Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Excretory comments/situations

This is topic Excretory comments/situations in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000779

Posted by glogpro (Member # 1745) on :

I have been reading the posted chapters from OSC's forthcoming Alvin book. It strikes me that there is a lot more reference to the end results of the digestive process, particularly by Arthur Stuart, than in previous volumes. Perhaps this is a newer feature of Arthur's character, now more mature than in the previous stories. But why endow Arthur with that particular trait?

I have noticed this same phenomenon before. In the Clan of the Cave Bear series, the author seemed to get progressively more fascinated with the minutae of Ayla's metabolism as the series progressed. I can remember in one particular volume (which one I don't recall) feeling that the random descriptions of Ayla urinating were entirely gratuitous. And I didn't see the point. In the course of one of those novels, Ayla must have urinated 1000 times. Why was it necessary or helpful to provide an account of one or a few of those?

Anyway, does anyone has insights about why OSC might have wanted Arthur to comment so frequently on flatulence and related phenomena?

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

Well, it's a little gross, and the only thing I can think of is that Arthus is sick, and this is a bi-product of the illness?

Posted by GZ (Member # 1374) on :

I don’t have any really good ideas about why the bodily functions are coming up so much, but it’s something that I have wondered about a great deal myself. I haven’t read the Alvin Maker excerpt (previous books in the series are still on my "To Read" list), but such functions are in OSC’s Hart’s Hope and Enchantment as well. I can understand with Hart’s Hope, given its a story that can make use of the gross factor, but I didn’t understand what purpose it served in Enchantment at all.

Stephen King does this a great deal as well -- Eye of the Dragon, Needless Things, the movie version of Green Mile all had a good deal of (to me) gratuitous urination in them. (Was there even some in On Writing?)

As a reader I find it adds nothing to the story, and actually, I find it off putting. Yes, people do these things, but unless it really forwards the plot, talking about them just seems unnecessary. Usually there just isn’t anything really that interesting about hearing about somebody’s bodily functions, and it can add a gross-out factor depending on how presented.

[This message has been edited by GZ (edited September 21, 2003).]

Posted by loggrad98 (Member # 1724) on :

Stephen King is the master of bodily functions, not just horror. Did anyone read Dreamcatcher? The main bad guy(s) in that one were called "crap" weasels (but the more vulgar term of course). I think if I heard the term again I would go crazy, and for this reason I did not go see the movie, nor do I intend to. Yes, it definitely can be overdone, and is often overdone. But sometimes it can be underdone. I often wondered about that aspect of a space station such as the Battle School in Ender's Game, and wish OSC had given more detail in that regard simply out of curiosity, something beyond the standard "water recycling" purification.

[This message has been edited by loggrad98 (edited September 22, 2003).]

Posted by Goober (Member # 506) on :

I'd have to say Michael Chricton comes darn close to being "king of Bodily Functions", though King still holds the crown. The endless descriptions of dinosaur urination in the Jurassic Park books are a little too silly for me. I like to know there is a t-rex in the woods, I dont want to know if it is excreting anything. Its very distrubing. Even the movie translations all dealth with "droppings", urine, or saliva or blood of some kind in great detail.

I'd say hint at this sort of thing unless the story really needs it. Have a character leave to relieve, but I dont think we need to hear the fluid detail!

Posted by revmachine21 (Member # 1732) on :

Let's face it, farting can be funny.

There are classic plays and cowboy epics that bring up farting for humor. If farting is good enough for 2000 year old Greek men in bedsheets, who am I to disagree?

Our brains are hardwired with awareness of and the meaning behind body functions. Monkeys throw poopie at their handlers to show displeasure. As any parent knows fart / poop humor is the first type of humor understood and displayed by children.

And regardless how many classic books I read (curently in the middle of Hamlet & Tolstoy) the apple pie scene in the movie Apple Pie nearly makes me pee my pants. In fact I feel the need to rent this movie tonight.

Posted by srhowen (Member # 462) on :

Guess this goes with "write what you know?"

LOL

Shawn

Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :

I'll go with Goober, et al, on this. Bodily functions should be grouped with those things writers shouldn't follow their characters through -- the "He got up, brushed his teeth, ate his breakfast, got in his car, drove to work...." stuff. Get to the part where the plot happens. This sort of thing would get me to put down a book.

Posted by srhowen (Member # 462) on :

We all know living things excrete things. So unless there is some reason to the plot to tell us about it--then let the reader assume.

I could understand if you had a character that had never been to Europe before and is suddenly confronted in France with the hole in the floor and the hose. Or in Germany with the lack of toilet seats.(They have these black lines painted on the rim as if to say place cheaks here) Or the public rest rooms where you have to tip the cleaning lady sitting outside the door.

But leave it there--no need to describe how so and so figured it out--though those stand on the wood blocks holes in the floor might need some detail---but even then once is enough.

Same with aliens--once is enough if there is something odd or needed plot wise (The Gandulara<sp> Cycle)(guy is transformed into alien (ancient sort of human) and discovers he is a water saver by lack there of, of frequent urination and the fact it turns to crystal.)

I wonder if this goes along with the spoon feeding trend of books because of TV and movies?

Shawn

Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :

I tend to think it's one more evidence of the DE-volution that's occurring, where the lowest common denominator is becoming mainstream.

Posted by Nexus Capacitor (Member # 1694) on :

I don't know if this is a real problem. I mean, things happen in bathrooms. People have conversations there while excreting their wastes, etc. Sure, it could be overdone easily, but why not describe a little bit of urination if your scene takes you to the bathroom?

[This message has been edited by Nexus Capacitor (edited September 23, 2003).]

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

If someone wants to have a conversation with me when I happen to be on the toilet, I just say, "I'm in the bathroom." Every person I've ever associated with understands that this comment forbids further conversation.

Posted by GZ (Member # 1374) on :

quote:
Sure, it could be overdone easily, but why not describe a little bit of urination if your scene takes you to the bathroom?

The understandable perspective of Survivor's comment aside, such description would only be applicable if many of said scenes actually occured in a bathroom (or equivalent). It is also the removing of bathroom functions from the bathroom which is part of the issue.

Posted by revmachine21 (Member # 1732) on :

"The Good Samaritan" circa 1633 by Rembrandt:

Find the dog & what it is doing... http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rembrandt/rembrandt111.html

The name & a few hundred years turns a painting into a couple of million dollars.

Also in literary form from the Canterbury Tales "The Miller's Tale" Chapter 4: Lines 615-629 of 668 in Modern English:

http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html

Still funny 650 years on...

And so he opened window hastily,
And put his arse out thereat, quietly,
Over the buttocks, showing the whole bum;
And thereto said this clerk, this Absalom,
O speak, sweet bird, I know not where thou art.
This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;
But he was ready with his iron hot
And Nicholas right in the arse he got.
Off went the skin a hand's-breadth broad, about,
The coulter burned his bottom so, throughout,
That for the pain he thought that he should die.
And like one mad he started in to cry,
Help! Water! Water! For God's dear heart!

[This message has been edited by revmachine21 (edited September 24, 2003).]

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

That seems quite an appropriate means of dealing with such behavior to me (assuming, of course, that Nicholas was old enough to know better).

Posted by Nexus Capacitor (Member # 1694) on :

I don't disagree with Survivor that bathroom conversations are uncomfortable.

That doesn't change the fact that they do happen. Some people must find them acceptable.

As far as bodily functions outside of the bathroom, I remember a scene in James Clavell's "Shogun" in which an offended samurai urinated on Blackthorn's back.

That scene may just have been the best use of urination in a literary work (or not), but I think it illustrates that excremental functions can be used appropriately.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Actually, I've got a novel in progress right now in which just such a scene takes place. It is very biological. It is also excruciatingly uncomfortable for the POV character (and the other character involved).