thoughts on writing
Feb. 26th, 2005 10:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfallingThe two main used book stores don't have any Anne Bishop, and the Borders at the mall only has the book I've already read. *pouts*
On the other hand, I did find a new collection of essays and talks by Ursula Le Guin, which I will probably be happier about owning two years from now. Le Guin sticks with me. I have a distinct feeling that Bishop will not, but she has a strong initial impact and I really do want to know what happens next.
The trick with writing is to get two effects: the 'I need to know what happens next!' impulse, and the more thoughtful, long-lasting impact, the one that sends ripples all through a reader's life. Of course, no book will have that impact on everyone, but it's something I consider worth trying for. This is not to say that it's essential -- I have a strong appreciation for stories that only work on the 'what happens next' level -- but even an attempt at depth usually only helps a story.
By this I mean true depth, not pretentious 'depth' or any literary floofery. I mean actually thinking about people and the meaning of life and serious questions and treating your characters as if they matter. Not taking any easy outs or avoiding hard questions through mindless acceptance of any school of thought, be it religious, economic, political, etc.
To do that properly, you have to set up the world in which those people move in such a way that it allows for realistic behavior... or else your characters are going to start poking holes in your setting, pointing out that real people in real societies don't act that way, that real life doesn't stay static, that things change...
Modern 'realistic' fiction irritates me because it so often has so little sense of wonder at the sheer scope of life, or appreciation for its beauty, cruelty, and sublime ridiculousness. A lot of science fiction and fantasy irritates me for the same reason, which is counterintuitive -- it's the literature of imagination, after all -- but people seem to imagine such safe things, and even when they cross into new territory, they drag scenery and conventions and props and all the old cliches along with them.
So yes, Bishop is facing the underside of humanity, but she drags so many conventions along with her that it jarred me out of the story a few times, wanting to yell that "If people lived that long, if people had that kind of power, if people had those kinds of instincts, they wouldn't act like that! And their society would be very, very different."
She also mentions that most people aren't the powerful and magically gifted, and then procedes to ignore them utterly. Which, to be fair, the ruling classes of her books also do, but still. That always tends to bug me, the careless relegation of all the people who make a world function into scenery or unacknowledged, offstage ghosts.
...
I tend to get a little ranty and philosophical when I read Le Guin. Sorry about that.
On the other hand, I did find a new collection of essays and talks by Ursula Le Guin, which I will probably be happier about owning two years from now. Le Guin sticks with me. I have a distinct feeling that Bishop will not, but she has a strong initial impact and I really do want to know what happens next.
The trick with writing is to get two effects: the 'I need to know what happens next!' impulse, and the more thoughtful, long-lasting impact, the one that sends ripples all through a reader's life. Of course, no book will have that impact on everyone, but it's something I consider worth trying for. This is not to say that it's essential -- I have a strong appreciation for stories that only work on the 'what happens next' level -- but even an attempt at depth usually only helps a story.
By this I mean true depth, not pretentious 'depth' or any literary floofery. I mean actually thinking about people and the meaning of life and serious questions and treating your characters as if they matter. Not taking any easy outs or avoiding hard questions through mindless acceptance of any school of thought, be it religious, economic, political, etc.
To do that properly, you have to set up the world in which those people move in such a way that it allows for realistic behavior... or else your characters are going to start poking holes in your setting, pointing out that real people in real societies don't act that way, that real life doesn't stay static, that things change...
Modern 'realistic' fiction irritates me because it so often has so little sense of wonder at the sheer scope of life, or appreciation for its beauty, cruelty, and sublime ridiculousness. A lot of science fiction and fantasy irritates me for the same reason, which is counterintuitive -- it's the literature of imagination, after all -- but people seem to imagine such safe things, and even when they cross into new territory, they drag scenery and conventions and props and all the old cliches along with them.
So yes, Bishop is facing the underside of humanity, but she drags so many conventions along with her that it jarred me out of the story a few times, wanting to yell that "If people lived that long, if people had that kind of power, if people had those kinds of instincts, they wouldn't act like that! And their society would be very, very different."
She also mentions that most people aren't the powerful and magically gifted, and then procedes to ignore them utterly. Which, to be fair, the ruling classes of her books also do, but still. That always tends to bug me, the careless relegation of all the people who make a world function into scenery or unacknowledged, offstage ghosts.
...
I tend to get a little ranty and philosophical when I read Le Guin. Sorry about that.
