posted
Books about writing tell you to create a likable character, put that character into a difficult situation, and have the character change in the struggle to overcome those difficulties.
On the other hand, that isn't what the science fiction editors buy! Analog often has stories with that structure, but F&SF, Realms of Fantasy, and Asimov's regularly run stories about a totally unlikable dweeb who finds himself or herself in a miserable and mildly fantastic situation, often totally unexplained, and does absolutely nothing about it.
For example, the most recent magazine story I read was Against the Current by Robert Silverberg in F&SF. An average Joe begins moving backwards in time for reasons never explained. He reacts mildly -- misses his family and future prospects only a little. He vaguely looks forward to seeing the past, but does nothing to preserve his own life -- he doesn't even steal a warm jacket and a backpack for those ice age winters.
Any idea why there is such a large disconnect between what we are advised to write in order to sell and the stuff editors actually buy?
posted
In the case mentioned above, it is name, name and name. Having a Robert Silverberg story in your magazine equates to sales. Having said that, I think that there is more to the question/answer that I too would like to find out.
Posts: 789 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. I haven't seen the story---now I'll have to paw through my mail pile looking for that issue---and Silverberg's protagonists tend to be, well, passive, I guess you'd say. And Silverberg is in a league where his stories are generally commissioned efforts---yeah, the name value doesn't hurt, and the editors know it.
Of course there are endless numbers of SF stories I've seen that I thought were just awful---some of them Hugo and Nebula winners, too. (I tend to not like, say, stories whose protagonists say, more or less, I've got a secret [which they then tell you in the story] but I'll never tell. I once read an issue of Asimov's with three stories with that same plot.)
posted
I think the reason is that these magazines are desperately trying to hold onto readers. Their subscription rates and circulations are always in jeopardy in today's world, and they are looking for new and different stories to grab new readers, because new readers are their life-blood. It the process, they are appealing to a different reading public than just the normal genre readers, and I think more of one slanted toward standard literary fiction rather than speculative fiction.
Below is a link to the Blog of the slush editor for Realms Of Fanatasy. It has some interesting things posted on it. The entry for August 23rd, 2007 explains what he liked about issue #5 from 1995. He talks about liking a type of fantasy that probably isn't fantasy at all. Something called surrealistic fantasy, which to me sounds like nothing more than an excuse to print literary fiction in a genre magazine. He tries to justify it, but I still don't buy it.
The reason that Analog probably doesn't do this is that they are more of a Hard-Core Sci-Fi mag, and fear that they will actually lose more readers than they gain if they stray away from hard science. Even with that, they have printed more standard sci-fi too, somewhat watering down their hard science theme.
posted
I've always felt the advice about likable characters was a bit suspect, unless the word "likable" is defined. To me, it usually sounds more like "interesting." I think a character can easily have some unlikable traits, but they overall need to be likable in some way. If the character were a total a-hole, I doubt the story would fly. And part of that likableness is sympathy, the readers need to feel he understands the character, even he doesn't agree with what the reader is doing.
I read a book recently that gave some examples of this. I think OSC in How to Write Science-Fiction and Fantasy was one. I remember an example of a character that was trying to take over the world, and he wasn't a nice guy. Yet, the author explains, the character was interesting and fascinating. The book was wonderful and a success, because the character was something like watching a car accident.
I struggle with this, too. I'm not entirely clear on it. I have a story I want to write, but it requires the lead character to get to a point where a) he doesn't care if he lives or dies. Suicide might be an option. And b) the character lacks significant aggression. Previous to the story's start, he gets bounced around because he never stands up for himself. I never start the story, because I never get the lead character to a point where *I* like him. So, I think that if you, the author, find your character interesting and fascinating, you may be off to a good start. Really, I think the best advice is to write it and see if it works.
posted
I just had to point out the Slushmaster's post from August 21...
quote:Thirdly, John mentioned to me that he'll soon be posting a series of entries about starting your own zine. Two years ago at Readercon I attended a panel of this sort run by Matt Kressel of Sybil's Garage. Mary Robinette Kowal of Shimmer was there and also offered her thoughts. I found it hugely interesting.
Isn't it fun to see that Mary Robinette is getting famouser and famouser?!
posted
Horrible people can be fascinating if they are presented in the right way. Hannibal Lecter, for instance. Wouldn't you have thought that Starling would be the continuing character? Michael Douglas' character in ??? Falling down? Walking Man? I can't remember the name of that movie where he went ballistic in the fast food place. Ishmael - yuck! They explore some hidden id-pulsive place inside of us.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like what Iupac and Iehollis said (I hope I spelled those names right )
Iupac also hit it on the head: magazines in particular are losing subscriptions to that one reviled, damning, mind-sucking media: television. Just about the only magazines that are growing are non-fiction niche, often "DiY" type magazines, and these magazines usually feed off of television (often cable/satellite) tie-ins, like Rachel Ray and Paula Deen's magazines and their television shows (ok, so I'm a big foodie )
What's my personal advice? I'm very reluctant to give it because it flies in the face of what's usually given here, but here's just as good a place to give it: make sure it's attractive to Hollywood. The big trend now are books and stories that can be adapted to movies and television. The DaVinci Code, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the Jason Bourne series - I can go on. Even all the way back to one of my sci-fi author heroes and 2001: A Space Odyssey (which was written after the script, and Clarke considered the script to be the "first draft." The book only came along in the first place to promote the movie.) If you're looking to achieve immediate, fast success, a DaVinci Code or Jason Bourne-like conspiracy suspense thriller seems to be the big ticket item this decade (note that Orson Scott Card's own conspiracy suspense thriller, Empire, had its movie rights sold prior to publication, by a "big-name" producer/director no less (and despite the book's politics even), while Ender's Game is finally being made into a movie 20 years after its first publication).
Of course, this also means that you'll be writing in the hopes of making money. This is something I do not advocate, hence why I'm hesitant to give this advice (and why I hardly consider it "advice" myself).
Now, onto the question of character:
quote:I've always felt the advice about likable characters was a bit suspect, unless the word "likable" is defined. To me, it usually sounds more like "interesting." I think a character can easily have some unlikable traits, but they overall need to be likable in some way. If the character were a total a-hole, I doubt the story would fly. And part of that likableness is sympathy, the readers need to feel he understands the character, even he doesn't agree with what the reader is doing.
I read a book recently that gave some examples of this. I think OSC in How to Write Science-Fiction and Fantasy was one. I remember an example of a character that was trying to take over the world, and he wasn't a nice guy. Yet, the author explains, the character was interesting and fascinating. The book was wonderful and a success, because the character was something like watching a car accident.
I struggle with this, too. I'm not entirely clear on it. I have a story I want to write, but it requires the lead character to get to a point where a) he doesn't care if he lives or dies. Suicide might be an option. And b) the character lacks significant aggression. Previous to the story's start, he gets bounced around because he never stands up for himself. I never start the story, because I never get the lead character to a point where *I* like him. So, I think that if you, the author, find your character interesting and fascinating, you may be off to a good start. Really, I think the best advice is to write it and see if it works.
Hey, you're speaking to the choir
I've been told to make my MC active in the story and not aloof in order to make her likable. So what do I do? I totally ignore them. My MC takes a passive role at first and she is "built up" as the story progresses - she doesn't start off the story with a problem that she wants to fix, she starts off spending time what the problem is and builds up the decision and will to change it. And as for not being aloof, her very core personality is kinda aloof. So either I'm very brilliant or I screwed up royally - I'll only know if I have enough people reach a consensus after reading it, which is part of the purpose of being at this site in the first place.
In other words, create your character first, then see how he or she stands the test. You can always go back and change or even scrap your draft, after all.
And as for being a total a-hole, man, my MC can be a complete and total...well, I don't know if I'm allowed to say it here, but I'm confident you'll get the idea
quote:Horrible people can be fascinating if they are presented in the right way. Hannibal Lecter, for instance. Wouldn't you have thought that Starling would be the continuing character? Michael Douglas' character in ??? Falling down? Walking Man? I can't remember the name of that movie where he went ballistic in the fast food place. Ishmael - yuck! They explore some hidden id-pulsive place inside of us.
A very popular anime is a show called Bleach (it's named after the Nirvana song in case you're wondering) where the MC goes to the "Spirit World" to fight demons and prevent the fabric of space-time from imploding. One of the most popular characters (at least here in the U.S.) and one of the good guys is Mayuri Kurotsuchi. And he's big enough of an a-hole to make Hannibal Lecture look like a saint - he forces his subordinates to go on wasteful kamikaze missions, he continually abuses his female lieutenant to the point of routinely nearly killing her, and he performed experiments on and tortured the grandfather of another "good guy" character. Yet nearly everybody I know seems to love this character.
I think the big reason why is what debhoag alluded to - that id-pulsive place inside of us that either wishes we can indulge in such behavior consequence-free or if nothing else so we have something to point to and say "at least I'm better than that." Probably the best examples are all the classic horror films - Freddy Krueger in "Nightmare on Elm Street", Jason Vorhees in "Friday the 13th" and Michael Meyers in "Halloween" (and yes I must admit I'm psyched about the upcoming Rob Zombie remake ) The image of this completely amoral, dedicated killing machine that can't control his murderous impulses is probably the purest image of the completely id-pulse driven image. Of course, a quick Google search would probably reveal a number of academic resources on this very subject that are much more qualified than I.
[This message has been edited by The G-Bus Man (edited August 25, 2007).]
quote:I like what Iupac and Iehollis said (I hope I spelled those names right
Spell it however you like, just don't spell it latefordinnner
(But it's an L for the first letter. Short for Lawrence E. Hollis. Originally, I was going to publish under L.E.Hollis, but now I think I'll just do my full name unless an editor or agent suggests I change it. That or I'll go for Steve N. King for the "accidental sales" market )
posted
LeHollis, you are a man after my own heart - always hedge your bets! I actually had an agent tell me (in a rejection letter) that if I was related to Tami Hoag, I should say so in my query letter. There was a bizzare moment, but it cracked me up. Speaking of weird characters, did anybody besides me get totally into Dexter? I was religious about watching that until we had a budget crunch and had to kill the satellite for a while. I'm still in withdrawal.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The slushmaster blog explains a lot -- slushmaster is buying stories he/she likes, not stories readers will like. No wonder magazine sales are down.
My comment on the characters in stories really was not about characters with flaws or even characters who are monsters. It was the fact that many (most) magazine stories have characters who are dull. They are ordinary people in ordinary situations who encounter the fantastic and aren't even all that surprised. It never occurs to them to do anything.
I went through one of the "year's best sf" anthologies a while back (it was painful) and only one story (by Gene Wolfe) contained a character who actually did something!
I think the on-line mags, Baen's Universe and Medicine Show, have less of a "for English majors only" editorial policy, though they may go too far in the other direction. I had a story rejected by Baen because the ending was basically positive but slightly bittersweet. "Only happy endings," was the comment I got.
Speaking of English majors, a bit of dialog from yesterday's Prairie Home Companion. Two characters are talking at a college commencement. "I hope this doesn't go on too long, I've got to get to work." "Oh, where do you work?" "Burger King" "Oh, you must be an English major."
posted
I was recently reading a book with a character who had similar traits to a character of my own. So I was determined to get to the end of the book to see how the character made it through. The writer also had a similar 'real time' setting, which was challenging for me - you know, accounting for each day going by in a realistic manner.
Anyway, in the book i was reading, the heroine's brother was kidnapped, and she would go hunt for him a little while, and then that afternoon, would end up back at work, unpacking boxes and running the cash register. "gee, I'm really worried that the bad guys are mailing me my brother's body parts, I think I'll go make a few sales." Note: she was the owner, and had three employees who could do all the daily work so she could have been looking for bro the whole time.
posted
debhoag, the book you're reading is a perfect example of why it is so difficult for new and unestablished authors to figure out what they should be writing. On the one hand, if you read a lot of the advice from printed books on writing, or off the web, you find that this ordinary daily life stuff is a definite no-no for genre fiction. It doesn't move the plot along, or give us insights into character or anything else important to the story.
On the other hand, we often read genre stories like this where nothing really happens other than daily life things. This is more consistent with literary fiction, which seems to focus on the mundane, and is against anything unusual.
Unfortunately, it seems that genre fiction is heading in this direction as well. Here's another link to something Dave Wolverton wrote regarding literary fiction. It seems a lot of the same kind of things are starting to work their way into the genre fields as well.
I recently read "Spin" by Robert Charles Wilson, the Hugo novel winner for 2006. While the characters were great, and the story was interesting, the book was mostly about the day-to-day things the characters did. Not that it made for a bad story, as the characterization was great, but it does show the trend toward a more literary tilt in genre stories.
posted
Speaking of dull characters, did anyone else find themselves bored out of their tree while reading American Gods?
1. Shadow is a dull twit who doesn't seem to have much of a reaction to anything. 2. Wednesday is too much of an evasive prick to care much about. 3. The fate of a flock of Gods, most of which I've never heard of, doesn't interest me in the slightest. 4. The stupid dream sequences? Puh-leeese!
How this book won a Hugo, and a Nebula, and... something else, is beyond me. Must have been a weak year. It's not a terrible book (I actually finished reading it) but I kept waiting to be swept away. Maybe I just missed the boat on this one.
quote:debhoag, the book you're reading is a perfect example of why it is so difficult for new and unestablished authors to figure out what they should be writing. On the one hand, if you read a lot of the advice from printed books on writing, or off the web, you find that this ordinary daily life stuff is a definite no-no for genre fiction. It doesn't move the plot along, or give us insights into character or anything else important to the story.
On the other hand, we often read genre stories like this where nothing really happens other than daily life things. This is more consistent with literary fiction, which seems to focus on the mundane, and is against anything unusual.
I suppose in science fiction and other speculative fiction it would be nice to know to get an insight into the daily lives of the characters, although it seems as if the aforementioned works overdo it.
Also, I've noticed that people use the mundane moments of their lives to begin to reflect on things that's happened to them and engage in self-reflection - at least, that's what I do.
It's been said that character novels are about characters who recognize something needs to be change and go about changing it, and that such novels should start with the character attempting to change it. I think it might be good to see the character begin to see why a thing needs to be changed before that character goes about changing it first. Going back to what I've said above, maybe the character does a whole bunch of stuff then goes back home and while he or she is cooking dinner he or she begins to wonder about the ethics of what that character just spent all day doing.
Another theme I haven't seen much, but that I kinda play around with, is that the character recognizes that something's wrong but doesn't do anything anyway - a kind of subtle tragedy, you can say. The story can be the character rationalizing to him or herself why it's not worth changing while at the same time presenting the situation in such a way that the character is either a fool or a criminal for not taking the action to change it. The climax can be the problem biting back at him or her, whether the character chooses to stick with his or her dead-end job and the scene ends with him or her in a deep state of depression, or with the character being charged as a war criminal.
posted
I actually liked American Gods but not for Shadow (though I found him a likable character). Gaiman is a masterful storyteller who uses M,I,C and E however, he does not use C to be about Shadow but about all the other characters.
The "real" MCs of American Gods are the gods themselves. Shadow does not change rather is shown to be just himself in a world that is changing. (A real toad in an imaginary garden)
The gods are the ones who change in this story. Shadow is the POV character and a prominent character but his story is a maguffin.
I like shadow and I empathized with him but American Gods is a story that is about the possibilities of a hidden world which is Gaiman's trademark plot. The Sandman series of comics, the Book Neverwhere (also made into BBC miniseries), his newest book Interworld are all examples of this plot.
Gaiman uses characters as excuses for stories, not stories as excuses for characters.
This doesn't make it right or make it wrong but its a stylistic choice in which he excels.
posted
Kathleen, you're welcome. Whenever I see something that I think is worthwhile, I try to pass it along.
This particular link came from searching the web after seeing your post on Dave Wolverton's (Farland's) novel writing workshop a short while back. When I read that post, I immediately signed up for it, as it seemed exactly what I needed, and will be attending it come the end of March of next year. Then I wanted to get a little bit of a head start on seeing how Mr. Wolverton thought and what kinds of things were out there about him. I already knew a lot, but wanted to find out more. So in a way, I guess I should be thanking you.
posted
Kathleen actually recommended a book that explained how to write short stories. Can't think of the name off the top of my head, but it explained how short stories don't follow all the rules a novel would. Because of the short span used to tell the story, there are different aspects for writing a short story that works well.
I gave them up and went for novels myself, I need more room...and I don't mind the rules that much anyways.
posted
I was going to lament that if Asimov wrote a short story today, he might have difficulty getting published in the magazine that bears his name. Then I got to thinking, and decided that he ought to be able to.
First, I'm thinking SF here, not horror or fantasy, with apologies to all our colleagues in coffins and cauldrons -- because I think horror and fantasy continues to sell while science fiction has challenges. I'll define science fiction for the purposes of this contribution to the discussion as stories that rely on imaginary science: take the science away and the story collapses.
My thought that Asimov could still get published in Asimov's rests on this premise: Asimov didn't write about robots, he wrote about their affects on the human condition and he made his science accessible.
I doubt that publishers set trends, only the bravest with little thought to the bottom line can afford to do that. I imagine they follow audience tastes as well as they can.
Maybe there just aren't enough decent stories.
By 'decent' I mean, 'will sell.' Perhaps the problem is that we write too few stories that meet changing tastes. I think tastes have broadened and it's getting harder for writers to appeal to such a wide, demanding range. That's not a whine, it sets us a challenge.
In this broadening of taste I think there are two trends.
First, there seems to be a general reduction in understanding of science. It seems to frighten people, and kids tend to avoid it at school more so now than they did. (I don't want to get sidetracked into the reasons why, I'm just going to assume it's so.) The relationship here to Asimov is this: he was very good at explaining science in an accessible fashion, both in his SF and in his popular science books. When Asimov had science in his stories, we all understood it. (Heinlein too for that matter, with his classic dilating door.)
For us as writers this is the first challenge: if we want to keep SF alive we have to explain our fictional science in a way that's accessible. (As if avoiding infodumps wasn't hard enough!)
There's some hard SF published these days (I refuse to mention the writers on the grounds that they might zap me with a ray gun I don't understand) that even I, a hardened SF fan, avoid because it's too ... hard: I'm baffled by the characters and their story because I'm blinded by the science.
The second trend is the opposite. For every kid that's turned off by the apparent difficulty of science, there are one or more adult scientists who demand that their SF be scientifically plausible. Where once you could say, 'Joe jumped into a space ship and went to Mars and skewered the Prince of Mars who was chucking red rocks at Earth because he was mean,' now you've got to say how the Prince breathes, where his people live and where they get the rocks from. Until comparatively recently nobody had been to Mars so you could say what you liked.
It's the same in any scientific discipline: we know more now than we did five or ten years ago, and we learned even more this past week. Worse, most SF stories involve several scientific disciplines. I managed to hit computers, automation, waste recycling, fuel efficiency and even the energy-efficient production of leather (!) in just one short story - that's two areas I know I know little about, one where it turned out I'm more rusty than I thought, and one (the leather thing) I didn't even know existed! (Thanks Deb. I think.) So we have to do a ton more research today than in the Golden Age to keep the science plausible to those who are well informed.
I think the aforementioned writers of hard SF that's too hard are catering exclusively for the scientific end of the spectrum, an elite, a narrow SF audience. I like Joss Whedon's approach to science in the Firefly TV series and I think it's instructive because the series was popular with people who don't regard themselves as SF fans. (And it wasn't axed because of the SF, it was the violence which some regarded as too casual.) He has his characters shooting guns at each other in a small spaceship, regardless of the consequences of bullets in the hull, because it's good dramatic fun and to heck with the un-scientific-ness of it. Nor does he bother explaining how the ship flies FTL and the insanity of giving it just one (not entirely reliable) engine! Like Asimov, Whedon's science is accessible. Like Asimov, his stories aren't about the science, they're about what people would do with it, if they had it.
Maybe we need to learn how to write SF stories that imagine science accessible to those not of a scientific mind, yet plausible to an increasingly knowledgeable scientific cognoscenti -- and focus on what human and other races would do with it?
quote:For us as writers this is the first challenge: if we want to keep SF alive we have to explain our fictional science in a way that's accessible.
See, that's exactly what I was trying to do with my novella. I want to keep the science in it as realistic as dramatically practical, yet accessible, so I try to explain it in a way that's accessible.
quote:(As if avoiding infodumps wasn't hard enough!)[/quite]
And here's the rub. I post my first 13, which tries to set up the MC, her claustrophobia of being in a spaceship, and the science of the spaceship itself. And what's the very first response to it? A single word - "infodump."
[quote]The second trend is the opposite. For every kid that's turned off by the apparent difficulty of science, there are one or more adult scientists who demand that their SF be scientifically plausible. Where once you could say, 'Joe jumped into a space ship and went to Mars and skewered the Prince of Mars who was chucking red rocks at Earth because he was mean,' now you've got to say how the Prince breathes, where his people live and where they get the rocks from. Until comparatively recently nobody had been to Mars so you could say what you liked.
Well, there is this page, but I suppose if one really wanted to, say, violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he's Constitutionally protected (speaking from the standpoint of a United States citizen, of course) to do so, and if anyone complains about the science the author can simply hope that the reader is rational enough to recognize that this piece of fiction is, in fact fiction.
Or if nothing else, one can always take the William Shatner route - tell him to "get a life"