Mike C

If the scenery is the focus, or 'main character, I really hope your book is a non-fiction picture book, or it'll go straight in my trash pile.

Stories are not about scenery. Stories are about people every time. Scenery does not fall in love. Scenery does not hate or flirt or laugh or cry. None of Shakespeare's plays revolve around scenery.

PEOPLE make stories. Scenery is just something for them to stand on.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

ampersand

Top post, Mike.

Markovich

I personally don't like descriptive parts of writing whether it's a place or a person, I will only do it if it actually comes easy to me, I won't force it. When I first tried to write I made the common mistake of thinking I had to describe the place and people in a certain way. I would rather employ heavy dialogue. Dialogue can include any descriptors when they are necessary.

Markovich

I find that when I read I tend to create my own world regardless of what the author is telling me. For example, if the author is telling me that a girl is blonde and I'd rather she be brunette, then I imagine her brunette.

All I really need from the author are little seedlings for my imagination. Tell me the country, the date, and whether the scene is among mountains or steppes.

Sometimes I am even disappointed when I've created my little world and the author suddenly describes it as something else. Come to think of it, that's happened quite a lot.

K-P

This is one of the reasons I hated reading Lord of the Rings. Tolkien spent more time showing me all the grasses and flowers and rivers and mountains than he did moving the characters along in the plot.

He set a bad precedent for fantasy writers. I swear, this is the worst genre for getting bogged down in the visual details. Like, if something is red, then it's red. It's not, "A glistening crimson colour, like the light of a perfect ruby refracting in the visceral twin suns of Alkananooshaboosh."

Thank you.

Quillqueen

Heh hem. I won't get into Tolkien. I won't do it. *Strains at the leash, froths at the mouth*. I had a ten E-mail debate about Tolkien being a crappy writer and a terrible character creator. I can't dig up the E-mails, because I've changed aliases since then, but I can sure go and find that little punk that said that tommyrot, and I'll replay it, if you care to, KP.

Personally, if you're a fantasy writer who doesn't like Tolkien, go home. Pick up Catcher in the Rye and write something depressing and clipped. If you don't like Tolkien, it means you don't understand him. If you can't appreciate that, god forbid, someone is actually taking care to create BEAUTY (oh, goodness, what in the world is that?) through their words, then you shouldn't even read literature in the first place. When Tolkien describes something as a "glistening crimson colour, like the light of a perfect ruby refracting in the visceral..." He's not trying to say "the gem is red." he's trying to say that this is a beautiful, poetic story that makes you set the book down and think. Oh no! I have to think about something! Stop! Get away! A good friend once described (yuck! description!) Tolkien's writing as "Elegant, full paragraphs that one must read once, twice, maybe even three times to sap the full meaning of his precious words...." You can't read LOTR like you can read R. A. Salvatore, but you can read LOTR with the eyes of a connesieur, delving into a rich, verdant world of beauty, love, energy, huge intensity and emotion....

As for scenery not being able to fall in love or murder or have ardent discussions, sure...But guess what, we can't fall in love or murder without scenery!!!

I would just like to put out there, to all those who call themselves writers, that when one is writing, one is creating a visceral image through words. Without this, one is merely making words follow words... The point is not merely to give one's imagination a boost... The point is to fuel ones imagination with pictures and places and people...


Q

__________________

Soccah

Many non-fiction novels, which first struggled with establishing the identity of a nation, used the scenery--that is, the distinction of their specific region/scene (i.e. prairie dustbowl, sahara/mojahbe deserts... )--as a key element to their narratives, so much so, that the main characters struggles to find themselves is overshadowed at times--if not, at the very least paralelled by the scenic description itself.

As for Shakespeare's plays, slightly different medium than the novel; it's hard to display the unique sublimity of a setting with words, much less stage props.

And, scenery can do whatever it is you are capable of making it do, it is, as mammamaia said, dependant on the skill of the writer. Having said that, quality over quantity; it's not the size of your description, it's how you use it...

Quillqueen

Well said.

__________________

Mike C

Hah! The Tolkein-lover's final argument. I've read Tolkein extensively, I do understand him, I don't like him. Crap characters with little emotional depth.

BUT that wasn't what Tolkien set out to do. He wasn't really interested in characters per se, but in linguistics and myth.

He succeeded in creating some extraordinary works, but unfortunately he spawned a million imitators, all slavishly writing multi-volume epics of sub-Tolkien waffle.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

Quillqueen

He also created the base for fantasy fiction as we know it today.
Well, I beg to differ, they do have emotional depth and deep, huge, amazing characters. But some people don't wear their personalites on their foreheads, unless you didn't notice. And there's a big difference between flat characters and subtle ones.
Take Gandalf, for example. He is portrayed as this all-wise, powerful, great wizard. What makes us believe that? I mean, there aren't fire-balls hurling around, and he falls to the Balrog, that's not power! No, wrong. It is. It's something entirely different. See, we don't need the fire-balls and great feats, because Gandalf is such a wonderful, amazing character that we look to him immediately for shelter from the storm.
I for one see all of the characters' in-depth personalities, frankly. Samwise (who has been described to me as a poorly developed, gay, stupid side-kick, none of which he is),Aragorn (who happened to start an entire train of banished kings in fiction, and whose story alone is amazingly detailed), Gimli and Legolas (who break through racism and social protocol to become the greatest friends...) These, sir, are the bricks lain beneath the feet of fantasy today...

What did W.B. Yeats say? "He made the world to be a grassy road, beneath her wandering feet?"

__________________

scnd

I think the thing that gets me the most, out of everything is script writing, fanfics, pieces that dont give any naritive, any discription or anything.

You are given the talents to write, not just so you can have people bitker back and forth, but so you can convay images, emotions, feelings (and if your good enough) smells, tastes and sounds by the words you choose in certain situations.

Thats why its tough to characterize, to descript, contain useful dialog, use plot marks. Good works are hard to come by, and thats why poetry does so much better than stories. Poetry cuts out all the "but this which and then he when there was why when if that on because therefore" and just leaves the reader with concentrated content that they can add to water and stir and add sugar as needed, depending on how hot the day is, how bright the sun is shining, and how long you feel like laying in your batheing suit on the lawn chair for.

Not only is that very hard to push across, but getting inbetween details is also tough. Hidden things that i the reader hears, but i didn't nessicarily say. A reader might determine the setting from above to be a roof top in the city, a backyard in the suburbs, a park, a tenis court, a beach ex. Where do you draw the line on what your reader has to assume for themselves and what you tell them what is?

And then you come across the problem of not knowing quite where your audience is going to come from. Its fine for you, because you already know it all, but will they? and even if they do, will they read it?

thats the ultimate question. Who here doesn't want to sell out like a rockstar and strike it big, but not end up like those jerks *cough cough* steven king *cough* Tom Clancy *cough*?

scnd

i respond with another quote

I.Spell.Your.Doom

Allow me to say that your opinion of Tolkien (not liking him) is welcome, but you saying his characters lack depth is your own inability to see that depth. Just 'cause you don't like him gives you no right to bash his characters. I don't know if you notice, Mr. extenter, but I think his characters hold more depth than the actual story itself.

__________________
Wisdom is not displayed through idiocy, but for some reason it always tries to be.

Mike C

Sorry, but that's just dumb.

I've seen Midsummer Night's Dream, for example, performed in a forest, in the round with absolutely zero scenery, on an amateur stage with minimal scenery, in a modern day setting, set in ancient greece, set in Edwardian England.

The scenery means nothing. It counts for nothing. It's the words, the characters, that bind the spell, not a painted backdrop.

Remember when it was first performed, it would have been without any scenery and few props.

Whilst the play and the novel are different forms, they are both about words and weaving spells with them. They're both about telling a story. And stories are about people interacting.

Of course you can't writ a story with no description, but it's a common newbie fault to feel you have to describe everything in detail. Sometimes (and I have to say it's more common in fantasy, but not exclusive to the genre) to the point where I want to slam my head repeatedly in a door to make it stop.

Try re-reading some of your own work. OK, maybe that lovingly crafted description of a sunset (and I've seen these go on for half a page) may feel nice, but what does it achieve? Could your story be more efficiently progressed by saying "the sun was setting" and moving on? Trust your reader to fill in the gaps; don't assume they're stupid.

Again, I'd urge you to read Hemingway, or maybe Leonard, to see how an economy of words can create a setting more real than most people can achieve with the most purple of prose.

Remember, writing isn't just about word count, and 90% of descriptive passages are just padding.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

scnd

Just because you hear a drop in the well doesn't mean that you wont go hungry