Fair enough; I didn't mean to come across as pushy,
Not pushy so much as you definitely have an idea of what you like and don't like. :) And I'm a person who likes what I like even if other people don't, and for most things (except Twilight, grr), I can honestly say I don't see a problem with liking to write or read them. What I mean is, I'm seeing a trend in people coming down hard on certain types of writing in the fantasy genre ("Eurofantasy" and the like), pushing for a break from these types of plots, stories, settings, and characters. Which is fine, I think it's a great thing to introduce more influences from other cultures. But I also happen to like some of the things people are trashing now, and don't see why there can't be both for the people who enjoy them.
It seems to me that very few people, however villainous, are Evil from their own POV.
Very true.
I am, I think, just tired of books that do that with no discipline at all, when having that information come through fewer POVs makes for tighter and more controlled stories even if it's harder to do.
I understand. The new plot for TTTWNSW definitely will pare down the number of PoV characters. I always try to think very carefully about why I write a certain scene from a certain PoV, and where in the narrative that scene should fit. I do try not to be random about it. PoV switching, to me, can be a good way to share certain information, but I agree that it shouldn't be completely undisciplined (hence my dislike of omnicient, which to me just seems like really sloppy PoV switching, and not a PoV in its own right).
I don;t honestly think I'd be capable of that.
Of caring about one set of characters more than another, or skipping over certain scenes on a reread?
Why not ?
In this particular case, because the protagonist never has any direct contact with the antagonist (perhaps that's a better word than villain?), or any knowledge that he has plans, let alone what they might be. The protagonist spends the vast majority of the manuscript away from home where all these machinizations are taking place, and since the reader spends all their time with him, when they finally return to the place where the climax of the story happens, they don't know even the first thing about why these things are happening or how they came to be that way, or exactly what part another character played in these schemes, a part for which this character is murdered. The reader knows nothing, not a thing, zip, nada, zilch. And while I'm perfectly all right with leaving some questions for the reader (such as a particular character's motivations), for me it's unacceptable that they won't even known how these things happened. Especially because the climax depends entirely on a misunderstanding that was purposely perpetuated... the reader doesn't know there was a misunderstanding, let alone what it is. There has to be some knowledge of these events, or the reader will feel cheated. I know I would.
Not pushy so much as you definitely have an idea of what you like and don't like. :)
I like most things if they are done well enough, fwiw.
What I mean is, I'm seeing a trend in people coming down hard on certain types of writing in the fantasy genre ("Eurofantasy" and the like), pushing for a break from these types of plots, stories, settings, and characters.
Can't say as I've been inordinately aware of that myself.
I understand. The new plot for TTTWNSW definitely will pare down the number of PoV characters. I always try to think very carefully about why I write a certain scene from a certain PoV, and where in the narrative that scene should fit.
*nod* and how much and what each scene is doing ? (Thinking of C.J. Cherryh's comment to the effect that a scene doing fewer than three things should not be in a book.)
(hence my dislike of omnicient, which to me just seems like really sloppy PoV switching, and not a PoV in its own right).
Depends how it's done.
Of caring about one set of characters more than another, or skipping over certain scenes on a reread? Why not ?
Skipping; because it feels mortal disrespectful to the author, and also because I am OCDish in ways that make it shuddersome to me.
In this particular case, because the protagonist never has any direct contact with the antagonist (perhaps that's a better word than villain?), or any knowledge that he has plans, let alone what they might be. The protagonist spends the vast majority of the manuscript away from home where all these machinizations are taking place,
So what's the protagonist actually doing, then ? What qualifies the antagonist to be an antagonist if their antagging doesn't show up for that much of the time.
and since the reader spends all their time with him, when they finally return to the place where the climax of the story happens, they don't know even the first thing about why these things are happening or how they came to be that way, or exactly what part another character played in these schemes, a part for which this character is murdered. The reader knows nothing, not a thing, zip, nada, zilch. And while I'm perfectly all right with leaving some questions for the reader (such as a particular character's motivations), for me it's unacceptable that they won't even known how these things happened. Especially because the climax depends entirely on a misunderstanding that was purposely perpetuated... the reader doesn't know there was a misunderstanding, let alone what it is. There has to be some knowledge of these events, or the reader will feel cheated. I know I would.
I see your point; it seems a difficult shape of story to make work, and I wish you luck with it.
Not pushy so much as you definitely have an idea of what you like and don't like. :) And I'm a person who likes what I like even if other people don't, and for most things (except Twilight, grr), I can honestly say I don't see a problem with liking to write or read them. What I mean is, I'm seeing a trend in people coming down hard on certain types of writing in the fantasy genre ("Eurofantasy" and the like), pushing for a break from these types of plots, stories, settings, and characters. Which is fine, I think it's a great thing to introduce more influences from other cultures. But I also happen to like some of the things people are trashing now, and don't see why there can't be both for the people who enjoy them.
It seems to me that very few people, however villainous, are Evil from their own POV.
Very true.
I am, I think, just tired of books that do that with no discipline at all, when having that information come through fewer POVs makes for tighter and more controlled stories even if it's harder to do.
I understand. The new plot for TTTWNSW definitely will pare down the number of PoV characters. I always try to think very carefully about why I write a certain scene from a certain PoV, and where in the narrative that scene should fit. I do try not to be random about it. PoV switching, to me, can be a good way to share certain information, but I agree that it shouldn't be completely undisciplined (hence my dislike of omnicient, which to me just seems like really sloppy PoV switching, and not a PoV in its own right).
I don;t honestly think I'd be capable of that.
Of caring about one set of characters more than another, or skipping over certain scenes on a reread?
Why not ?
In this particular case, because the protagonist never has any direct contact with the antagonist (perhaps that's a better word than villain?), or any knowledge that he has plans, let alone what they might be. The protagonist spends the vast majority of the manuscript away from home where all these machinizations are taking place, and since the reader spends all their time with him, when they finally return to the place where the climax of the story happens, they don't know even the first thing about why these things are happening or how they came to be that way, or exactly what part another character played in these schemes, a part for which this character is murdered. The reader knows nothing, not a thing, zip, nada, zilch. And while I'm perfectly all right with leaving some questions for the reader (such as a particular character's motivations), for me it's unacceptable that they won't even known how these things happened. Especially because the climax depends entirely on a misunderstanding that was purposely perpetuated... the reader doesn't know there was a misunderstanding, let alone what it is. There has to be some knowledge of these events, or the reader will feel cheated. I know I would.
Reply
I like most things if they are done well enough, fwiw.
What I mean is, I'm seeing a trend in people coming down hard on certain types of writing in the fantasy genre ("Eurofantasy" and the like), pushing for a break from these types of plots, stories, settings, and characters.
Can't say as I've been inordinately aware of that myself.
I understand. The new plot for TTTWNSW definitely will pare down the number of PoV characters. I always try to think very carefully about why I write a certain scene from a certain PoV, and where in the narrative that scene should fit.
*nod* and how much and what each scene is doing ? (Thinking of C.J. Cherryh's comment to the effect that a scene doing fewer than three things should not be in a book.)
(hence my dislike of omnicient, which to me just seems like really sloppy PoV switching, and not a PoV in its own right).
Depends how it's done.
Of caring about one set of characters more than another, or skipping over certain scenes on a reread?
Why not ?
Skipping; because it feels mortal disrespectful to the author, and also because I am OCDish in ways that make it shuddersome to me.
In this particular case, because the protagonist never has any direct contact with the antagonist (perhaps that's a better word than villain?), or any knowledge that he has plans, let alone what they might be. The protagonist spends the vast majority of the manuscript away from home where all these machinizations are taking place,
So what's the protagonist actually doing, then ? What qualifies the antagonist to be an antagonist if their antagging doesn't show up for that much of the time.
and since the reader spends all their time with him, when they finally return to the place where the climax of the story happens, they don't know even the first thing about why these things are happening or how they came to be that way, or exactly what part another character played in these schemes, a part for which this character is murdered. The reader knows nothing, not a thing, zip, nada, zilch. And while I'm perfectly all right with leaving some questions for the reader (such as a particular character's motivations), for me it's unacceptable that they won't even known how these things happened. Especially because the climax depends entirely on a misunderstanding that was purposely perpetuated... the reader doesn't know there was a misunderstanding, let alone what it is. There has to be some knowledge of these events, or the reader will feel cheated. I know I would.
I see your point; it seems a difficult shape of story to make work, and I wish you luck with it.
Reply
Leave a comment