Reading/Writing Thoughts - AKA Ranting
Nov. 10th, 2011 07:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ninedaysaqueenSo, I recently read an interesting article by Patricia C. Wrede (author of Dealing With Dragons) about the trouble with sequels, which you can read here. The portion that interests me the most is this...
The problem with sequels is that the writing and publishing process gives readers too much time to think.
Let me unpack that a little.
(...)
Speculation is fun; I engage in it myself quite frequently. The trouble is that it is exceedingly easy to become overly fond of one's speculations, especially if one happens to have a lively crowd of Internet companions who like the same sorts of characterization and plot twists. It's frighteningly easy to convince oneself that one has a pipeline into the author's mind, and that the sequel will be a better, shinier, spiffier version of whatever plot-and-character developments one's particular group of readers thinks is most likely.
Inevitably, when this happens, the result is that the actual Book 2 (or 3, or whatever) arrives, it's a disappointment to any and everyone who had constructed an alternate vision of who'd live and who'd die, who'd end up in a romance and who wouldn't, what the important plot-points were and which things were totally extraneous. Either the readers have guessed right and worked themselves up so far that no writer, living or dead, could possibly find words shiny and spiffy enough to live up to their mental construct, or (more often) the writer is going in a completely different direction and the readers are outraged that their lovingly-rationalized vision isn't going to play out the way they thought.
That is an interesting theory, I must say. Personally, I do think a reader has an expectation of a sequel and their ideal is not likely to match reality. The longer you have to wait, the more time you have to sub-consciously build up a perfect image that may never be realized.
However, let's first remind ourselves that there are, indeed, many bad sequels out there. Sequels that merely tell the first story over again, send the characters in bad OOC directions, contain plot concepts and twists that aren't as original or as engaging as the previous book.
An example of this is Eragon vs. Eldest by Christopher Paolini. The first book held my attention with it's intriguing characters and engaging plot. The second one bored me to tears with overdone descriptions, constant scene flipping, and a predictable plot. I read the second one right after the first, so there was no chance of me building up any expectations, nonetheless, my complete objective opinion was that the sequel was poor in comparison to the first book. (Apologizes to Inheritance fans, and I will give him a break and say he was younger than me when he wrote it... O_O)
An example in TV is Veronica Mars S1 vs. S2. Though S2 was by no means poor, the overall season arc was clumsy in comparison to the flawless, tight arc of S1. Too many red-herrings, too many angles thrown in merely to make the plot last a few more episodes. Again, I had the DVDs of all three season, so no expectations simmering in my hind brain.
However, there are many excellent book sequels and television seasons out there that are strangely rejected by once loyal fans. Wrede's theory seems the most likely here. I noticed this after the release of A Conspiracy of Kings by Megan Whalen Turner. I had some of those feelings myself. Four years is a long enough time to write your own version of the book in your head, and though the book was nothing like I'd expected, I still loved it when I took a deep breath and reminded myself that the book was not going to fulfill every wish I'd held in my heart for four years. That was an impossible expectation.
So, thoughts? Ever found yourself disliking something, simply because it wasn't what you'd expected?
And for part two...
Which you may skip, because it's another one of my rants about female characters. :)
Have you ever noticed that we expect different responses from female characters in a relationship? Particularly the leading lady? If there is an interloper in the ship, we expect the male character to be jealous (at least a little), or he doesn't care about his relationship, right? If the female character is jealous (even if she gets over it), we tend to call her a silly Mary Sue who needs to deal with her security issues already. XD *is mean*
If the male character is very devoted to his leading lady and would sail seas and climb mountains for her, we point out how much he must care about her, right? If the female character feels the same way, we call her a Mary Sue who needs to stop being a sap and get a life. *head-desk*
Sadly, my annoyingly good memory is reminding me that I've done this once or twice myself. And I'm not talking about Bella Swan (god no...). I draw the devotion line at jumping off cliffs for no apparent reason, but I'm sad to see some female characters raked over the coals and called a Mary Sue for no greater crime than being strongly devoted to their love interest. Rose Tyler from Doctor Who immediately comes to mind, because she did certain things like leave her family behind (which is something you do when you grow up anyhow).
Meanwhile male characters, such as Terence from The Squire's Tales by Gerald Morris, can act in ways that speak of great devotion to his leading lady, his king, and his country and be recognized positively for it.
Now, I don't mean to call anyone an anti-feminist or something equally ridiculous, or say that audiences never have expectations of male characters that are unfair. I merely have noticed an opinion that's all too easy to jump to, and I think is related to the significant amount of Mary Sues and sad female characters fans of TV and books tend to be exposed to over the years.
It's just somewhat disconcerting to me that I and seemingly other people tend to expect a higher level of emotional maturity and even emotional perfection from female characters, especially when compared to our expectations of male characters. Even to the point of allowing female characters no time whatsoever in the story to work through their character flaws and any emotional immaturity they may have, though we automatically do this in real life
Now, if the character never grows out of a serious character flaw, I can understand your issue with them. However, a character must start with flaws or there is no direction in which they can grow, yes? :)
Yes, you can now breath! I am done! Please, leave me some rants in response, lovely F-list!
*pokes Beth in particular* ;)
The problem with sequels is that the writing and publishing process gives readers too much time to think.
Let me unpack that a little.
(...)
Speculation is fun; I engage in it myself quite frequently. The trouble is that it is exceedingly easy to become overly fond of one's speculations, especially if one happens to have a lively crowd of Internet companions who like the same sorts of characterization and plot twists. It's frighteningly easy to convince oneself that one has a pipeline into the author's mind, and that the sequel will be a better, shinier, spiffier version of whatever plot-and-character developments one's particular group of readers thinks is most likely.
Inevitably, when this happens, the result is that the actual Book 2 (or 3, or whatever) arrives, it's a disappointment to any and everyone who had constructed an alternate vision of who'd live and who'd die, who'd end up in a romance and who wouldn't, what the important plot-points were and which things were totally extraneous. Either the readers have guessed right and worked themselves up so far that no writer, living or dead, could possibly find words shiny and spiffy enough to live up to their mental construct, or (more often) the writer is going in a completely different direction and the readers are outraged that their lovingly-rationalized vision isn't going to play out the way they thought.
That is an interesting theory, I must say. Personally, I do think a reader has an expectation of a sequel and their ideal is not likely to match reality. The longer you have to wait, the more time you have to sub-consciously build up a perfect image that may never be realized.
However, let's first remind ourselves that there are, indeed, many bad sequels out there. Sequels that merely tell the first story over again, send the characters in bad OOC directions, contain plot concepts and twists that aren't as original or as engaging as the previous book.
An example of this is Eragon vs. Eldest by Christopher Paolini. The first book held my attention with it's intriguing characters and engaging plot. The second one bored me to tears with overdone descriptions, constant scene flipping, and a predictable plot. I read the second one right after the first, so there was no chance of me building up any expectations, nonetheless, my complete objective opinion was that the sequel was poor in comparison to the first book. (Apologizes to Inheritance fans, and I will give him a break and say he was younger than me when he wrote it... O_O)
An example in TV is Veronica Mars S1 vs. S2. Though S2 was by no means poor, the overall season arc was clumsy in comparison to the flawless, tight arc of S1. Too many red-herrings, too many angles thrown in merely to make the plot last a few more episodes. Again, I had the DVDs of all three season, so no expectations simmering in my hind brain.
However, there are many excellent book sequels and television seasons out there that are strangely rejected by once loyal fans. Wrede's theory seems the most likely here. I noticed this after the release of A Conspiracy of Kings by Megan Whalen Turner. I had some of those feelings myself. Four years is a long enough time to write your own version of the book in your head, and though the book was nothing like I'd expected, I still loved it when I took a deep breath and reminded myself that the book was not going to fulfill every wish I'd held in my heart for four years. That was an impossible expectation.
So, thoughts? Ever found yourself disliking something, simply because it wasn't what you'd expected?
And for part two...
Which you may skip, because it's another one of my rants about female characters. :)
Have you ever noticed that we expect different responses from female characters in a relationship? Particularly the leading lady? If there is an interloper in the ship, we expect the male character to be jealous (at least a little), or he doesn't care about his relationship, right? If the female character is jealous (even if she gets over it), we tend to call her a silly Mary Sue who needs to deal with her security issues already. XD *is mean*
If the male character is very devoted to his leading lady and would sail seas and climb mountains for her, we point out how much he must care about her, right? If the female character feels the same way, we call her a Mary Sue who needs to stop being a sap and get a life. *head-desk*
Sadly, my annoyingly good memory is reminding me that I've done this once or twice myself. And I'm not talking about Bella Swan (god no...). I draw the devotion line at jumping off cliffs for no apparent reason, but I'm sad to see some female characters raked over the coals and called a Mary Sue for no greater crime than being strongly devoted to their love interest. Rose Tyler from Doctor Who immediately comes to mind, because she did certain things like leave her family behind (which is something you do when you grow up anyhow).
Meanwhile male characters, such as Terence from The Squire's Tales by Gerald Morris, can act in ways that speak of great devotion to his leading lady, his king, and his country and be recognized positively for it.
Now, I don't mean to call anyone an anti-feminist or something equally ridiculous, or say that audiences never have expectations of male characters that are unfair. I merely have noticed an opinion that's all too easy to jump to, and I think is related to the significant amount of Mary Sues and sad female characters fans of TV and books tend to be exposed to over the years.
It's just somewhat disconcerting to me that I and seemingly other people tend to expect a higher level of emotional maturity and even emotional perfection from female characters, especially when compared to our expectations of male characters. Even to the point of allowing female characters no time whatsoever in the story to work through their character flaws and any emotional immaturity they may have, though we automatically do this in real life
Now, if the character never grows out of a serious character flaw, I can understand your issue with them. However, a character must start with flaws or there is no direction in which they can grow, yes? :)
Yes, you can now breath! I am done! Please, leave me some rants in response, lovely F-list!
*pokes Beth in particular* ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-12 02:58 am (UTC)It's funny you mention that most people will criticize a girl for getting jealous. It may be true, but I find that I've never actually done that before! When I read over that, the first thing that came to my mind was "Sabriel", because there was a scene in there where she thought Touchstone was getting it on with a random maid in the next room, and she becomes all bothered but doesn't know why. Hehe, it was an EPIC scene in my head, and still remains as one of the funniest 'romantic' scenes I've ever read.
Hmm... I'm trying to think of more examples. But I don't think it's a certain pet peeve of mine. At least if I criticize a girl for getting jealous, it usually means there are other things that have bothered me even before that.
Don't worry too much about feminists. I consider myself one too, but I wouldn't hesitate calling out unfair things happening to males. I mean there are tons of books where the main character was considered a prime example of a "strong woman", but all they really are are men in women's body. It's as if a woman can only be strong if they embody traditionally male traits. It's frustrating to me, because I know that if the character had been male, the things that he'd be doing in the book would be considered as 'bad' or 'wrong'. But make it a woman, and everyone's sticking it in the feminist shelf.
And that was one of my first qualms about KoA too, where we see Attolia slap Gen just because she was angry. I thought that was pretty abusive too, because Gen's injured, and that nobody pointed it out because she happened to be a woman. So it must be okay. But switch the roles, and I won't be surprised if there was a louder outcry.
"It's just somewhat disconcerting to me that I and seemingly other people tend to expect a higher level of emotional maturity and even emotional perfection from female characters."
Maybe so. I find that too, especially when reading reviews in Amazon or Goodreads. You read one response and the character's too this, and you read the next response and the character's too that. For me though, my expectations don't just pertain to females. Males too. (That's why I'm so picky with books. If I can't connect with the main characters, I'd just put it down.) I guess I should give an example... I know that there are many fans of "Finnikin of the Rock" by Melina Marchetta, but I just found Finnikin to be so unbearable. And yes, I do agree that there should be space for character development, but if I don't start seeing at least some degree of change or realization by the first half of the book, I'd usually just give up. I pretty much think Finnikin's like a boy version of Fire (by Kristin Cashore). Haha. I know many people will disagree vehemently with me, but since I don't want to hijack your comments page with my own ranting, I'll save all my reasons for later. Most of it is just subjective though.
I think one of the best examples I can give for a character who is initially flawed but grows to be a much better person is Anidori from "Goose Girl". I found that she was just so helpless, naive and passive... well, and sort of a crybaby. At first. But her development was so shockingly huge, and the way she grows right up until the very last page was just beautiful.
Anidori's my favorite character in all the books I've read. Ever. Haha. I think you can tell. ^__~
no subject
Date: 2011-11-12 03:36 am (UTC)For some reason, scenes in which the girl is jealous bothers me, mostly because I often find it OOC and I don't like cliche cat-fights. My favorite scene of that kind is from Leverage, when Parker was jealous of a girl who liked Hardison. She expressed this by breaking a beer bottle with her bare hands! XD Which was so IC for her, and that might be why I don't usually like those scenes. If I feel that the female character's reaction doesn't actually suit them. A male character's reactions tend to make more sense for the individual character.
I probably notice unfair female character tropes more because I'm a girl, and I do agree with you about Gen and the slapping scene. That was until I remembered she was acting as a queen and not as his wife, and he didn't dodge because he was accepting her reproach. Queen Elizabeth also smacked people as a public representation of her dislike of their actions. Kings would do the same, and female leaders often imitated this in order to appear more male.
Either way, violence from males towards females automatically rises outcries because we associate it with domestic violence. It tends to bother us less with women towards men, because guys can usually defend themselves. Also, as my mother used to tell me, before the 70s the socially accepted method for telling a guy you weren't interested was to smack them. (As I'm watching Life on Mars, I'm starting to understand why.) Regardless, violences it never an appropriate response, unless your defending yourself from a physical assault. I accept the scene in KoA, because of the time and place and what it represents, if it were set in modern times...? Not so much.
I mean there are tons of books where the main character was considered a prime example of a "strong woman," but all they really are are men in women's body.
THIS. THIS. THIS.
That sums up a lot of my feelings about certain books like the Alanna series. I also dislike the trope that says that girls who are more traditionally girly can't be independent and tough too.
Good point about Anidori. She lived a very shelter life at the start of the book, and how she developed and grew was a very important part of the book.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-13 03:06 pm (UTC)Ugh, personally I really dislike that. At least first make it clear that the guy knows she's not interested anymore. You know what I really dislike in books? Love triangles! I know it's almost unavoidable, but even though I don't usually read books where romance is a big aspect of the plot, it still kind of annoys me. First, most of the time it's just there to make readers aware of how awesome the main character is and how she is so ignorant about this awesomeness that she actually doesn't realize she's made at least 2 guys fall in love with her. I mean... honestly? And I always feel bad for the person who is left behind. It doesn't matter if he's just some loser on the sidewalk, because it always seems as if he cares about her genuinely.
Yeah, I agree with you. If you care about somebody, jealousy shouldn't be something you want them to feel. Even if you feel neglected. There are so many other ways for you to make him want you.
Ah, I hate catfights too! They're so... cringe-worthy. Especially all the shouting and raving and hair pulling. I don't want to be reading a Maury Pauvich episode, you know. Yeah, it's hard to get characters to act "in character" when there are feelings involved that are associated with romance. Especially since there's been a surge of the 'tough-chick' roles, and it's harder to write about them falling in love without getting all mushy. At least, that's how I think it is.
See, sometimes I do wish I knew more about history. It'll help a great deal when analyzing fantasy books. Hehe. But what actually made me realize the importance of that scene was when I was reading a post in Sounis about how unhealthy their relationship was. There was someone, I can't remember who, who said that Attolia slapped him not because he changed her orders (which is what I assumed at first), but because he took her guilt and basically rubbed it on her face. That was one of the moments when I realized how brilliant MWT was, hehe. There's one meaning to what she writes if you just read it as is, but if you think a little bit, there's always more meaning.
I agree. I find it strange that many people feel like it's acceptable to slap a guy. I'd think it's kind of humiliating for them. I always feel bad when I see shows where if a guy is "stupid", he gets smacked over the head or something.
Oh, Alanna series. See, I always feel like I'm missing so much of the fantasy genre by not reading Tamora Pierce (or Harry Potter, for that matter... and Lord of The Rings... and Hunger Games
-__-), but every time I decide I'm going to read them, there comes a book out of nowhere that seems just a tad bit more interesting. And before I know it, I just never get around to reading them. Are they good? I know that Alanna was in the Fantasy Showdown too.
"I also dislike the trope that says that girls who are more traditionally girly can't be independent and tough too."
Yeah, me too. Or girls who are religious can't be feminists. But there's a limit to being "girly" for me. Like everyone else, I can mostly identify with characters who are most like myself, so if the girl is squealing over a bunch of boys walking by, caking her face with make-up and thinking about shopping 24/7, I just kind of... lose interest. Hmm, I just realized something. Other than Sophos, I don't think I've read a main character who was good at math.