Part of this is playing to strength. Find the part of your scene that you do know something about and let that (if it makes sense) take center stage. Soft focus the set pieces that aren't quite dry. In MUNCLE, there is the need to think what the world was like before hot and cold running plastic. Though it's perhaps easier doing the 60s than say the early 80s, when change is parsed by the month.
Awareness is a big part of this. Then you've got a storehouse the paw through for something that works.
Find the part of your scene that you do know something about and let that (if it makes sense) take center stage.
That's a good point. A lot of writing is bluffing. (After watching Hustle I went through a phase of thinking of writing solely in terms of executing a con, and the two activities really do have a lot in common, chief among the similarities being the importance of manipulating the audience's attention so they're looking where you want them to).
Not that I worry too much about settings in MfU, because they're canonically non-realistic anyway, and I tend to try to aim for at least a bit of that fantasy feeling.
This is fascinating. I do have to jump in with a giant quibble, though, because this brought me up short:
It's a concept that is better illustrated by thinking of a stage or a movie set: what you see looks very real and functions for whatever purpose it needs toI know you meant this as a metaphor, but given that you're talking about verisimilitude, I feel obliged to point out that an awful lot of theatre sets don't even aim at verisimilitude, not even close up. One of the big differences between stage and film is that theatre often seeks external symbols of aspects of the story, rather than trying to provide a "realistic" setting. The part I do agree with is the "functions for whatever purpose it needs to", precisely because here we're getting into genre - as you say, not all genres require verisimilitude. Humour, for instance, often uses exaggeration and absurdity, where precisely the contrast between what would appear "real" and what actually happens creates laughter
( ... )
With the stage set thing, I wasn't trying for a literal translation of that, though I didn't word it quite clearly enough. I used the set or stage image for the visual of something being constructed, i.e. a set that is a living room is deliberately constructed to meet the needs of a story and of actors while also convincing an audience that, yes, this is someone's living room. In that sense, we also fall back on tropes and conventions and taking advantage of what people expect from a living room (or whatever).
One of the big differences between stage and film is that theatre often seeks external symbols of aspects of the story, rather than trying to provide a "realistic" setting.
Actually, film does this as well. Mise-en-scène is the term, I believe, and for theatre as well. But every art form has, in its own way, a direct knowledge of itself as an art form and of itself as artifice, however that may come to be expressed in the thing itself
( ... )
it's sort of like writing what is expected more than writing what's actually there, or could be there
Yes! This strikes me as fundamental to the whole business of, to be pretentious about it, artistic creativity - the avoidance of cliche isn't about not using certain tropes, it's about really looking at whatever it is you're writing about, not just recycling conventional ways of seeing things.
a set that is a living room is deliberately constructed to meet the needs of a story and of actors while also convincing an audience that, yes, this is someone's living roomI really should have been polite enough to address what you actually meant, rather than leaping in with my "theatre isn't necessarily naturalistic!" schtick. I'm sorry about that. I did understand what you meant - you expressed yourself perfectly clearly, and I'm sorry my rudeness in ignoring your real point made you concerned that you hadn't articulated your ideas properly - and I absolutely agree that knowing what to leave in and what to leave out is part of the art. I
( ... )
the avoidance of cliche isn't about not using certain tropes, it's about really looking at whatever it is you're writing about, not just recycling conventional ways of seeing things.
I think the two go together, and part of creativity is being able to take a trope or cliche and do something different with it or use it in a way that adds something new. The problem is that they appeal to our innate mental laziness, and it's hard to break out of that. :/
I really should have been polite enough to address what you actually meant, rather than leaping in with my "theatre isn't necessarily naturalistic!" schtick. I'm sorry about that.
Oh no, that's fine. I was just concerned that what I'd written didn't make sense on some level, which is always kind of a concern with what I write.
It's hard to work out how much the reader actually needs to know for the story to work.It absolutely is. Pacing is hard to really get right. I know I often worry about events going by too fast, since I like to cut out a lot or gloss over things. Sometimes it's
( ... )
Thank you for this interesting post. It's been a really useful exercise for me to actually analyse the craft of writing fanfic - something I've probably done subconsciously but not in any studied way. Since these days I prefer to beta rather than write it's all excellent food for thought
( ... )
One of the most interesting aspects of the beta process for me is picking up clues about the authors
I'm totally intrigued by this! Would it be stretching the bounds of non-intrusiveness to ask for examples?
I don't *think* I've had to call on any area of expertise for an MfU story (apart from Fred's Story, but since that was named after a horse I consider I was up-front about my specialist interest there :-)), but certainly when I write Wimseyfic I don't dare venture beyond subjects or places that I know a lot about. You can certainly finesse a great deal in MfU by brazenly making things up because, as you say, the writers set a precedent (and because part of the "feel" of MfU is non-realism - all those crazy Thrush plans where you're not supposed to ask how they financed it, not to mention the parallel-world versions of other countries, or, indeed, anywhere in the US outside New York/LA).
It might be safer to use some examples from my own writing since I wouldn't like to give away any secrets *g*.
Since I mentioned The story set on an island I'll use that as an example. From it you can surmise that I'm a dog-lover, that I know about whisky and that I have a sense of humour. A discerning reader might go further and notice that my sense of humour extends to dreadful puns!
I've followed the link and am enjoying it immensely, but had to pause briefly to say that the house where most of the rooms are unusable because of the damp struck me as a particularly realistic touch!
Also, I wish I knew someone who lived on an island and left horses waiting at the jetty for guests!
Comments 19
Awareness is a big part of this. Then you've got a storehouse the paw through for something that works.
Reply
That's a good point. A lot of writing is bluffing. (After watching Hustle I went through a phase of thinking of writing solely in terms of executing a con, and the two activities really do have a lot in common, chief among the similarities being the importance of manipulating the audience's attention so they're looking where you want them to).
Not that I worry too much about settings in MfU, because they're canonically non-realistic anyway, and I tend to try to aim for at least a bit of that fantasy feeling.
Reply
It's a concept that is better illustrated by thinking of a stage or a movie set: what you see looks very real and functions for whatever purpose it needs toI know you meant this as a metaphor, but given that you're talking about verisimilitude, I feel obliged to point out that an awful lot of theatre sets don't even aim at verisimilitude, not even close up. One of the big differences between stage and film is that theatre often seeks external symbols of aspects of the story, rather than trying to provide a "realistic" setting. The part I do agree with is the "functions for whatever purpose it needs to", precisely because here we're getting into genre - as you say, not all genres require verisimilitude. Humour, for instance, often uses exaggeration and absurdity, where precisely the contrast between what would appear "real" and what actually happens creates laughter ( ... )
Reply
One of the big differences between stage and film is that theatre often seeks external symbols of aspects of the story, rather than trying to provide a "realistic" setting.
Actually, film does this as well. Mise-en-scène is the term, I believe, and for theatre as well. But every art form has, in its own way, a direct knowledge of itself as an art form and of itself as artifice, however that may come to be expressed in the thing itself ( ... )
Reply
Yes! This strikes me as fundamental to the whole business of, to be pretentious about it, artistic creativity - the avoidance of cliche isn't about not using certain tropes, it's about really looking at whatever it is you're writing about, not just recycling conventional ways of seeing things.
a set that is a living room is deliberately constructed to meet the needs of a story and of actors while also convincing an audience that, yes, this is someone's living roomI really should have been polite enough to address what you actually meant, rather than leaping in with my "theatre isn't necessarily naturalistic!" schtick. I'm sorry about that. I did understand what you meant - you expressed yourself perfectly clearly, and I'm sorry my rudeness in ignoring your real point made you concerned that you hadn't articulated your ideas properly - and I absolutely agree that knowing what to leave in and what to leave out is part of the art. I ( ... )
Reply
I think the two go together, and part of creativity is being able to take a trope or cliche and do something different with it or use it in a way that adds something new. The problem is that they appeal to our innate mental laziness, and it's hard to break out of that. :/
I really should have been polite enough to address what you actually meant, rather than leaping in with my "theatre isn't necessarily naturalistic!" schtick. I'm sorry about that.
Oh no, that's fine. I was just concerned that what I'd written didn't make sense on some level, which is always kind of a concern with what I write.
It's hard to work out how much the reader actually needs to know for the story to work.It absolutely is. Pacing is hard to really get right. I know I often worry about events going by too fast, since I like to cut out a lot or gloss over things. Sometimes it's ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I'm totally intrigued by this! Would it be stretching the bounds of non-intrusiveness to ask for examples?
I don't *think* I've had to call on any area of expertise for an MfU story (apart from Fred's Story, but since that was named after a horse I consider I was up-front about my specialist interest there :-)), but certainly when I write Wimseyfic I don't dare venture beyond subjects or places that I know a lot about. You can certainly finesse a great deal in MfU by brazenly making things up because, as you say, the writers set a precedent (and because part of the "feel" of MfU is non-realism - all those crazy Thrush plans where you're not supposed to ask how they financed it, not to mention the parallel-world versions of other countries, or, indeed, anywhere in the US outside New York/LA).
Reply
Since I mentioned The story set on an island I'll use that as an example. From it you can surmise that I'm a dog-lover, that I know about whisky and that I have a sense of humour. A discerning reader might go further and notice that my sense of humour extends to dreadful puns!
Reply
Also, I wish I knew someone who lived on an island and left horses waiting at the jetty for guests!
Reply
Leave a comment