So anyway we all agree that characters and there reasons and actions need to be belieavble, plausible. Some times however I've encountered folks whose particular tastes and logic lead them to feel that a character doing something they know to be unwise, or that they have good reason to believe will have negative consquences for them is not belieavble. This is some times labeled "Too stupid to live."
Now certainly we all get annoyed when say in a movie (especially horror movies) somebody does something totally idiotic that they know is very dangerous and without even really having any motivation for it.
However, putting that sort of thing aside I submit that, in real life many people frequently do stupid things in full knowledge of their stupidity. Example: The paramour of one of my partner's cousins recently wrote checks for a car and a house knowing full well he didn't have money enough in his bank account to cover them. (the situation is still ongoing so i dont know the "end of the story" but the point is they did it.)
People will rationalize to themselves, tell themselves they can handle it, find a way out of it, or just ignore it.
So, I'm not sure I consider "too stupid to live" to necessarily be terribly valid as a story problem unless it has more to do with a disconnect in character nature and motivation.
What do you guys think?
If the writer does his/her job right, then the reader should understand exactly what the character is thinking and so the stupid action will make sense to them. It then ceases to be a case of "too stupid to live" and hopefully becomes a "man, that's so stupid, and I'd do the exact same thing...."
An example: A little girl gets in trouble for rummaging through drawers in her parents' room. She knew her parents wanted her to stay out of their room, but she can't ever resist the urge to ferret out people's secrets. Later, when she's sitting on the curb by her house, she hears an animal scream from the other side of a neighbor's wooden fence. Someone in the neighbor's yard says, "Hurry, before someone calls the cops." If the story opened with her sitting on the curb, most of us would hope she's smart enough to run into her house, maybe to tell her parents what she heard, and if she doesn't, then we'll assume she's Too Stupid. But knowing her character flaw, we understand that she'll try to see what's happening in the neighbor's yard. Maybe we want also want to know what she'll see.
On the other hand, doing "stupid things" can still work as long as the character has a "rational" reason for performing the action. For example, we may all agree that trying to pay for something when the money does not exist is illogical. However, if a character did this in the hope that maybe, somehow, he or she would get a way with it may work in a story. Since the character has a "logical" reason for this (in his or her own mind perhaps) then this can add a certain amount of suspense for the reader because the reader can see something bad happening. As long as the potential consequences are not completely predictable you may have a chance to intrigue the reader.
--William
If you just drop someone in who is stupid and have them do something stupid just to move the plot along with out setting it up beforehand, or the reasons behind it, it looks like you, the author, pulled the rabbit out of your hat and then its not credible to your readers.
This bugs me when I come across it in writing, because it's like the author either doesn't notice (yikes!) or doesn't want to go back and establish the character's motivations (or change it, if what he's asking the character to do is out-of-character for the way he's written the character.)
I think where the confusion comes is that people do out-of-character things all the time in real life. People make mistakes. But the decisions we make tend to reflect the kind of people we are, the difference is that others don't always realize what kind of people we are until the moment that the mistake comes to light. I think that's just people thinking they know someone when all they know is the superficial details of being acquainted with someone (or they know a sociopath, who is very good at conveying to others the image he/she wants to convey. Think of the neighbors interviewed after someone is arrested for some heinous crime. "I would have never guessed he was sheltering a murderous alien horde in his garage. He was the nicest guy. Always happy to loan me his lawn mower...")
Another way of thinking of this is back to that old concept of an unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is usually unreliable because we can see events as told through his/her lens that seem to differ from what the narrator thinks about the events. In those cases, the author must work hard to maintain the narrator's unreliability consistently so that it continues to work as a device for the story. Or put it all over the board so the narrator is so unpredictable you never know what's happening - in some surrealist kind of literary way. But most unreliable narrators see the world filtered through their lens in a pretty consistent way - for instance they tend to think of their own behaviors and motivations as good, even when doing awful things (somewhat common in horror.)
So to me, even if its an important plot point having someone do something foolish can work perfectly well as long as its in character, or theres suffcient motivation. Of course, what constitutes sufficient motivation will vary from person to person...but experience has taught me it doesnt take much...
I think if someone...especially someone who is young or simply hasn't much life experience...desires something strongly enough they will do foolish and/or somewhat out of character things to achieve that desire.
The term as I know it with regard to creative writing has a similar context, but there's more to its application than simply examining survival of the fittest or natural selection paradigms.
In the larger frame of a story, a character who's initially weak, mild-mannered, or naively, blissfully ignorant likely hasn't experienced the trials that complel efforts to acquire capability and develop common sense. In the course of a story, when such a character abruptly starts making leaps of ability or intellect, the sudden emergence of those capabilities do not follow logically, a non sequitur fallacy. Lacking an established foundation for the illogical change from too stupid to live (survive) in contentious circumstances to an adept and successful protagonist defies suspension of disbelief and contaminates outcome improbability.
Similarly, the overly incautious or curious or adept character who sticks a nose in whenever and wherever fancy strikes is also prone to jeapordizing suspension of disbelief and outcome improbability.
More than motivation, stakes, purpose, and desire, the emergence of capabilities to win through a contentious circumstance ought to be at least shadowed forth, or even more dramatically artistic, depicted in all their trials and errors of acquisition. Portraying those trials and errors are a substantial feature of some stories' rising action scenes, in that they depict the discoveries and reversals (the turns) that lead inexorably and single-mindedly to maximum efforts to address a problem at that same time leaving an outcome most in doubt well into a story's ending.
Such a story often has a climax scene in which a protagonist experiences a transcendent moment of anagnorisis (discovery) and then a resolving peripety when a final piece of a solution provides the last bit of information for fully and truly understanding the protagonist's self or other focal characters' true natures, or the true circumstances and situations of a story's final pivotal turn.
I've experienced people applying the "too stupid to live" label any time a character does something foolish even if there is a strong motivation. They seem to feel that its unrealistic for a character to ever commit an act or make a decision that they more or less know is foolish or likely to go badly (though I assume they'd make an exception for a heroic sacrifice type situation.) This seems odd to me because my experience is that in real life many people disregard negative consquences to get what they want...and also tend to believe that an otherwise reasonbly sensible character may desire something strongly enough to make a foolish decision or take a foolish action to get/achieve that desire.
Readers anymore often love to see goldenboy heroes taken down a notch and inept heroes receive their just comeuppance for their presumptive hubris. A principal feature of many stories evolved from romance literature, poetic justice, where dedicated efforts and pure intents are rewarded, lazinesss and evil punished.
It's like arguing with a three year old about putting on a seat belt. They give raltionalizations "I can hold on real tight." "I'll just put my feet up straight and push against the seat." "We won't get in a car crash this time." We all have excuses for doing stupid things.
*Note: I was responding to extrinsic's comments.
[This message has been edited by aspirit (edited August 31, 2009).]
A gymnastics example, illustrating kid with no concept of "I could die":
1) kid is doing well with back handsprings on the floor, so moves up to the low beam (which has mats stacked all around it anyway) and doesn't wait for a spotter, gets chastised (here's the set-up moment)
2) kid decides to try back handspring on high beam, with a spotter, even though is only getting it on low beam 3 times out of 4; needs a lot of help from spotter (here's the narrow escape moment)
3) kid gets in early to practice, has no spotter, says the hell with it and does the back handspring (successfully) on high beam (here's the I-got-away-with-it moment which leads to...)
4) feeling on top of the world, kid decides to finish off routine with another tricky maneuver she hasn't quite mastered - front tuck off the end of the balance beam - doesn't jump high enough and breaks her neck
Okay, maybe not the best example, but each of those things was reckless. The kid got away with them, so there was an escalation in recklessness that led to the kid finally pushing luck too far and getting herself killed. In context, it makes sense, but if I just threw out #4, you'd think "too stupid to live."
I changed the oil to a heavier weight, 5W-30. The slapping noises went away, not the overheating. Simple and inexpensive solution but too easy. In the vein of story craft, I discovered something that gave me insight into the problem. The slapping noise was a consequence of overheating. The overheating was not a consequence of the slapping pushrod.
The radiator was hissing. Took out the radiator, located the leak, soldered the punctured flue and put it all back together. The car ran cooler for a while but still overheated.
Replaced kinked radiator hoses and corroded pipes in the cabin heater manifold. The car ran cooler for a while, but still overheated.
Repaired a hole in the coolant reservoir, but the engine still overheated. So far, $30 on necessary replacement parts to patch radiator system leaks, but the problem wasn't fixed.
That left two possibilities, the engine was indeed shot or the thermostat was. Ten bucks and twenty minutes to replace the thermostat. Duh-huh.
Four of my previous cars had the same problem, yet I went through the same routine in the same sequence. At least this time, I fixed the overheating problem before it became an on-the-road emergency.
Meanwhile, I've gotten a couple thousand miles since the mechanics condemned the car and it's now running as good as it was when I bought it with 150,000 miles on it. Never mind that it's been rear-ended twice, total lossed once and paid another settlement on the second collision that helped pay for my current laptop.
Basically, an inciting incident, three trial and error setback scenes--rising action scenes, a discovery of the true situation as a consequence of discoveries in the rising action scenes, a climax when the outcome was most in doubt and efforts to resolve the crisis were at a peak, and a favorable resolution. Temporary though, I still need a newer model car. Soon.
However, the above is merely an anecdote, not a story. There's logical causation, no discernible tension, a smidgeon of antagonism. The biggest lack is the empathy/sympathy quotient--reader resonance's absence from a deficiency of character development. Worse, the anecdote has an autobiographical quality of showcasing my somewhat inept but capable mechanical skills. Nothing particularly empathetic or sympathetic there because I suffered no insuperable struggles. No harm, no ongoing risks, no profound learning experience.
In fiction, a similar story would have an author surrogate as a focal character who experiences no insuperable struggles that compel a profound turn nor ends with a satisfying resolution because reader immersion is unlikely.
Anyway, I'm satisfied for now with my car. I doubt any reader will be as satisfied as I am with the outcome.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited August 31, 2009).]
quote:
Creative writing imitates real life, it's not about the real thing no matter how close some stories come to reality, even nonfiction ones. A character who takes a foolish risk then goes on to make an astonishing recovery is too farfetched in reality for fiction. The odds are good, even in reality, that such a character will fail in any endeavor without a commensurate period of capability acquisition. Readers expect failure when circumstances foreshadow it. When consequences of foolish actions are out of proportion, suspension of disbelief collapses. When reader expectations aren't met or too easily met, a story's momentum stalls if it ever got moving to begin with.
Readers anymore often love to see goldenboy heroes taken down a notch and inept heroes receive their just comeuppance for their presumptive hubris. A principal feature of many stories evolved from romance literature, poetic justice, where dedicated efforts and pure intents are rewarded, lazinesss and evil punished.
For the record I'm not refering to characters doing stupid things and getting away with it. My issue is almost the oposite...that some people feel its unrealistic for a character to ever do something they know will have and does in fact have negative consquences.
I'm also not really refering to ability or apititude at all. More circumstances wherein the character chooses to perform (or not perform) an action even though other knowledge or common sense tells them they will suffer negative consquences, generally in pursuit of some specific goal.
"Too stupid to live" is to me an offensive statement when made by a screening reader or a critiquer about anyone else's characters. Worse, it doesn't say anything meaningful and more likely insults a writer than offers any meaningful insight. I believe it's a catchall phrase used by lazy critiquers to ineffectually address a range of plot and character deficiencies.
If you've analyzed the scenes in question, feel like you've accomplished what you've set out to do, feel like your character's motivations have been established and are clear, feel like the flow of events is logical and right, and have had other critiques that have not raised issues with this section, then it might be appropriate to accept the feedback with thanks, and then ignore it.
If, on the other hand, every reviewer is pointing out the same place in the MS, every reviewer has the same critique...well, that may indicate a blind spot for you. A place where you think things are just fine but readers think otherwise. Some writers continue on writing through their blind spots. Not every problem must be addressed. Others seek a wider set of reviewers, seeking someone who "gets" what the writer is trying to do. Others go back to the drawing board/basics/take a class/whatever to try to address a blind spot (particularly when a blind spot is around some writing mechanics issue like point of view, or grammar, or shallow characterization, things that can be addressed in a class or read about in books on writing.)
I'm not saying you have a blind spot, in reality I suspect you have the first - a reviewer or group of reviewers who don't get what you're trying to do or don't read enough in your genre and don't understand the conventions.
quote:
"Too stupid to live" is to me an offensive statement when made by a screening reader or a critiquer about anyone else's characters. Worse, it doesn't say anything meaningful and more likely insults a writer than offers any meaningful insight. I believe it's a catchall phrase used by lazy critiquers to ineffectually address a range of plot and character deficiencies.
I agree with you totaly, extrinsy, but I got exactly that from a pro-level slush reader (actually they didn't say it they spelt it-TSTL)
quote:
You know, Merlion, maybe you've found yourself in a position many of us have had before where you've got the wrong people reviewing your work. If this kind of critique is coming from one person or a small group of people, they may just not care for the style of storytelling you do
Yeah I get that a lot. In all honesty (not wanting to start a war here or anything but...) I find the tendency to perform critiques based mostly on personal taste (or in some cases on a person's ideas of "what editors want"), rather than within the context of the work is a very common problem, here on Hatrack and elsewhere. It's something I've posted about and discussed with people a good deal, and also links with my saw about subjectivity...that a lot of things some people see as rules or absolutes are just a matter of opinion.
quote:
(putting people with real flaws down on paper - some readers really prefer not to see this kind of thing)
This is really what I'm kind of addressing here mostly...to me the idea that its somehow unrealistic for people...even sensible people...to do things they know are foolish out of desire or denial is a bit strange, because it happens constantly in real life.
quote:
I'm not saying you have a blind spot, in reality I suspect you have the first - a reviewer or group of reviewers who don't get what you're trying to do or don't read enough in your genre and don't understand the conventions.
Honestly? I think a lot of people just can't divorce their own personal tastes and/or experiences (or a statement they saw from an established writer or editor or whatever) from their critiques...and some also have the (in my opinion misguided) belief that some things are objectively "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad" ways to write, types of stories, whatever.
On a related note, it seems in my experience that people who read/write a lot of hardcore sci fi have issues with my stuff since a lot of my work is driven by philosophy, mysticism and emotion rather than logical, "rational" thinking. People don't always choose the wisest course even when they know what they are doing is a bad idea.
I mostly wanted to explore the idea in general...it has come up with a couple of my stories and the funny part is it looks like the main one in question is probably about to sell (I just sent in a requested re-write today.)
quote:
I agree with you totaly, extrinsy, but I got exactly that from a pro-level slush reader (actually they didn't say it they spelt it-TSTL
I know, I saw that there and have seen it used many times in less than practical applications, there and elsewhere. I don't take anyone, especially emerging writers and screening readers, seriously who can't even be bothered to spell out words and use Standard Written English style conventions, let alone say what they mean and mean what they say.
Not a few of those "pro-level" screening readers also misuse conventional writing terms or invent terminology out of whole cloth or borrow terms from another discipline that serves more to confuse rather than inform and that contributes little, if any, pertinent meaning to a writing discussion. Myself, when a commenter is responding from aesthetic hunches and missing making a solid point, I have to work too hard to understand what's being said.
When I diagnose a story's deficiencies, I begin with an aesthetic hunch and then determine what's causing my discomfort. Often, it's a lack of empathic reader resonance from overlooking reader immersion methods.
I don't do critiques for a writer; I do it for furthering my developmental writing and editing skills to meet my goals. Putting my insights on the page helps me to solidfy my grasp of writing concepts and principles. Besides, all too often a writer whose story I'm responding to couldn't care less about my opinions. It's a two-lane highway of indifference. I rarely submit my responses to stories of late.
quote:
When I diagnose a story's deficiencies, I begin with an aesthetic hunch and then determine what's causing my discomfort. Often, it's a lack of empathic reader resonance from overlooking reader immersion methods.
Yeah thats probably why you wind up not really liking most of my stuff...we immerse very differently, you and I. But I think you, unlike some, are able to understand that fact...that everyone looks for different things in a story and experiences them in different ways.
quote:
I know, I saw that there
On a side note (as you may have already seen) I've more or less quite that place due to about 90-95% of the feedback I was getting being, to me, more like a movie critics review in a newspaper rather than a useful writer-to-writer critique.
quote:
Besides, all too often a writer whose story I'm responding to couldn't care less about my opinions. It's a two-lane highway of indifference. I rarely submit my responses to stories of late.
We're getting off topic here but ohh well...see its frustrating for me because I really do care about the thoughts of people that crit for me and appreciate their time, but I want a critique of my story, not just an explanation of why its not to their taste and how to make it their taste. As hard as it is when I do crits I really try to leave my preferences at the door or at least qualify them.
quote:
I'm also not really refering to ability or apititude at all. More circumstances wherein the character chooses to perform (or not perform) an action even though other knowledge or common sense tells them they will suffer negative consquences, generally in pursuit of some specific goal.
This sounds more like self-sacrificing characters than those who are "too stupid to live." So I'm confused about which kinds of characters you really want to talk about.
I can think of at least four possibilities:
Characters who do stupid things, as has been mentioned, so that there is a plot (the story is about getting out of the stupid mess they got themselves into--and is also referred to as an "idiot plot").
Characters who are not realistic about their situations or abilities or both and do things that make sense to them (and that the author makes clear to the reader), but that get them into trouble and they have to "learn better" through the course of the story.
Characters who know full well what could happen to them (the spooky old house may have bad guys in it), but they have no other choice (car caught on fire, it's hailing outside, and the character has a really bad cold), so they do something they know they shouldn't do.
Characters who know full well what will happen to them, but they are willing to pay the price of doing something that everyone else might consider stupid because something else matters more to them than their own happiness or safety (the truly self-sacrificing such as Frodo Baggins and Bella Swann).
So which kinds of characters are you talking about here, Merlion-Emrys? Or are you talking about some other kind of characters entirely?
quote:
Characters who do stupid things, as has been mentioned, so that there is a plot (the story is about getting out of the stupid mess they got themselves into--and is also referred to as an "idiot plot").
The story of mine that had the most effect on starting the conversation is probably closest to this. However, there are several things. It not a series of stupid actions but a single decision...the character reneges on payment for a service in order to aqquire something they've always had a burning desire for, and which the service enabled them to actually use. The character essentially rationlizes themself into it (also the character is a 13 year old, and while I consider someone of that age fully aware and responsible, its probably a bit easier for someone that young to talk themselves into something or out of fear of its consquences.) And, they dont get out of anything...the character suffers the full consquences of the choice.
The criticism I've recieved from a few is that because I establish him as being relatively "normal" and not specifically given to foolishness means theres no way he'd actually make the choice to renege. I submit however that desire of suffcient strength can be a very powerful motivator and that the ability of people probably especially the young to convince themselves "nothing will happen to me" can also be very strong.
It could be looked at in terms of the concept of the "fatal flaw" often spoken of in dramatic contexts. It could also be seen in the context of how frequently people in real life do things so foolish one would think no one not organically mentally impaired would do them.
But it seems that as KayTi implies some folks just dont/cant/wont see flawed or foolish characters as belieavble. ANd thats fine but to me it seems to come down to another of those "matter of taste" deals we run into so much.
quote:
But it seems that as KayTi implies some folks just dont/cant/wont see flawed or foolish characters as belieavble.
It may not be so much a question of believability as it is a question of whether the reader wants to identify with such a character, or whether the reader can even be brought to care.
It is a matter of taste. Many readers, myself included, are not as likely to continue with a story if they can't find any reason to care. There are too many other things to read in the small amount of time available for reading.
For me "caring" and "interest" are the same thing, but I realize that for a lot of people the characters are the main thing that make them care about/be interested in a story, and if they don't find the characters believable they won't care. But one persons believability-breaking stretch is another person's depth-imparting tragic flaw.
Honestly my biggest thing I guess is just that I see so many people do stupid things in real life (things I'd never contemplate doing and "can't believe", so to speak, that they actually did) that it strikes me as odd to find it out of place in fiction.
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited September 01, 2009).]
The "truth is stranger than fiction" saying really does apply.
People are not as willing to accept things in fiction as they might be in real life. Fiction has to make sense. Fiction has to have closure. People in fiction don't usually talk like real people, with hems and haws and "ya know" and throat clearing all over the place.
quote:
But do we want to read about or spend time with people who do such stupid things?
Well, some of us read about monsters and serial killers that we'd never want to actually encounter in real life, but I know what you mean. It's taste definitely.
Apparently somebody liked my deal-breaking adolescent though cause I just got the final acceptance email for the story :-)
quote:
Merlion, as a critiquer who has reviewed multiple of your stories, I think you may have misunderstood, slightly, what these reviewers are objecting to. At least in my case, and I can only speak for myself -- what I have tried to communicate to you is: the problem in some of your tales (as I experienced it as a reader) is not the behavior of the characters, it is that their behavior is often not given motives, has little or no context, is not adequately explained. I have suggested adopting immersive more POV's in some cases, or even just throwing in a single sentence to offer the reader an olive branch. Something, anything, to help the reader understand why your characters sometimes behave the way they do. To me, this is fundamental. But you seem to view it as a failure on the part of the reader to understand, rather than as a failure on the part of the writer to explain. For instance, every time I've sent you a crit, you've responded to it as though it was an attack, emailing me a point-by-point response and countering everything I've said, dismissing every suggestion I've made. That's why I don't critique your stories anymore. I know I can't tell you anything
None of the ones of mine you've read are the ones with the "TSTL" issue...the ones you've gotten are the ones with the "I can't identify with the characters" issue :-)
What your talking about here is a totally different issue that I have no problem talking about, but I'd rather not do it in this totally unrelated thread...please though feel free to email me if you want to talk about it.
Basically I think discussion between critiquers and critiquees makes the whole thing a lot more effective...but since its usually percieved as ingratitude or dismissing of the persons thoughts, I don't usually respond to most critiques anymore even though I feel like I and they are missing out on a lot of oportunities.
quote:
For instance, every time I've sent you a crit, you've responded to it as though it was an attack, emailing me a point-by-point response and countering everything I've said, dismissing every suggestion I've made.
This is not how writers are expected to respond to feedback on the Hatrack River Writers Workshop forum.
On the Writers Workshop page where the forum is explained, it says
quote:
The author may ask for clarification of another writer's comments, but any explanations, justifications, elaborations, and so on should be taken care of in rewrites. You can't explain things that aren't in the text to an editor, so you should get out of the habit of explaining them anywhere else.If, after all feedback has been offered, the author would like to ask for more specific suggestions, or if the author feels that the intent of the story was misunderstood and would like help in making that clearer, the author may ask for further discussion along the lines of "brainstorming" with the other writers.
Any other response should be "thank you."
Often a 'stupid' act is a short term means of escaping or deferring some sort of immediate pain.
quote:
The author may ask for clarification of another writer's comments, but any explanations, justifications, elaborations, and so on should be taken care of in rewrites. You can't explain things that aren't in the text to an editor, so you should get out of the habit of explaining them anywhere else.
I agree with this with one exception. In ongoing chapter exchanges for a novel I think it is sometimes necessary to give an explanation. If a critiquer points out something that I've failed to make clear, I'm going to revise to correct that. But the critiquer is not going to see the revised chapter and that information may be important in how the rest of the story is read. In that case, if a critiquer says something isn't clear, I think it's necessary to explain briefly, just so the rest of the novel is understandable. Often that part of the critique is phrased as a question. "Why did the character do such and such?"
Not arguing with the critique. Just providing the missing information that I'm going to work into the chapter that's already been critiqued.
Littered about are the bones of those who went so far as to cross the magical line and in their victorious moments realize the futility of their efforts, when the payout for even a "successful" published book might garner a sum representing one dollar per hour of dogged labor. Better to have worked the graveyard shift at 7/11.
And yet, three years and 108,000 words later...
quote:
This subject reminds me of an unbelievable character, who responding to some unexpressable inner desire, endeavors in the face of statistically certain failure to reach a goal granted only to the anointed few.
How peculiarly antithetical in a metafictive way to another boilerplate of story: a larger than life protagonist suffering insuperable struggles in dramatic contexts to address a high magnitude problem. Replace "character" or "protagonist" with "writer" and subtextual metafictional antitheses become apparent.
I think, however, the discerning determination of those two antitheticals is that of how well-disguised author surrogacy is in a story. Author surrogacy is an inalienable part of a writer's desire to write, but the question of where's the dividing line between self-indulgent appeal and audience appeal spans a broad landscape of age, gender, culture, temporal era, reading interest, and reading comprehension capacity.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 02, 2009).]
thanks
edit to include emoticon
heh heh
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited September 02, 2009).]
Reading and deconstructing epistemic intertextual metanarratives happens to be one of my favorite pastimes.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 02, 2009).]
quote:
What your talking about here is a totally different issue that I have no problem talking about, but I'd rather not do it in this totally unrelated thread...please though feel free to email me if you want to talk about it.
I happen to think it's exactly the same issue, and I'm surprised you don't see why I say so. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't think it was on point. You can easily have characters making bad decisions, doing things which seem foolish, etc. -- all without losing the audience. The trick is that the audience has to be given enough context and immersion into the character's thoughts, history, whatever, to understand what is being thought and felt at the moment of those bad decisions. It's the same solution to the same (underlying) problem.
quote:
I happen to think it's exactly the same issue, and I'm surprised you don't see why I say so. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't think it was on point. You can easily have characters making bad decisions, doing things which seem foolish, etc. -- all without losing the audience. The trick is that the audience has to be given enough context and immersion into the character's thoughts, history, whatever, to understand what is being thought and felt at the moment of those bad decisions. It's the same solution to the same (underlying) problem.
See, the thing is, you haven't read the stories in question here, nor peoples responses to them. Nothing was said about motivations or immersions. The criticism was quite specifically "I don't believe anyone would make this decision knowing its likely outcome."
You've critted 2 of my stories. Well, actually, one and a half. With the first one, you actually apologized to me for the tone of your critique. With the second one, my response to you was essentially "Yes, your right. A lot of people aren't going to identify with these characters, but thats how they exist in my mind. Thanks for your thoughts." No dismissing involved, only acknowledging.
So I'm not sure why like five months later you feel the need to come into a mostly unrelated thread and air grievences that took place in private and should probably have been discussed in private.
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited September 02, 2009).]
You know my style of critiquing. If you would like me to look at one of your 'stupid character' stories I would be glad to give you my take on it.
Actually the main "stupid" story that sorta started me thinking about this subject just sold to an anthology. Theres one other that has a bit of that sort of element too but in that case I agree that its probably a little hard to swallow. I'll send you that story, since you so kindly offer and I can use your feedback to help with a revision I have planned. Thanks.
Here's a link, if it comes out right.
http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/projects/rissetto/offense.html
Of course, if synopses are provided with novel segments (which is highly recommended), such questions would be less likely to arise.
The most basic tool that writers have is not a pen or a piece of paper or a computer or wordprocessing software. Our most basic tool is vocabulary.
I appreciate extrinsic's efforts to be clearer to those who have neglected their study in the use of their most basic tool as writers, and I urge those who find his posts challenging to accept the challenge and not only learn from what he says but also learn from how he says it.
The more words you know (as in understand and in use) the better your most basic tool will be, and the more it can help you with your writing.
quote:
Of course, if synopses are provided with novel segments (which is highly recommended), such questions would be less likely to arise.
Ack! Horror! Not another synopsis. I haven't killed the first one, yet. They're monsters, I tell you. 
I thought the joke was obvious.
Clearly I was wrong. 
However, KDW, where does the boundary lies between "author self indulgence and audience interest"?
At what point does the deployment of an esoteric vocabulary serve to resist the admission of 'outsiders'?
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited September 02, 2009).]
How did he come to that understanding?
Obviously, he (and perhaps others) began with an assumption.
What was the assumption?
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited September 02, 2009).]
I laughed. 
It's similar to when a person has heard something too many times (for example, the same old joke about a person's name). It doesn't mean the latest one is necessarily unkind, but it is just one comment too many.
In a different vein, and somewhat related to story, empathy in particular, my vocabulary is a consequence of being widely read. Reading is the one constant, unspoiled satisfaction in my life. Reading more than anything else makes my life worth living. Reading provides a good deal of my intellectual stimulation, without which I'd probably be extremely depressed by my circumstances. However, intellectual stimulation is a double edged curse. Like an addictive drug, the more I intake, the more I want, the greater the stimulation I want. Suffice it to say, the circumstances that drive my ravenous intellectual stimulation cravings are further exacerbated by that pursuit.
No matter how well-intended someone's razzing is, it only serves to remind me of my human frailties and shortcomings. Empathy, feel my pain. I'm not a cold fish, no, I feel too much. I'm an empath who feels other people's pains too deeply. My ready withdrawal from nominative normal social activities is partly caused by feeling so deeply.
Just trying to help.
I've read the story that the "too stupid to live" comment was addressed to, read the comments it received at the forum were it was first offered for commentary, the responses to the comments, the responses to the responses to the comments, and so on. I've studied the publication that accepted it as is, with editorial changes that I've not evaluated. I've examined the writing of some of the staff of the publication and the parent publication outfit, excerpts from their published works and critical reviews of their works. In my estimation, the story is a perfect fit for the publication. I'll post no other value judgements besides everyone who's entering the publishing rat race has to start somewhere, writers, publishers, screening readers, and editors. The Internet has opened up a gateway of possibilities for emerging artists that's only beginning to be realized. Congratulations, Merlion-Emerys.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 02, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited September 02, 2009).]
On topic (sort of, I hope):
Merlion, I feel that people (even/especially when they are critiquing) very seldom say what they mean or mean what they say. What makes writing so difficult is that expressing oneself in a way to convey all the history, emotions, intentions, beliefs, etc. is in itself very difficult. Whether one is writing fiction, where the writing serves to entertain, or nonfiction, where the writing serves to instruct, the writer is burdened by his/her desire for a certain affect and not finding the best means of accomplishing it. It is ultimately our inability to convey our thoughts that causes undesired responses.
I feel, as you do, that too much of the critiques fall into the realm of personal preference. However, it is very difficult for one to separate themselves from what they like or dislike and to consider the greater populace - this is what editor's are supposed to do. I am beginning to believe that the higher tier editors are doing this to some degree (though my peronal preferences are sometimes trampled upon).
I do not believe a character can be too stupid to live. I do not believe that curiosity cannot be a motive (to use a double negative appropriately). And I do not believe "a character is an island", which means that for a critiquer to give a blanket statement as to why they do not believe a character or story is a shortfall of the critiquer. I would suggest there are many reasons they did not believe your character, but they expressed this inadequately. Consider this: any character with any intent can be believed in the right circumstances. I believe this to be true. The difficulty is in getting there.
I struggle constantly with "getting there", and nothing makes me more frustrated. However, I am beginning to approach writing with this mantra: Successful writing is about imparting to the reader everything that was intended by the writer.
quote:
Reading and deconstructing epistemic intertextual metanarratives happens to be one of my favorite pastimes.
quote:
Not a few of those "pro-level" screening readers also misuse conventional writing terms or invent terminology out of whole cloth or borrow terms from another discipline that serves more to confuse rather than inform and that contributes little, if any, pertinent meaning to a writing discussion. Myself, when a commenter is responding from aesthetic hunches and missing making a solid point, I have to work too hard to understand what's being said.
quote:
When I diagnose a story's deficiencies, I begin with an aesthetic hunch and then determine what's causing my discomfort. Often, it's a lack of empathic reader resonance from overlooking reader immersion methods.
I am curious about that editor role you performed. May I ask in what capacity your task was in that function?
[This message has been edited by snapper (edited September 03, 2009).]
I'm not calling any of them there clueless. They and myself and all other discerning critiquers in my experience initially respond to a story intuitively based on aesthetic hunches. Like in all my experiences in writing workshops, whenever and wherever, critiquing is a function of feeling how a reader responds to a story. That hunch can lead to a diagnosis.
From there, though, the ability to express deficiencies' causes and fixes doesn't follow on as much as I think is beneficial. What does "What's the point?" mean? Of what benefit is such a question to a struggling writer? What about asking a more pointed and targeted question? Like, what's the message the story is trying to convey?
From appreciating a lack of a clear message, then an obvious to me diagnosis is limited development of theme and tone. From there, then, a fix is to reexamine a narrative point of view for whether an objective toned narrator is the best vehicle for telling the story, or would a subjective tone carry more meaning and drama.
Theme, a common deficiency in my experience, start with what's the conflict and what slant on a theme a story's trying to depict. Start with a basic conflict, good and evil, for example, which is a relative perception, but that conflict ought not to be ambiguous or be narrated by an ambivalent narrator. Maybe a first person narrator, maybe a subjective, condemning third person narrator, or maybe a focal character's point of view takes up the tone slack.
Narrow down the conflict, the good of personal anarchy opposed by a totalitarian theocracy. Narrow it down more, make it a personal conflict, a desire for independence from the strictures of a religiously oppressive community. The conflict, be a part of society or apart from it. The theme then might be a man is not an island. The message, perhaps, a man can live in solitude but not entirely alone.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 03, 2009).]
quote:
I'm not calling any of them there clueless.
quote:
No matter how well-intended someone's razzing is, it only serves to remind me of my human frailties and shortcomings. Empathy, feel my pain. I'm not a cold fish, no, I feel too much. I'm an empath who feels other people's pains too deeply. My ready withdrawal from nominative normal social activities is partly caused by feeling so deeply.
quote:
I've published as an editor
I think snapper isn't the only one interested in learning more about extrinsic. Perhaps extrinsic's topic in the Next, Please Introduce Yourself area might be a better place for such a discussion.
http://www.uncwil.edu/writers/PubLab/book/publishing_the_hatterasman.html
I've also worked as editor for a local tabloid format weekly newspaper, plus a few other projects in my editing career.
One of these days, when I have the resources in place and am emotionally prepared for the onslaught, I might publish an anthology or two and maybe even a paper/digital digest.
quote:
I feel, as you do, that too much of the critiques fall into the realm of personal preference. However, it is very difficult for one to separate themselves from what they like or dislike and to consider the greater populace - this is what editor's are supposed to do. I am beginning to believe that the higher tier editors are doing this to some degree (though my peronal preferences are sometimes trampled upon).
Giving really good critiques does involve walking a very fine line because on one end you've got the "too much personal preference" end where the critique sounds like a movie review but on the other end you've got those that feel fully qualified to objectively speak for "readers" in general and for the desires of all editors, which doesn't come off well either.
When I critique I try, especially with points I'm unsure of to present both my personal view "this is what I think, this is how I'd do it" and a more general thing based on what I've heard from other readers "However, judging from what I've seen of current trends with this type of story" etc, and I also tend to state that I'm basing what I say on what I can derive of their intent, but I realize I may not be understanding what their trying to do.
quote:
Giving really good critiques does involve walking a very fine line because on one end you've got the "too much personal preference" end where the critique sounds like a movie review but on the other end you've got those that feel fully qualified to objectively speak for "readers" in general and for the desires of all editors, which doesn't come off well either.
When I critique I try, especially with points I'm unsure of to present both my personal view "this is what I think, this is how I'd do it" and a more general thing based on what I've heard from other readers "However, judging from what I've seen of current trends with this type of story" etc, and I also tend to state that I'm basing what I say on what I can derive of their intent, but I realize I may not be understanding what their trying to do.
I'm obviously new here, so I'm finding my own critique-legs. But so far I try to steer clear of Voice critiques and stick to the basics of what is technically good writing. Avoiding passive voice, -ly adverbs, showing vs. telling, and so on.
I don't really trust myself to say how I would fix a segment, though, because I tend to add my own Voice in doing that.
Genre specific critiques haven't come up yet with me, so I don't know how I tend to tackle those.
[This message has been edited by jezzahardin (edited September 09, 2009).]
quote:
I'm obviously new here, so I'm finding my own critique-legs. But so far I try to steer clear of Voice critiques and stick to the basics of what is technically good writing. Avoiding passive voice, -ly adverbs, showing vs. telling, and so on.
I just personally consider it a good idea to keep an open mind even with these things and remember that they as well can be subjective. Many of them (such as show/tell) I see as simply different tools, although you'll find a lot of people consider one inherently superior to the other.
I'm curious though...what do you mean by voice critiques? The things you mention I would consider to fall under the catagory of "voice" but thats just me.
quote:
Genre specific critiques haven't come up yet with me, so I don't know how I tend to tackle those
For me its not even as much a thing of genres as of specific stories. I believe strongly that critiques should be focused on improving a story as what it is, but some due to (generally well intentioned) issues of personal taste or views of editorial preference some times give critiques that involve essentially instructions on how to make it into something else (at least in my view.) Or, as with this "too stupid to live" subject, classify whole concepts or structures as inherently and inalienably "weak."
When critiqueing I prefer to either ask or try to determine the authors intentions with the story, and critique it in that context whenever possible, since in my view the "rules" we hear so much about are actually just more tools in our storytelling utility belt.
Regarding show vs. tell and the others, I think it's generally accepted that they are rules. And that all rules need breaking from time to time. But if every sentence is telling, I'm done reading unless the author has an AMAZING Voice.
As for keeping an open mind and considering author intent...I'm sceptical. I can't imagine the slush pile reader has the luxury of an open mind, or the time to ask the author what they meant. So am I really helping if I do those things?
(If I've gone off the rails critiquing, I hope someone will correct me, though. I can be...zealous.)
As to the original topic, too stupid to live, I think there isn't a general answer. If it works in that particular story, then it's right. If it doesn't, it's wrong.
quote:
Forgive my ambiguity. I did not mean voice as in active/passive. I meant Voice, as in the author's unique style. As in, why I pick up a new book, 9 times out of 10
Thats more or less what I thought you meant.
quote:
Regarding show vs. tell and the others, I think it's generally accepted that they are rules. And that all rules need breaking from time to time.
To me, "rules" that need semi-regular breaking aren't rules, they are at most guidlines. They are things you do most of the time, but that have frequent situations in which you do differently. And so, to me, they are really just tools. Showing/telling for instance...all writing is, in truth, telling. Its declaritive versus descriptive...some things should be described (objects, settings, creatures, actions) other things often should be or even must be told at least partially be it in narrative or dialogue (thoughts and emotions spring to mind although emotions especially can be done both ways, and which is "better" is pretty much a matter of taste.
KDW posted an article recently about "Stages of a Writer" by an apparently successful author (though one I'm unfamiliar with) who seemed to feel that learning to not be trapped in the "rules"...and in fact to basically make your own is a big part of a writers advancement.
quote:
But if every sentence is telling, I'm done reading unless the author has an AMAZING Voice.
I feel that many of the things some call "rules" are often basically choices of style (voice) in the end. You don't like telling (or what you percieve as telling.) Thats totally fine. I, on the other hand, generally have no problem with it in certain types of stories or certain writing styles.
I feel what we're writing should determine what "rules" we use not the other way around.
quote:
As for keeping an open mind and considering author intent...I'm sceptical. I can't imagine the slush pile reader has the luxury of an open mind, or the time to ask the author what they meant. So am I really helping if I do those things?
Ok, two things here. One, putting true total basics (spelling, basic grammar, punctuation) aside storytelling is inherently subjective and based on taste. A story that the slush readers of one magazine may hate may be loved by those of another, because different publications publish different types and styles of stories. For instance, many publications right now (like F&SF) are big on heavily character-driven drama type stories but then there are others (like Black Gate or Flashing Swords) that prefer plot-driven adventure stories and still others (like Fantasy Magazine) that publish things that don't even seem to really have plots or make any sense (at least to me.)
Thats why when you critique, you critique for the story type as best you can. If a story is meant to be a plot driven Sword and Sorcerery adventure you don't tell the author that they need to make it more character driven and spend lots of time and energy on deep emotional motivations and the like, nor if its a character-driven drama do you criticise it for not having enough action (these are just examples or generalizations obviously.)
Second thing on that. I realize that here the common wisdom is you won't be able to talk to an editor so why talk to a critiquer but to be honest that seems extremely bizzare to me. It seems to me the very reason we offer stories up to other writers is so we can get opinions from people that we CAN talk to, in order to try and perfect them for those that we won't be able to (generally what happens is you'll form a group of trusted critters and discuss things with them via email. Its extremely helpful.)
quote:
As to the original topic, too stupid to live, I think there isn't a general answer. If it works in that particular story, then it's right. If it doesn't, it's wrong.
This is basically my whole point in a nutshell, I just believe it applies to EVERYTHING including the "rules." The STORY is first.
quote:
(If I've gone off the rails critiquing, I hope someone will correct me, though. I can be...zealous.)
Not at all...I enjoy this sort of discussion very much...I wish more of it went on here in the civil respectful manner we're maintaining right now.
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited September 09, 2009).]
quote:
Thats why when you critique, you critique for the story type as best you can. If a story is meant to be a plot driven Sword and Sorcerery adventure you don't tell the author that they need to make it more character driven and spend lots of time and energy on deep emotional motivations and the like, nor if its a character-driven drama do you criticise it for not having enough action (these are just examples or generalizations obviously.)
I disagree. Doesn't matter to me, as a critic, whether it's supposed to be a plot-driven piece, or a character-driven piece. I don't know what the author's intentions are so I'm going to go with what's on the page. Even if you were to tell me that it's a plot-driven piece so don't worry about telling me about characterization, I'm going to ignore that. All I have is what's on the page, and if you can't tell me what the story is about, or what it isn't about, without a note before the story telling me what you're trying to accomplish then it's a rigged game. It's unfair to the critic, and definitely unfair to the writer.
quote:
Second thing on that. I realize that here the common wisdom is you won't be able to talk to an editor so why talk to a critiquer but to be honest that seems extremely bizzare to me. It seems to me the very reason we offer stories up to other writers is so we can get opinions from people that we CAN talk to, in order to try and perfect them for those that we won't be able to (generally what happens is you'll form a group of trusted critters and discuss things with them via email. Its extremely helpful.)
The point is not that you CAN'T talk to the critic, but that you can't defend what you wrote to the critic. There's a difference. You can ask the critic to explain why such and such didn't work for him/her, or get the critic to expand on his/her criticisms, but it's unfair to you as a writer (and to the critic) to issue a rebuttal, point by point. It doesn't help you by doing that.
Too stupid to live people abound; too frequently they are us! My first thought was 'unmarried sex'. People do this and then act so shocked when one of the natural consequences occur. It is the whole assumption thing. We make an assumption, in the case of unmarried sex, it is that birth control WILL work, condoms WILL keep us safe from disease, and somehow we can take this (or these) particular relationship(s) to the most intimate level and yet somehow no one will end up hurt... All this in spite of clear evidence all around that.. frequently we fail our birth control, frequently it fails us... condoms are only good up to a point and sometimes they break and hearts get broken almost in every relationship of this type which ends in other than marital bliss.
(I have had a LOT of teens pass through my house! This is a syndrome!) In our culture there is a general set of assumptions about sex which most every kid buys into (our biology makes us want it to be true). Things like: We have a right to indulge without the natural consequences. Boys do; girls should be able to as well. Waiting is old fashioned. How do you know you aren't gay? How do you know you are suitable in that way? I am just getting ready for my wife/husband by doing this with someone else first. Etc., etc.
Well, there are other cultures/other subculturesn and other sets of assumptions. Which we persist on believing even with the evidence in front of us.
There are other things, too. Many times we want a thing to be true so badly that we behave as if it is true. (Idealists) On the other hand sometimes we are so afraid something is true that we just assume that it is and get the anguish over with. (defeatists)
So I don't think it is that big of a stretch. A nominally intelligent person is at least as capable of making a dumb mistake as someone who is just working with low wattage. Sometimes even more so, I think. Smart people, imo, tend to get drawn off into theoretical realms so much that they flat ignore the evidence in front of them contradicting it.
Thanks for the topic. This is something I do think about a lot. (Why did they do that? Who would say that? What was *I* thinking?) The truth is we want to make decisions from 'smart' but it is almost never that simple.
Oh, and congratulations!