and the mechanics of games. It's the type of person who calls others NPCs to insult them not realising it only betrays their own inability to deal with the world on a natural level. Everything is (not just a computer) game to them. People aren't real, they're quest givers, mobs to be destroyed, and success can be achieved through abuse of the "meta." When the world doesn't work like that, except in their own, increasingly (sadly) growing communities, they want to retreat to a fiction where everything can be processed by beating a level, or boss, or exploiting a bug.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
I'm definitely against the current trends precluding novels from dealing with these issues unless they do so with prefect gravity and the attitude of a therapist but so many books like this are like your oncologist telling you you're terminal while wearing a clown costume. Then, of course, fans bring up the doctor from the Robin Williams film who did wear a big red nose failing to see that was a very special once off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
There's something to be said for genre writing, that what its readers are looking for is known. It's the "Woo!" or Nintendo or Apple press conference. The amazing moment (for amazing read a college student saying, "awesome.") The big idea that seems bigger than yourself and makes you feel bigger. Seeing the challenges you deal with having their rear end kicked (although this might be more with YA, I wouldn't say genre excludes it.) It has a set of requirements to it, books fulfill those requirements, and people talk about what experiencing the meeting of those requirements meant to them. With other forms of writing I'm not sure anyone can lay out what they're looking for, other than, "I'll know it when I see it." There's no real ground-laid rules. It ends up being write out with examples, not quite proofs. Just someone saying this novel achieved for me. If you want more people cheering lit fiction then say what the template for it is. Then more people can go, "Woo!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
A human heart posted:i don't disagree but rather than just making that observation the post also seems to say that actual literature should do something similar in order to attract more readers. What's more true to the human experience than whooping when the iPhone is revealed to have four camera lenses? And shouting, "I knew it!" when the car turns into a robot?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
If superman can time travel by zooming around the world why doesn't he go back in time and kill our primordial goop. Q.E.D. Superman writers wanted Hitler.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
fauna posted:it's frustrating when i see this argument used on other people because, due to time constraints, i do in fact go through life not reading what i don't like. the result of that is that i don't find out important things until very late, such as the fact that the ten-million-word online superhero epic that has inexplicably transfixed the nerd world for years is thinly disguised nazi propaganda SMH if you're not reading nazi propaganda in its original Norwegian.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Something I've noticed in reactions to a lot of books is how people seem to want to mine them for, what? Data? Meaning? Subtleties that are obvious? Subtext that says these people are actually queer? A grand theory on the space time continuum? Between reading both genre and "lit fic" I've noticed opposing views in how they're set up and reacted to. Lit fic will leave a lot unsaid. There'll be an assumption the reader can fill in gaps not filled in by the author, because they're irrelevant or because the details only matter to each individual reader. That coming to those details is the reader's part in reading the story. If the story is effective on an affective level it'll be ridden with by the reader. Then, when the story is done a reader may come up with a reaction to it and be fine with all that was said and unsaid (outside of acedemia going over someone's works.) With a lot of genre it seems to be the opposite. Things need to be laid out clearly and precisely. If something isn't supported explicitly in text then it's seen as unjustified. A gap in events, characters' reasoning, characters' desires, whatever is considered a flaw. But then, when the book is done, it'll be examined for depth. Enough explicit "messages" will be used to puzzle out something else, like everything is a clue to a bigger scenario. You see this in worldbuilding, and character motivations. Where authors will try and work out exact magic rules and draw up character sheets for their characters. Not so they keep elements of the story straight, but so every detail of the character is known building into a mass of depth behind every interaction they have. I don't see this with lit authors or at least I've never seen it talked about. I've seen far more lit authors say "Nothing happens after the end of the story. The story ends there." Or that there's nothing more to the characters than what's in the book because they were just being used to achieve something. I'm not advocating for either position, but it can explain why readers back and forth between across styles have issues. The "nothing happens" response to lit fic is because it's all happening from the prose's effect in creating reader affect, not being explicitly magicked up and imparted to them, and vice versa.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2019 08:45
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Sounds like litfic authors rely on their readers to make up a better book in their head, good grift imo Isn't it all made up in your head?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Ironic to bring up Chekhov's gun in this context when basically every Chekhov play and story ends with, "Everyone went home sad and learned nothing." I'd make a case for the reader learning a bit. Although seeing as we're the characters in this story it still holds true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
I'm not coming from a limited brain space perspective on this, like good prose, and sci-fi and fantasy literally can't exist in one mind, but I do very much get a feeling of, "Why?" If you're capable of writing the type of detailed, deep probes into minds and humanity that should make up the best of lit fic, why would you want to add extra trappings to it? It's partly a tradition thing, as well. There's very little tradition or history to genre fic having (from outside) the respect that lit fic gets, and from inside the queries into mind and purpose that writing humanity-with-reality that lit fic has. You could blaze a new trail, but you're not adding to the conversation that exists, out-there, already. To a degree it is even the limited brain space angle, but from the outsiders perspective. Why would you distract, and add potentially layer upon layer between your meaning and your purpose by incorporating extraneous sci-fi details. It's very much a world-versus-person thing in sci-fi. When you focus on people they're dealing with the world, but for writing the person's personal issues the world is extant and not needing explanation because no person runs around explaining a world to themselves. You don't need to add a fucky world for the reader to deal with as well, and excuse and explain all the personal-fucky stuff. At best you're dealing with a novel length metaphor, in the setting, as some of the posts here seem to be referring to. "This is racism-metaphor-world." Why not deal with the world rather than cloud it over with an imperfect metaphor. It's bullshit, op. Complete bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
Stuporstar posted:metaphors are wonderful and bullshit is enjoyable Yeah, but I'm grumpy and want greatness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Speculative fiction? What's it speculating on? Bullshit, I say.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
The other aspect of this, and something I've seen quite frequently is the "X is an inspiration" when it comes to particular writers (especially from other writers.) They're never talking about their writing, their work. It's always because it's a particular person with particular traits who has become a success despite Y. I could find it, when it happens at this broad level, incredibly demeaning to be celebrated because of your success as a woman, trans woman, gay person, whatever, and not because your writing is particularly good, or because you put forward an insightful understanding of something in your short story or book. You, the celebrity who succeeded is important, not your writing, the loving thing you do, is important. It reminds me of Rupi Kaur talking about "He's the best!" And pointing at a cover on a Kafka book, meaning the graphic designer provides the best look in the market, and not that Kafka wrote anything particularly well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
I think you're framing this the exact way most of the media framed it, without paying attention to the many criticisms from authors that not only did she write about lives she didn't live herself, but she wrote it badly. If the book was good, and accurate to the lives (either as a form of reality or as an appropriate literary device) then there might not have been an issue (we just don't know.) A lot of media is framing it about who gets to write who. The authors I've seen speaking about it are saying she wrote about people badly, with a poo poo novel, probably because she had no loving clue about what she was writing. Edit: Read this slate article with quotes from NY editors. Part of what they're saying is that the book attracted extra scrutiny because it was framed as a literary experience of illegal immigrants, when really it was supermarket shelves trash fiction. Now, would it still be problematic if it was sold as a thriller not trying to write an accurate account, in the form of literary fiction, of illegal immigrants, maybe? That's a different discussion about what level of accuracy pulp fiction demands. But it's pretty obvious it set itself up as something, failed at what it set itself up as, and that's brought the criticisms. https://slate.com/culture/2020/01/american-dirt-controversy-will-publishers-change.html Mrenda fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Feb 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:all of these ideas are addressed in the zadie smith piece i posted. whether the book is bad - whether her characters are unbelievable or not true to life or whatever - is a very different question than what pospysysl directly said: But it is what's being discussed, because this is framed on the basis of the fact that the book is poo poo. That she didn't write the experience of mexican immigrants, that the immigrants who did write it are being passed over for badly written versions of what they wrote well. (And I can't read the Zadie Smith article as it's paywalled for me.) But I broadly agree that people should be allowed write where they're taken to. I can't imagine a gay author, or a trans author, or any other minority only ever being allowed to write the gay, trans, whatever story.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
There's a secondary effect, part of "hype" where people read something to have an opinion on it. I've definitely felt a desire to read something so I can join in the conversations around it. Sometimes the hype is good, and I have a feeling it'll not live up to what it's being pitched as, and I want to be able to say, "but no." Unless you're talking about fiction that's pretty much entered the canon (and even that's politicised) reading anything that's come out recently is giving it attention, whether you end up thinking it's deserving of attention or not once you've finished it. It's the old "watercooler tv" effect. "Must-watch." Something becomes a cultural touchstone and whether your view of it is negative or positive, even having a view on it feeds into its cache.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
I think the "Bad Sex Awards" have a lot to answer for. Sure, it's literally bad sex that's happening, but often (although not always) the narrators are supposed to be douchebags. It's another example of people thinking that the author and the words in the book are the same thing. That there could never be an arsehole describing his sex like an arsehole. They'll make arguments about it not being a positive influence, but that fails readers. Readers who are perfectly capable of saying the narrator is wrong, as is evidenced by the immediate recognition of the bad sex awards. Writing a book about a pyromaniac isn't endorsing setting fire to things, writing a book about theft isn't endorsing stealing your lunchbox, writing bad sex from the perspective of someone bad at sex isn't endorsing bad sex. Edit: And to answer your question without any specifics you could probably look at a lot of romance/erotica writing, which is designed to make people horny. There's a simple enough measure if that's any good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2020 13:01
|
|
|
Heath posted:In my experience, amateur/first time writers fall into a couple of categories: This ignores that amateur/first time writing is necessary to become a professional/seasoned writer. Proposing there are only bad writers (in the first time writing class sure, but in the amateur class? nah), and every bad writer (while proposing all such writers are bad might be a stance that finds support in these here forums) falls into your divisions of bullshit is, in itself, bullshit. You could even make an argument that really good writers, in a lot of cases, aren't actually professional writers. The ones who have to make a living not off advances, fees and royalties, but grant support, giving lectures, guest editing, and running workshops. Compared to a lot of writers I'd guess Ellis is more "professional" (in that she can live longer solely on the earnings of her book) than a lot of seriously good authors. You're trying to dismiss poo poo books with accusations of amateur-ism and first-time writing, which is total crap, and not because poo poo books a realm of poo poo books are rampant, and writing well, while achievable, is still difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
It's possible, from a suitably elevated position, to think everything anything deals with is childish and immature. It doesn't help that the prose is simplistic and devoid of nuance. Eventually you're just reaching for the things that tingle your specific brain type. The problem is it's hard to imagine anyone who's ever stimulated their neurons would find inspiration in some works. The other problem is people don't want to think when it comes to a lot of books; they don't want new thought, challenge, consideration, etc. This, then, butts up against the ludicrous notion people put across that all books, and any reading, is somehow this great intellectual endeavour. Me watching Parks and Rec isn't bettering my thought or ideas, the same should be said about these books. (Note I've only read Harry Potter and Normal People, not the other book mentioned.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2020 13:58
|
|