posted
Some of the other threads started me thinking on this topic. As a writer of fantasy fiction I ask the reader to suspend belief and accept my world as I have drawn it. I gave a story to a reader for critique. This person does not read SF/F literature. She had a lot of trouble with the elements of my world. She asked "When does this story take place?" and "Are you sure they had tattoos then?" "Is this the proper title for this person?"
I tried to explain that this was a place I had created in my mind and she shouldn't try to place it in European history. I think that most of her problems with the story stemmed from the fact that she doesn't read fantasy literature. In a novel a writer has a greater responsiblity to make a tangible, sensible world for the characters to live in, but in a shorter work there isn't enough space so the reader needs to suspend their belief much more. My question is how much should we ask of the reader? Especially in shorter works?
posted
I've got a couple of thoughts re: this. The first is about some of the questions your friend asked. Tattoos have been around for ages and a reasonable reader would accept that... Just as it's totally acceptable to have gunpowder in your "medieval" setting (the Chinese have had it for ages). Now the question about whether a person would have a particular title... That's thorny. I think you run the risk, even in your fantasy setting, of confusing/losing the reader if you use titles in your own "fantasy" way that defy their common connotations. For example, using words like Pope, or Vicar, or Cardinal have particular connotations. Are they truly appropriate in your fantasy? You have to be careful of stuff like that.
With that said, though, your audience is going to be scifi/fantasy readers. They'll not have a problem suspending their disbelief and accept the joyride you're offering them. It's doubtful that you're the first sf/f author they've ever read, so they'll be well adept at reading between the lines, following the subtlies of your world, etc.
posted
What are your thoughts on the difference between short fiction and novels...can we get away with less exposition in shorter works or do we need to have as much detail to make it 'work'?
Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted
I think in short stories that it is possible to get away with less description. The idea to me in short stories is to give the feeling of the area, but going into detail about the area can end up boring the reader and give them too much superfluous information.
Look at Steinbecks stuff... he goes into great detainl to explain a scene, then half the time either doesnt' use what he set up, or says here is the scene, now down the road is where the story really takes place.
posted
Yes, I think you can get away with less in a short story, but you have to still provide enough for 1) the story to be understandable, 2) it to be engaging, and 3) it feel real.
posted
I think that what you really need to think about in a stand alone short is whether any particular element of your fantasy milieu is critical to the action of the story. If it is, then you have to slip that information into the story, if not, then you should probably leave it alone if there's going to be any confusion.
Remember, if it matters enough to mention, it matters enough to clarify. Don't deliberately confuse your readers unless you want to limit the audience (which is a legitamate goal, but not a desireable accident).
posted
That is probably a good rule to follow. In writing short fiction I often go back and take out parts that just do not move the story along and take up space. The same should hold with worldly details. Have I thrown in an idea just to make my world more exotic and fanciful or is it really neccessary to plot development or fleshing out a character.
Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2002
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
