![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceThanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ironymaiden's post here, I'm now aware that there are some kerfluffles in book circles about traditionalism in fantasy. My basic comment on the subjects at hand is over there, but it got me to thinking about some other, semi-related stuff.
As one might imagine, the meta concepts here are near and dear to me at the moment, given that I'm writing a fantasy novel with a female protagonist. The overall setting is more or less traditional--dwarves, elves, orcs, yadda yadda--but the story itself, while a typical hero's journey, has quite a few more modern elements to it.
I'm sure I'm treading well-worn territory, here, but I'm also sure that my story (should it ever get published) will likely piss off a few purists. Some won't like a female warrior's POV in the first place, some may find the elements of queerness and gender politics in the story a blasphemy in the Tolkienesque setting. And still others--some female readers, perhaps--won't like the protagonist because she doesn't spend half the book worrying about her love life. Given that half the YA SFF novels out there these days are the other way around, I'm sure a lot of young women readers have come to expect that, and might find my story weird, at best.
Truthfully, because of all this, I expect to have a hell of a time pitching the thing when the time comes. Striking a balance between doing something that's original enough to stand above the dross and yet has enough mass appeal to earn a publisher some money isn't easy. But really, all I can do is write the book that I wish had existed when I was a young reader, and hope that there are enough people out there who feel the same.
One other thing I realized with that discussion, though: I really have no idea what else is out there in book land. I read just a few authors consistently, and really don't know much about other stuff, but for what M (whose Kindle is permanently attached to his hand) tells me. Obviously, this is a Bad Thing in terms of being a writer who hopes people want to read her stuff, but outside of that issue, I kind of take offense at the idea that I'm hopelessly gauche because books are inherently better, somehow, than other forms of storytelling.
I started reading at 2. I practically lived in the library as a kid. The one thing I really love my dad for was him sharing his love of books with me. But I honestly don't read much these days. This isn't because I think there's something wrong with books. It's because I have attention span fail (for one) and also because I continue to be impressed with the quality of storytelling happening across other kinds of genre entertainment. And, as the timing for those things tends to be both more immediate and shorter, that's what I'm spending most of my entertainment bandwidth on right now. I also seem to be gravitating to TV because I'm finding that I like serialized storytelling, with short-form mini arcs working toward umbrella arcs.
Dirty little secret: As I'm writing my novel, I'm imagining how the thing would be shot it if were ever turned into a movie, and "casting" some of my characters with existing actors. This doesn't mean I'm avoiding writing some things because they wouldn't work on-screen. It just means that getting a thorough mental picture in my head of exactly what things look and sound like helps me describe it on the page. If I can't see that film in my head as I'm writing, then I know it's not going to work. One of the things that never really worked for me with Earthsea, for instance, is that I didn't feel like I got a good enough description of the visual picture LeGuin was creating. Lots of stuff about what was going on in her characters' heads, but not a lot about where they were, how they were moving, what things looked like around them, etc. I don't want to over-describe, either (hello, Tolkien!) but I do think at least some scene setting is important, and visualizing it makes that work for me.
I suppose this might mean that my brain's been pickled from having a steady diet of TV and movies since I was a wee thing, but I don't think so. My imagination is just fine, and I can fill in some blanks when necessary, too. I just like stories that truly come to life and are immersive, and world building is a big part of that, IMHO. If one could say that there's something easy (and therefore less artistic?) about TV/movies/games vs. books, I suppose that would be it: You set the scene with your camera, and the script is there to move the action along. Yet that's an oversimplification, IMHO.
There are just as many ways to tell a story visually as with text. The shots the director chooses are as much a part of the storytelling as the words the characters speak, and knowing how to actually tell a story in pictures is, IMHO, just as much of an art. Imagine, for instance, if Lost were a series of books instead of a TV show. A skilled writer could certainly tell that (very complex) story, but we'd also miss things like the subtle grace of Charlie's sacrifice, and the ecstatic joy when Desmond calls Penny. You could describe those things in words, but without the expressions, the tone of voice and (critically!) Michael Giacchino's amazing score, a hell of a lot would be... well... lost.
Just as it's unfair to consider SFF somehow cheaper or less artistic than reality-based drama, it's also unfair to consider visually told stories cheaper than text-told ones. Each has its own merits, and should be judged on an apples-to-apples basis. Even on a personal level, I tell stories differently with my vids than with my fics. I'm rather more skilled at the latter because I have more experience with it, but I don't think that means the vids are inherently worse aside from skill issues. As a writer who's bordering on pro, it's in my best interest that people keep reading, of course, but I don't feel any personal affront when people enjoy other types of storytelling. And really, writers/readers who DO feel that way need to get over themselves.
ironymaiden's post here, I'm now aware that there are some kerfluffles in book circles about traditionalism in fantasy. My basic comment on the subjects at hand is over there, but it got me to thinking about some other, semi-related stuff. As one might imagine, the meta concepts here are near and dear to me at the moment, given that I'm writing a fantasy novel with a female protagonist. The overall setting is more or less traditional--dwarves, elves, orcs, yadda yadda--but the story itself, while a typical hero's journey, has quite a few more modern elements to it.
I'm sure I'm treading well-worn territory, here, but I'm also sure that my story (should it ever get published) will likely piss off a few purists. Some won't like a female warrior's POV in the first place, some may find the elements of queerness and gender politics in the story a blasphemy in the Tolkienesque setting. And still others--some female readers, perhaps--won't like the protagonist because she doesn't spend half the book worrying about her love life. Given that half the YA SFF novels out there these days are the other way around, I'm sure a lot of young women readers have come to expect that, and might find my story weird, at best.
Truthfully, because of all this, I expect to have a hell of a time pitching the thing when the time comes. Striking a balance between doing something that's original enough to stand above the dross and yet has enough mass appeal to earn a publisher some money isn't easy. But really, all I can do is write the book that I wish had existed when I was a young reader, and hope that there are enough people out there who feel the same.
One other thing I realized with that discussion, though: I really have no idea what else is out there in book land. I read just a few authors consistently, and really don't know much about other stuff, but for what M (whose Kindle is permanently attached to his hand) tells me. Obviously, this is a Bad Thing in terms of being a writer who hopes people want to read her stuff, but outside of that issue, I kind of take offense at the idea that I'm hopelessly gauche because books are inherently better, somehow, than other forms of storytelling.
I started reading at 2. I practically lived in the library as a kid. The one thing I really love my dad for was him sharing his love of books with me. But I honestly don't read much these days. This isn't because I think there's something wrong with books. It's because I have attention span fail (for one) and also because I continue to be impressed with the quality of storytelling happening across other kinds of genre entertainment. And, as the timing for those things tends to be both more immediate and shorter, that's what I'm spending most of my entertainment bandwidth on right now. I also seem to be gravitating to TV because I'm finding that I like serialized storytelling, with short-form mini arcs working toward umbrella arcs.
Dirty little secret: As I'm writing my novel, I'm imagining how the thing would be shot it if were ever turned into a movie, and "casting" some of my characters with existing actors. This doesn't mean I'm avoiding writing some things because they wouldn't work on-screen. It just means that getting a thorough mental picture in my head of exactly what things look and sound like helps me describe it on the page. If I can't see that film in my head as I'm writing, then I know it's not going to work. One of the things that never really worked for me with Earthsea, for instance, is that I didn't feel like I got a good enough description of the visual picture LeGuin was creating. Lots of stuff about what was going on in her characters' heads, but not a lot about where they were, how they were moving, what things looked like around them, etc. I don't want to over-describe, either (hello, Tolkien!) but I do think at least some scene setting is important, and visualizing it makes that work for me.
I suppose this might mean that my brain's been pickled from having a steady diet of TV and movies since I was a wee thing, but I don't think so. My imagination is just fine, and I can fill in some blanks when necessary, too. I just like stories that truly come to life and are immersive, and world building is a big part of that, IMHO. If one could say that there's something easy (and therefore less artistic?) about TV/movies/games vs. books, I suppose that would be it: You set the scene with your camera, and the script is there to move the action along. Yet that's an oversimplification, IMHO.
There are just as many ways to tell a story visually as with text. The shots the director chooses are as much a part of the storytelling as the words the characters speak, and knowing how to actually tell a story in pictures is, IMHO, just as much of an art. Imagine, for instance, if Lost were a series of books instead of a TV show. A skilled writer could certainly tell that (very complex) story, but we'd also miss things like the subtle grace of Charlie's sacrifice, and the ecstatic joy when Desmond calls Penny. You could describe those things in words, but without the expressions, the tone of voice and (critically!) Michael Giacchino's amazing score, a hell of a lot would be... well... lost.
Just as it's unfair to consider SFF somehow cheaper or less artistic than reality-based drama, it's also unfair to consider visually told stories cheaper than text-told ones. Each has its own merits, and should be judged on an apples-to-apples basis. Even on a personal level, I tell stories differently with my vids than with my fics. I'm rather more skilled at the latter because I have more experience with it, but I don't think that means the vids are inherently worse aside from skill issues. As a writer who's bordering on pro, it's in my best interest that people keep reading, of course, but I don't feel any personal affront when people enjoy other types of storytelling. And really, writers/readers who DO feel that way need to get over themselves.
Tags: