The most annoying thing - Page 3 - Writers Forum

I.Spell.Your.Doom · 05-12-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scnd

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

You should take up Haiku...

scnd · 05-12-2006, 12:52 PM

edit::: relevence

Quillqueen · 05-12-2006, 03:14 PM

Someone mentioned in this thread that "Trust your reader to fill in the gaps, don't assume they're stupid." That's a good point, and readers like to be able to use their imagination, but, they do need some rafters and nails before they start building a house of story-telling treasures.
I was reading Vampire Hunter D (Yes, I know, I refer to this a lot, but it's an ongoing series for me, so hey) and there was a scene in which D is interviewing a school teacher. At one point, Kikuchi describes D throwing away a sheet of paper, and he goes into a paragraph or so describing how the trash-can is made out of carved dragon-horn. When I started reading it, having gone through much of this discussion, all of this "uneccesary" talk flooded in, and I really appraised the use of this description of a trash can. The trash can is that and nothing more, it does not affect the story, it has no real relevence to the situation, the plot, the characters. But, what Kikuchi does, is he takes a perfectly bothersome description of a dust bin, and he uses it as a vessel to give the reader more insight on the world we're in. The frontier people have a problem with dragons, (ok, I get a sense of wildness, survival of the fittest in this village) they get raided sometimes and attacked by them, so they have to kill them. Nothing gets wasted (Insight on how these people find a use for everything). D throws away the drawing of a cross, and they get back to the discussion at hand.

Quillqueen

Mike C · 05-12-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't like pulling the age card, but I'm willing to bet I read LOTR at least twice before you were born. Sure, you probabably think Tolkien's characters are deep, and to a teenager they probably are, reasonably.

I suggest you read more extensively, preferably outside the genre. If you're stuck on fantasy, maybe try reading Miéville, or Aldiss's 'The Malacian Tapestry' (possibly the finest fantasy novel ever written). Or Mervyn Peak. Or Moorcock. All of whom create characters more real and less two dimensional and with greater emotional depth than Tolkien.

Quillqueen · 05-12-2006, 05:46 PM

You know what, though, age doesn't matter. Just because you may have read Tolkien twice before Doom was born, doesn't mean you understand him any better, or that Doom hasn't read Tolkien as much as you, or with less devotion. So, in this case, age is totally irrelevent. Especially since, you can't exactly say that Doom doesn't have the maturity and experience to understand writing or Tolkien's style.
Also, you can't say that because you're older you know better. Teenagers, very surprisingly, have very capable, very critical, very intellectual brains.
By the way, how the heck do you know that Doom is a teenager?

Quillqueen

BryanBeasley · 05-12-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Nope (imo)

Yep.

Yep.

BryanBeasley · 05-12-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep.

Quillqueen · 05-12-2006, 05:56 PM

But you can't blame Tolkien for the people following him down that path. They were really inspired by him, and so they wanted to copy his style. But that's not Tolkien's fault, I mean, it's stupid to even pair it with this discussion.

Q

BryanBeasley · 05-12-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep. Tolkien did it well, for those who like that kind of stuff, but its a HUGE point you made with "He set a bad precedent for fantasy writers."

The best fantasy writers of today reinvented, or invented, their own style, unlike the 80, 90, or 99 % of "fantasy" writers who follow the Tolkien precedent.

BryanBeasley · 05-12-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mammamaia

the problem really just lies with the talent and skill of the writer... a good writer can draw you into the scene with a detailed description, while a poor one can lose you by doing the same...

a good writer can give you a vivid image of the scene in just a few words and a poor one can bore you with too many, and still not let you picture it well...

Huge point. Between Maia, K-P and Mike C, the whole argument in this thread is COVERED. Nothing else need be said here.

Mike C · 05-12-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quillqueen

Teenagers, very surprisingly, have very capable, very critical, very intellectual brains.

I never said they didn't, and it's not suprising. I have two of my own, one of whom is a writer.

Quote:

By the way, how the heck do you know that Doom is a teenager?

Quillqueen

I have two of my own - it's pretty obvious.

BUT... this thread is about description, not Tolkien. We'll save further dissections of his works and fantasy in general for another thread (I think there are a few already actually) and another time.

Anne Lacey · 05-12-2006, 06:20 PM

Hm... I think teens can be very inquistive and insightful. I also think they simply lack a certain knowledge that only comes with age. Now, I myself am only 23, but i have also been through a lot more than most people my age. I got married right out of high school and burried my first son at 19. So, I look at things with different insight than most my age. I value the opinions of those younger than me, but i value more the opinions of those older. The younger you are, the harder to understand that age brings a wisdon entirely it's own.
I write fantasy, but (don't have a heart attack, Q!) I've never read Lord of the Rings. I enjoy fantasy that's more about the characters than the scene. That's just me personally. And I'm not saying anything for or against Tolkien, like I said I've never read his works, so I really can't. I did see the movies, my hubby dragged me to them. My honest opinion? #1 scared the crap out of me, so I wasn't too thrilled to see two and three. *shrugs shoulders* Now Buffy and Angel.... Love 'em! Again, not because of the fantasy scene, but because of the characters and the humor and the writing. However, it wouldn't have been the same show if it wasn't set against a fantasy background.
Right, mates, all that to say: Scene is 25% but the characters and writing style is 75%. JMHO. And y'all are entitled to yours. We don't have to agree. that's what makes them opinions.

Paisley · 05-12-2006, 07:41 PM

Given that people's lives and experiences can't possibly be known in their entirity, especially to people over the internet, it's safe to say that an assumption is a dangerous thing. I get inclined to think young people are cocky, but older people also protray themselves that way. Whether or not there are any goods to back it up is always debatable. Plus, I'd rather not give a life story of myself every time someone questioned my credibility. ;P

Furthermore, I think this topic is really just about preference. Some people like to see through words, others like to see through characters and plot and would also rather the author be concise about scenery.

I like a healthy helping of both, myself. Sometimes it adds to the tone of the story - both a lack of and a excess of description.

It's hard to debate which preference is 'more correct.'

I've read Tolkein and have mixed feelings about his works, but I do not think he is to blame for the flowery wordiness of a lot of fantasy works. I remember reading Rip Van Winkle and thinking it was too descriptive, that's fantasy, is it not? But, to be sure, I think of a lot of people use Tolkein's example to say, "If he did it, I should be in the clear, too." Tolkein had a wonderful plot and had an immense imagination - how people chose to drink it in shows in the varied approval.

For me, I think it all depends on the tone of the story and the aim of the author. I don't find it annoying if it flows and fits.

Soccah · 05-12-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Isn't that exactly my point? Re-read what I stated, please. In Shakespeare's plays, it's not the setting that takes centre stage, because, simply speaking, it was not written to take centre stage--that is, the sublimity of an area can't be displayed with cardboard cutouts on a stage (also, that the point of the Shakespeare's plays, at least for the most part, had little to do with scenery [they focused more on 'the person' as subject]--while, some novels deal with establishing the identity of a nation, which often lies in the sublime description of sublime areas).

Quote:

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.

You can tell a story through scenic description--remember, a scene can be as alive as the characters themselves; it's, once again, as mammamaia stated, dependant on the skill of the writer. Note that I'm not saying that only scenic description can tell a story, or that flowery language is necessary, I'm merely saying that the setting/scene, in some cases, is just as important as the characters themselves, and may require as much language and depth as the "protangist" him/herself--it all depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Quote:

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.

I didn't say describe everything in detail; I said it's not in what you describe, or how much you describe, it's in how it's described. You're talking about quantity, when I'm measuring quality--quantity, then, becomes irrelevant.

Quote:

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.

I wasn't speaking of my own work, I was referring to authors who deal with the subject of establishing a sense of national identity; authors who often referred to the distinction of the scenery around them, as a way to achieve that identity.

Quote:

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.

I never said it was... Hemingway and Leonard have a distinct style when dealing with description; I've never disputed the fact that their 'economy of words' can create a great setting. I was merely stating that it is the skill of the author that creates or destroys the effects of a scene. Hemingway and Leonard did it, according to your statement, without many words--other skilled writers can do it, with many--again, it's not the quantity, it's quality; 500 words, or 50 words, whichever achieves, and suits your purpose more.

suzakugaiden · 05-13-2006, 02:04 AM

"And then you can flip it around, maybe Tanith hears a name that brings her back, or something."

Or... maybe she doesn't. Maybe the plant reminds her of something and the entire plot derails. Maybe she suddenly dies of latent SIDS. WHO KNOWS!?!?!?!?

"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...."

If the only adequate way to describe an author's style involves the liberal usage of purple prose in said style description, the author probably sucks.

"He also created the base for fantasy fiction as we know it today. "

Fantasy fiction as we know it sucks, too.

"Take Gandalf, for example. He is portrayed as this all-wise, powerful, great wizard. What makes us believe that?"

The fact that he's a completely static, two-dimensional example of Senex archetype?

"Teenagers, very surprisingly, have very capable, very critical, very intellectual brains. "

Speaking as a teenager, no.

"I have two of my own, one of whom is a writer."

ZOMG! You collect teenagers too? I'll trade you a CHARIZARD!!!!onebarbequeue.