Previous Entry | Next Entry

Thank god it's Friday

  • Jul. 25th, 2003 at 11:13 AM
me and a troll
Damn, a whole week of insomnia will kick yer ass. I should be writing, but it's all I can do to stare desultorily at Richard III

And I dragged my butt into work this morning, and they needed me for a whole damned hour. Meps.

***



I had a big wonderful conversation last night with [info]tanaise, [info]katallen, [info]maradydd, [info]buymeaclue, and Jeremy, involving this thing I seem to be learning to do. Intermittently. In fits and starts.

Hannah does it automagically, whatever it is. It's a kind of narrative assurance--John Gardner's 'fictional dream' to a slightly higher power, with a frosting of very focused show-don't tell--and I seem to be picking it up from heavy doses of Anthony Burgess, Kit Marlowe, and Will Shakespeare. It also shows up in Charlie Kaufman's movie Adaptation and, as Celia pointed out, the brilliant The Usual Suspects.

Maybe I should call it "narrative authority". It's something that not all or even most writers (or screenwriters) do, and it seems to be linked to a spareness of narrative and a lack of obvious internalizations, linked with very intense and specific grounding that produces the sensation of a non-intellectualized internalization, if that makes any sense. It's linked to an assurance that the reader/viewer will *get* the symbolic message or subtext of the story, and if he or she doesn't it's no big thang.

And it takes place on a number of levels: there's a front story, and a subtext story, and layers and levels of characterization.

[info]tanaise is calling it inpositioning, which isn't bad at all, except the brief discussion ">here makes it sound a bit like [info]papersky's "incluing," which it isn't, really.

If incluing is the opposite of exposition, inpositioning is like the opposite of explaining.

Here's the examples I used, from my own WiP.

This bit doesn't have it:

And author of all my troubles, Will thought, laying the coin on the table beside the inkwell. He spread his pages across the desk and recut a quill, nicking his finger on the knife when his right hand trembled. He thrust the knife into the tabletop and his left middle finger between his lips. "Damn it to Hell--"

"Now there's a scene from Faustus," an amused voice said from the corner. "Writing our plays in blood now, are we? That should be some sorcery."

Will pulled his bloody finger from his mouth and raised his eyes to the mirror. He wasn't surprised to see Kit lounging beside the fireplace behind Will, one elbow on the mantle, his left hand steering the hilt of a rapier. "You could have announced yourself."

"I was waiting for you to set down the knife," Kit said dryly. He straightened, and came forward, producing a kerchief from his sleeve. "So you wouldn't cut yourself. Let me see."


This bit does:

The trail tended east, gladdening Kit's heart, and it passed over the brook--there was a brook today, brown water dappled by sunshine--on a well-maintained footbridge. Kit was wise enough to step off the trail and leave prints down the muddy bank, crouching on gravel to cup water to his mouth. He drank deep to spare what he carried, smiling at the hop and splash of infant frogs the same shade of bronze as the silt. "Hurm," croaked the troll under the bridge as Kit, in turn, hopped to the first of four rocks that would carry him to the far bank. "Harm."

"Good morning, Master Troll." Kit's hand would have dropped to his swordhilt if he had been wearing one.

"Good morning, Sir Poet."

"You know me."

"I know your eyepatch," the troll answered. "I know your errand."

Its eyes blinked like cloud-filtered moons from the gloom under the bridge's arch. Kit could see a knobbed and swollen nose, slimy skin reflecting a little of the yellow glow of those eyes, and the splayed fingers of one weird hand balancing the thing's crouch as it perched on a rock. He couldn't make out enough of the thing's body to get an idea of its size. The space under the bridge was darker than it ought to be and there was no silhouette cast against the light on the other side, so he saw only splinters of warty hide, the hump of a shoulder illuminated in the thin bands of sunlight that fell between planks.

"My errand?"

"Always on the Queen's business, aye."

"One Queen or another." Kit didn't like his footing on the stone, which rocked under his boots. He stepped into the stream, calf-deep, a cold gout of water soaking his leg to the thigh.




Now I just have to figure out how the hell to do that every time, all the time, and I'll be on to something.

Comments

[info]roane wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 06:09 pm (UTC)
Not knowing much about the WiP (except that the subject matter COMPLETELY has my attention), I'm not entirely sure I understand the difference between the two excerpts. I think I see what you mean, in that the second passage is more oblique, but I'm not entirely sure that makes it any better or worse than the first passage. Of course, this is me talking off the top of my head and again, not knowing much about what you're going for with each excerpt. But I'm dying to see more. :)
[info]matociquala wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 07:12 pm (UTC)
Oblique
Well, it's less obviously internalized, and more grounded *in* the character. I'm not sure if there's any way to describe what I'm seeing in actual language.

Which is a stupid thing for a writer to say. *g* But there you have it.
[info]fairmer wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 06:18 pm (UTC)
The other night, I found myself singing the word "EXPOSITION!" whenever I thought I was writing something exposition-heavy. The best part is, it was coming out unconsciously. If I can keep this up, I might be able to learn inposition. :)
[info]matociquala wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 07:19 pm (UTC)
Heee!

Hey, exposition is good too. There's this like, reverse bell curve of exposition, where first you throw in the kitchen sink, and then you slowly take it all out, and then nobody understands you, so you learn how to put it back in--

--argh! The problem with writing is learning to do *everything* well, dammit!
[info]fairmer wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 08:56 pm (UTC)
The problem with writing is learning to do *everything* well, dammit!

Really? I think it's not that bad... even Jane Austen didn't do *everything* well. (Mer thinks.) Ok, Jane Austen *did* do everything well-- er, everything she tried, and at least better than most everyone else.

But most writers, and most of my favorite ones at that, don't do everything well. Most of the writers I appreciate do one or two things exceedingly well, four or five things reasonably well, and have at least one weakness, if not more. I'd analyze some of said favorite writers, but I think, since it's Friday, I'll go home instead. :)
[info]matociquala wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 09:07 pm (UTC)
Doing things well
Very true: it's not not doing things wrong. It's doing things right.

On the other hand, it does help to do as much right as you possibly can. *g*
[info]rysmiel wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 06:27 pm (UTC)
I have a feeling there might be a useful concept in here, if I can grasp the ways in which it is different from incluing. That said, if your protagonist, as some of mine are to different extents, is the kind of person who asks for explanations left right and centre, explanations your story can have without it to my mind being a bad thing.
[info]matociquala wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 07:20 pm (UTC)
*nod* Yeah, explanations and exposition are not bad per se.

However, I think in this case I'm working toward some concept of not explaining character motivations and reactions, but demonstrating them. Somebody said, you can tell *anything* but character: character *must* be shown.

It links to that somehow. And dammit, I have no clue what I'm trying to say. But it's right on the tip of my brain.
[info]immlass wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 08:06 pm (UTC)
I see it. I don't have words for it, but I see it.
[info]matociquala wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2003 09:32 pm (UTC)
If you figure it out, let me know. :-P
[info]shesingsnow wrote:
Jul. 26th, 2003 07:25 pm (UTC)
It strikes me suddenly -- It's almost as if you've exited the role of writer and entered the character's world, much as an actor can either "play a role" or "live the character."
[info]matociquala wrote:
Aug. 20th, 2003 04:30 am (UTC)
Yes! And that's it exactly!

Profile

me and a troll
[info]matociquala
it's a great life, if you don't weaken
Elizabeth Bear Dot Com

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lizzy Enger