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: 2011-11-10 02:26 pm (UTC)I haven seen exactly what she means for the anime Slayers. Slayers had three season, took a break for about 10 years and then they decided to make a new season. I happen to enjoy the new season, but a lot Slayers fans don't like this season because a lot argue there isn't as much romance like in the original season. The problem with this was that there never that much romance in the original series, it's always been a adventure/comedy series. So, what made some fans convinced romance was a large element?
It's due to all the romance fanfics that were written between the ten years of the seasons. I think it caused a lot of fans to expect a lot more romance even though the series was never actually known for that.
As you said, there are great sequels and even some the surpass the original story, but it's certainly a tricky game in deciding how to write it.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-11-10 03:08 pm (UTC)About the female charachters.....YOu make some great points. Something that also bothers me about female leads in alot of fantasy is that many of them seem to have a contempt for cooking and sewing and all those essential things that 'ordinary' women do. I do have a suggestion for a series that you might like. I don't know if you've ever read the Truth Series by Dawn Cook, but it is one of my favorites. Alissa, the main female charachter, is a farm girl whose mother suddenly sends her of to a magical school that Alissa, who doesn't beleive in magic, thinks is just a figment from one of her father's bedtime stories. On her way there, she meets a travelling minstrel, who is fleeing the news of the death of his entire family. They end up being snowed in at the fortress with the madman who murdered Alissa's father, and have to pull off quite the ruse to keep him from dicovering who her father was and killing her too. Anyway, ALissa has some charachter flaw that she needs to overcome throughout the series. And does get kind of jealous when she meets a girl from her love interest's past, also, her teacher (who she happens to call 'Useless'!) is very concerned that if she is forbidden to marry the man she loves, she will leave everything behind, all of her potential and power, and follow him. I find in reading reviews that most people either love Alissa or hate her, and their opinion of the series rides mostly on their impression of her. THe other thing that I should warn you is, well, please please please ignore the covers! They were recently reissued with horrible new covers that do not in anyway represent the content of the books. To quote Drashizu who is also a fan..."they frighten me." My icon comes from the original covers of the books. All I can say is that if I ever wrote a book, I would not allow such horrible covers to ruin everyone's impression of my book.
Was that a long enough rant?? It even had a book rec, which makes it better right?!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-11-10 06:15 pm (UTC)And one point you made above to earthstar_moon was really good: the more FF you read, the more you accept it as cannon. I find myself doing that with some Crown Duel by Sherwood Smith FF. I then I have to say, no wait, that wasnt' what really happened (after the book ended) that was just someone's idea.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-11 04:14 am (UTC)I think sequels are the make-it-or-break-it books, actually. As in, if an author writes a decent book with a cliffhanger, or the first of a planned series, there's an automatic tendency in the reader to hold off on finalizing an opinion until reading the second book - because the story isn't finished yet, and that's a constant niggling factor.
And therefore the success of the second book becomes so much more important. The first book had to intrigue the reader to the point that they pick up book 2; the second has to justify all that waiting. I think that's the crux of the matter - there's that element of "don't make me wait for so long and then waste my time".
Then again, if the sequel is good, there's probably more of an extreme positive reaction to it - from relief that it was worth the wait, in addition to the literary merit.
Ultimately, no one reads in a vacuum. I like ACoK a lot more than most books published last year. But to me it will never quite fit in with the series because it doesn't fit my perception of what her story is about. And so the merit pales a bit as a result.
On part II: YES. I have some Thoughts about that being true in real life as well, but I still want to think about that.
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)
From:(no subject)
From: