|
Post by Mr.Clark on Dec 23, 2008 22:50:18 GMT -5
For me its very easy to find out why I like something. I'm not a creative type, my skill is in analysis, always something I've been good at studying things figuring out how they work why they work well or don't. What about your analysis of something well done that you don't like? As we have established (I think) a lot of what works & what doesn't for any individual reader involves their subjective taste regarding what they like generally. So, taking what you said before about mooshy fic -- some moosh may be written extraordinarily well, but doesn't work for you, since you don't care for a lot of moosh. It doesn't mean that moosh can't work well -- just that it won't do much for you. Is your ability to analyze compromised when you don't care for a certain style or type of fic? My ability to analyze it certainly isn't compromised, my ability to sit through the actual reading part is tho . I think people are misinterpreting what I said about my feelings on mushy fic. I don't loath all mushy fic, I loath the poorly written variety thats just full of cringe worthy dialogue. If its smartly written I can enjoy it in fairly small doses. Yea I don't do crossovers, sorry. You too? What is it with people not liking crossovers? I realize they can be badly abused (jamming together 2 universes that just won't work together). But since each cross-over could be so different from the next, depending on the universes/fandoms crossed, the author, and all the other fic aspects that could be involved in any particular crossover, aren't you missing a lot by just avoiding all crossovers? Isn't it like saying you're going to avoid all AUs? or all S2? (and yes, I realize there are those who avoid those wide categories as well, and I suspect they miss just as much, given there are enormous differences from one AU to the next, and a lot of differences in S2 fic, depending on the writer's orientation, etc.) I guess the best way to explain it is I'm one of those people who doesn't like when his carrots get in his mashed potatoes. I like all my characters in neat little bubbles when there in different universes it just doesn't feel quite right, just feels cheesy and weird. I don't really have anything against them I've just yet to see one that interested me all that much. I also just don't think certain characters fit in another stories universe. For a while I thought the only crossover I'd like to see would be NCIS and the Wire but the more that I thought about it it would just feel weird. Tony would look goofy and stupid in a show that serious and Gibb's would look like to much the perfect Hollywood hero to actually be real. I'm also generally pretty skeptical with AU's altho I'll generally give them a shot if I don't like where the author is going with things I'll cut and run after chapter one but in some cases they've lead to or become some of my favorite stories.
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Dec 23, 2008 23:02:46 GMT -5
What about your analysis of something well done that you don't like? ... Is your ability to analyze compromised when you don't care for a certain style or type of fic? My ability to analyze it certainly isn't compromised, my ability to sit through the actual reading part is tho . ... I like all my characters in neat little bubbles when there in different universes it just doesn't feel quite right, just feels cheesy and weird. I don't really have anything against them I've just yet to see one that interested me all that much ... So... your ability to analyze is affected by your subjective, initial resistance to mixing your vegetables mixing one fic with another. It's okay; it has to be human nature -- but if you start off being uncomfortable with what you perceive as an unnatural coupling ( i.e., "feels cheesy and weird"), you're going to have difficulty giving it the same objective read you might with a more subjectively palatable style. So: your New Year's resolution is to do the same with crossovers and give them a chance? ;D (of course, that would mean finding crossovers that work ... and I don't know that they're all that easy to find!)
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Dec 23, 2008 23:32:34 GMT -5
My ability to analyze it certainly isn't compromised, my ability to sit through the actual reading part is tho . ... I like all my characters in neat little bubbles when there in different universes it just doesn't feel quite right, just feels cheesy and weird. I don't really have anything against them I've just yet to see one that interested me all that much ... So... your ability to analyze is affected by your subjective, initial resistance to mixing your vegetables mixing one fic with another. It's okay; it has to be human nature -- but if you start off being uncomfortable with what you perceive as an unnatural coupling ( i.e., "feels cheesy and weird"), you're going to have difficulty giving it the same objective read you might with a more subjectively palatable style. Okay there Freud repeat after me, sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar. What I meant was I analyze what I read and I read what interests me. I don't read every fic that pops up on FFN, I read summaries when I find something that looks interesting I read it, if the writing isn't good or the story premise isn't interesting I stop reading. Generally when I don't like something enough to finish I don't review it. So: your New Year's resolution is to do the same with crossovers and give them a chance? ;D (of course, that would mean finding crossovers that work ... and I don't know that they're all that easy to find!) Maybe, we'll see. To be honest I've been having a hard time finding new stuff that interests me in the world of fanfic I'm not sure if thats cause my interests and tolerances have changed or the overal quality of fic being put out there isn't as good as it was 18mos ago.
|
|
|
Post by mari on Dec 24, 2008 14:43:47 GMT -5
When something really bowls me over with how it's done -- maybe a really gorgeous image, or something really powerfully written -- it's hard to find terms for explaining why that image or scene was so moving. Those are frustrating reviews because I feel as if I can't express enough how well done it was, and that's combined with a strong urge to try to express why it was so effective. Yes, that exactly. (And ‘bowls’? Cool new use to me ;D) But other than that, the better is it, the more there is to compliment! And then I end up copying pretty much the whole thing, not finding the place where I can get in and say I liked this in particular, amazed by the totality of it. What about the opposite situation? When you want to be encouraging and find something to compliment, to encourage the author's effort -- but try as you might, there really isn't much to compliment -- how hard do you work to find something to say? So you give up? Does it depend on who is writing? Good question and in a way more difficult – nothing wrong with saying lots of nice things, but not lying and still not hurting somebody’s feelings…. And yes, in way depends on whom, because once I started reviewing a story I somehow feel obliged to continue even when it develops into the ‘not much noteworthy to me’-category (because stopping in that case pretty much would be a review too). Is your ability to analyze compromised when you don't care for a certain style or type of fic? Or making the question more twisted maybe – what if it’s a preferred style or type but a pairing one doesn’t like? What about being pulled into a story just because it’s really well-written but with all the premises on the plot-level just feeling off? (of course, that would mean finding crossovers that work ... and I don't know that they're all that easy to find!) For a very recent one, try ITL’s World Behind Windows. So amazing and everything just felt as if it was meant to be that way.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Jun 18, 2009 2:11:14 GMT -5
I don't know quite where else to put this but it must belong somewhere in this section. I stumbled upon a link to an article from the New York times that I think is something many of the authors in this community might appreciate. I'm sure most people who browse these boards are familiar with Elmore Leonard, he is one of the most prolific crime writers currently at work. In this article for the Times he lays out 10 fairly simply rules or pieces of advice for most aspiring authors. Granted some of these are intended purely for novelists but I think for the most part they might be insightful to all writers. Here is the Link, please do let me know what you guys think of this as I'm curious to see how those that actually write view his opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree as strongly as you like I'm curious to see how his thoughts may or may not apply to this style of writing.
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Jun 18, 2009 7:19:19 GMT -5
I don't know quite where else to put this but it must belong somewhere in this section. I stumbled upon a link to an article from the New York times that I think is something many of the authors in this community might appreciate. I'm sure most people who browse these boards are familiar with Elmore Leonard, he is one of the most prolific crime writers currently at work. In this article for the Times he lays out 10 fairly simply rules or pieces of advice for most aspiring authors. Granted some of these are intended purely for novelists but I think for the most part they might be insightful to all writers. Here is the Link, please do let me know what you guys think of this as I'm curious to see how those that actually write view his opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree as strongly as you like I'm curious to see how his thoughts may or may not apply to this style of writing. Great article and well worth reading for anyone writing *anything* ( and not sure how I missed it but thanks for including it here!) In itself it's fun to read and explains a lot about why Elmore's wring 'sounds' the way it does. He has a lot of good suggestions, none of which I would absolutely oppose -- however, I find myself in wholehearted agreement with some and a bit squeamish & wobbly on others, and the fact that the latter wobbly ones are those things I tend to abuse do myself is probably only the sheerest coincidence. Probably the best part of the article is the whole theme, the author staying invisible -- I love the premise, and how right he is to hold that as a goal, and how well it works for an author to remain invisible and how well his suggestions would work to that goal. His examples are terrific in making his point. And Mr. Clark -- in his "10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip" section about "hooptedoodle" -- I'm afraid the prime contender for that sin (from my humble POV while reading) is our shared fave, Tom Clancy ... ya gotta admit, he *does* tend to go on at length about machining a perfect bomb and such... Of course, Ayn Rand got pretty wound up about capitalism, too. Really good find, this article. Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by aurora2424 on Jun 18, 2009 11:04:23 GMT -5
What an interesting article. Thank you for sharing. In my opinion, Leonard brings up some thought-provoking points in this oped piece that carry a lot of merit from his perspective as a contemporary author. This "show not tell" method is certainly the reigning philosophy of post-modern literature and I think his challenge to those of us who dabble in writing is a worthy one - write things people want to read. Which from his perspective is dialogue that is incisive, enlightening, and fluid. Done at its best (and one could argue Leonard is an example), this style of writing can be exciting and insightful. However, in its less exalted form this style reminds me of white bread - unsatisfying, intellectually devoid of nutrition, and processed. What Leonard mentions only briefly is that many of the greatest pieces of writing are in violation of his "rules" largely because, up until recently, more verbose, descriptive forms of writing were the norm. Leonard is correct that many of the poor forms of this style of writing are boring, dull, and include large segments individuals might choose to skip over. But at its best, its incredibly rich and powerful. Take the opening scene of Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities" - according to Leonard's rules, it should be awful. However, to those of us who enjoy that book (and I realize there are those who don't) this largely metaphoric, highly descriptive piece of prose is a masterpiece of "show" writing. I literally get chills when I read it. To me, its a matter of perspective. Leonard worships the characters; he sees dialogue and inter-personal interactions as the ultimate. He wants to master the perspective we have in everyday life. Dickens, and those who subscribe to the omniscient narrator, take a bird's eye view of a story, flying above and desiring to see more than just what is visible in ordinary life. It requires those who read to recognize this as "fiction" but can offer more in the way of psychological exploration (not necessarily Dickens here). Personally, I could never hope to do either - but I do subscribe to the philosophy of not over-using exclamation points Perhaps, I can I'll try to make my own writing philosophy and try to write an entire DA fanfiction with emoticons ;D + =
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Jun 18, 2009 12:25:43 GMT -5
And Mr. Clark -- in his "10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip" section about "hooptedoodle" -- I'm afraid the prime contender for that sin (from my humble POV while reading) is our shared fave, Tom Clancy ... ya gotta admit, he *does* tend to go on at length about machining a perfect bomb and such.. Oh without question. I will readily admit to having skipped large portions of chapters. In fact they're are hole subplots in some of his stories that I never cared for at all. I think the premise of the article is to know your strengths. He prefaced everything he said with the basic notion that too much of most things is never a good thing, but if its your strength as a writer go with it. That being said I think his advice could help writers who work in such a largely narrative based, dialogue heavy medium as fanfiction. I also think the goal of staying invisible as an author enhances the readers ability to be caught up in the story to a far greater extent.
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Jun 18, 2009 14:21:23 GMT -5
What an interesting article. Thank you for sharing. And Aurora, thanks so much for your insightful (and much more well considered than my) response... Elmore's style does fit his characters and is fun, but doesn't translate to all types of fiction. Ultimately, as both you & Mr. Clark imply, it makes a big difference too if whatever the technique is, it's done well. (And so the lingering lesson is that talent does matter, too! -- please forgive the exclamation point) ... and as a sad aside: how twisted is it that the brainless auto-censor on this board won't let you directly refer to a writer like D.i.c.k.e.n.s because of one bloody syllable in his name?? Some literary irony, indeed....
|
|
|
Post by mari on Jun 19, 2009 11:42:10 GMT -5
Hm, jein… some good tips, others… don’t know. (However, certainly more founded than another set of writing rules I have to follow at the moment : Basically agreeing with Aurora, what makes me uneasy is that he focuses on one style of writing and takes it as the measurement for all writing. The few exceptions he accepts for a few famous authors seem more like the famous exceptions from the rule, allowed for them but not the average writer. I don’t know his books, so probably am just misreading him… taking his tips as an opinion on general writing instead of only some general rules for beginners. This "show not tell" method is certainly the reigning philosophy of post-modern literature What Leonard mentions only briefly is that many of the greatest pieces of writing are in violation of his "rules" largely because, up until recently, more verbose, descriptive forms of writing were the norm. Great point. I think what he omits to mention is that that the criteria of good writing do depend on the historical context and the opinion of contemporaries. And as you pointed out, there are so many classics that do not follow his rules. Just think of the list of Nobel prizes. Dickens was mentioned and I thought of Hugo and ‘Les miserables’ – not everybody’s taste and maybe not strictly necessary for straightforward story telling but I found it kind of cool how described battle scenes by using letters. Post modernity also allows a multitude of styles existing at the same time and I don’t think there is one style that is universally the best. (And yes, he says something like that in the beginning but it’s clear which style he considers superior) Just as much depends on the author’s talent to use a style and on the topic, what he wants to say. . However, in its less exalted form this style reminds me of white bread - unsatisfying, intellectually devoid of nutrition, and processed I agree (and really like your wording). Actually this impressionistic ‘don’t tell, but show’ internal monologue style can just have the opposite effect than the ease at which he seems to aim – even when it’s done well by accomplished authors. (Thinking of some early 20. century writers, having to read Schnitzler for school) And on the other end there are those authors who can combine a good plot and characters and write books full of intellectual nutrition, bringing in points and perspectives Leonard would consider unnecessary. (Umberto Eco would be a famous example or Harry Mulisch) write things people want to read. Which leads to the question of what is the goal of writing, should the author merely aim to entertain and please readers (and how to define ‘readers’ with the millions of different preferences, interests and cultural backgrounds out there) – that might be true for fan fiction (perhaps), but for literature in general? And once more failed gloriously in being short and concise. (That's probably the rule I should follow most ) All I meant to say originally is good tips for the most part, but I don’t like his absoluteness. Would be interesting to read the other articles in the series, more opinions of other authors about what makes good writing.
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Aug 5, 2009 7:06:21 GMT -5
Okay, another fic-related question for those of you who read and/or write fanfiction:
How do you feel about AUs, generally?
Let's assume we're talking about well-done AUs. I'm thinking first off, it's a matter of taste, in the same way some people like books or movies of different genres -- some like sci fi, others don't; some like gothic or mystery or whatever, others have no interest.
But AUs assume there is a 'canon' or set universe, so the concept of AU is unique to fanfic, right? I mean, there are plenty of spin-off movies, TV shows & all, but no real AUs (and thank heaven we've been spared "the all new Gilligan's Island, in which the castaways were stranded not on an island, but on the moon!") So if you're going to read fanfic about DA, for example, would you avoid an AU? Read it skeptically? Embrace it? Do you appreciate it for its creativity, in manipulating the show's basic ideas and going in its own direction, or find it irritating that the author can't leave well enough alone? Do you like some but not others? (as in, love an S2 or more *without* the virus -- which would be AU, after all -- but hate crossovers?)
I've been intrigued by AUs all over again recently because of seeing some in NCIS that have clever twists of canon to lead to a story -- the one I just recommended has Tony not going into law enforcement, but using his P.E. degree -- and being a big fan of Thom E. Gemcity, so much so that he writes fanfic in Gemcity's style ... (with a contest to "meet the author and tour the real NCIS!" in his future! ;D). If course that's wildly unlike the show, but it seems as if it could lead to such fun interactions with the others on the 'real' team. Another current fic switches the Mossad liason officer character, so that Tony is Israeli, not Ziva -- not quite as creatively developed as some others, but an interesting switch that would have been cool to throw out as a challenge, just for fun.
Corny? Silly? Maybe; but I love the creativity and challenge raised in working from a set premise, with a twist thrown in. It's such fun to find clever, inventive stories that can result when this is tried!
So what about you guys, especially if you are a frequent fic reader anyway -- like it? Hate it? Don't care? Depends? Please tell us!
or if you don't want to tell .. go read some! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Aug 5, 2009 15:44:51 GMT -5
For me its entirely case by case basis. Some of the cliched one's I dismiss right off the bat like the hole 'what if all the characters went to high school together'. It really depends on where and what is broken from cannon and what direction its taken in.
Reaching for the Moon or whatever its call is still one of my all time favorite fics and thats an AU. I think the level of detail can be important if your going to really break out in a different universe you've really got to sell the reader on said universe.
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Aug 5, 2009 16:58:15 GMT -5
For me its entirely case by case basis. Some of the cliched one's I dismiss right off the bat like the hole 'what if all the characters went to high school together'. It really depends on where and what is broken from cannon and what direction its taken in. Makes sense, and I wonder if that's what most people think -- despite the number of times you see people swear they never read a particular type of story or style. Yeah! One of my favorite things in sci fi is watching an author create a universe or future society -- it can be as out there as anything, but how consistent and true they stay with the world they create can make or break the story. The really good ones are so much fun to read, to see what the author does with it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Aug 5, 2009 19:57:44 GMT -5
I'm willing to give AU's a shot because some have been quite good. I also like alot of chapter fics and in most cases if a long chapter fic (like 20+ chapters) they tend to shoot of into a semi-AU so I'm flexible with the concept.
I still however can't for the life of me think of a cross-over I've ever read and enjoyed. I think its basically like if you looked at TV shows as there own little AU's of the real world. For me I want them to be nice and neatly contained because in each little AU things are just slightly different from the real world. I guess thats kinda how I handle the warped ways in which Hollywood recreates what happens in the world.
|
|
Herumor
Devoted Fan
I'm wracked by guilt...
Posts: 209
|
Post by Herumor on Aug 5, 2009 20:50:15 GMT -5
For me its entirely case by case basis. Some of the cliched one's I dismiss right off the bat like the hole 'what if all the characters went to high school together'. It really depends on where and what is broken from cannon and what direction its taken in. Makes sense, and I wonder if that's what most people think -- despite the number of times you see people swear they never read a particular type of story or style. I agree, I usually don't go for AU, but there are some great exceptions. I will try almost everything once, though. Mine too! ;D
|
|