Previous Entry | Next Entry

spies mfu illya bitch please _ truepenny
Things I have learned about telling stories, by Elizabeth Bear

These are not hard and fast rules. I do not believe in rules. However, it's a list of auctorial tricks that have annoyed me recently, and made me want to stop reading something I might otherwise have enjoyed.


1) I hereby do solemnly resolve that if I introduce a likeable character on page one of the novel and then kill her off on page thirty, only to resume the story decades or centuries later with a far-less-interesting character, I will have a damned good reason for doing it. But generally, you know what? I think I will just not do that.

I reserve the right to kill off likable characters, mind you. But I will not make them likable, give them a primary (even introductory) POV, and introduce them into the book for the sole purpose of snuffing them.

Also, I will not kill off a character just because the audience likes him better than my protagonist. That's tacky and petulant, and won't make anybody like the protagonist any better.

You have to work hard enough to bridge the gap between reader and character. Should you happen to accomplish it, it's stupid to throw it away out of spite.


2) I do hereby solemnly resolve to eschew intentionally obfuscated Serial Killer POV. This is when the author is going through insane gymnastics to hide the identity of the killer so we can get long generic passages of exposition about how the terrorists are plotting their attack or the serial killer is stalking his prey.

An acceptable use of this technique, however, is to illuminate character. Which is why Thomas Harris got away with it in Red Dragon, back when he could still write.


3) Yes, I know Chuck Palahniuk and Dennis Lehane got away with it, but in most cases, the schizophrenic or dissociative or otherwise completely unreliable/out of touch with reality narrator is played, and also a cheap trick. And if you are going to try it, for the love of Mike, play fair. I hereby vow to avoid pointlessly unreliable narrators, or narrators who are unreliable on account of the author wanting to set up some kind of last-page plot twist.

Also, I will not write withholding narrators. I will not write withholding narrators. I will not write withholding narrators. (This also ties in with #2, above.) Unless there is an in-character reason for them to be withholding, which is to say, they are far more often going to be withholding about their own emotional states or history, rather than their identity and agenda.)


4) Murder mysteries in which the protagonist notices a clue to which not only was the audience not made privy, but which the author intentionally skipped over in describing the scene. Elizabeth George, I'm looking at you. You're dead to me.


5) Dream sequences are not plot. Especially dream sequences that are first presented as real life and then turn into "Bobby's in the Shower." Really. No. Just stoppit, SFF.

Repeat after me: Much like the serial killer POV and the sacrificial prologue narrator, dream sequences are not any better when I write them than when anybody else writes them.

And I say this as somebody who just last month opened a story with a *&%$&%^ dream sequence. Which is to say, an enormous hypocrite. But at least the second word in the story is "dream." (The first word is "the.")

Caveat: because this is SFF, and we do an awful lot of wandering around in dreamworlds, I except dream sequences that take place in dream-lands from this portion of the plaint. Also I except dream sequences for backstory, as long as they're not too transparently manipulative. Yeah, I used the nightmare-backstory trick in Carnival, but only because my editor made me. (The fact that people tell me they like that sequence does not alleviate my own dislike of it, but it does make me accept that my editor was right.)


My job as a writer is to manipulate people. It's what stories do. However, my job as a writer is to make them collaborate with and enjoy being part of the manipulation, not feel like I'm jerking their chain.


...okay, time to go soak my head take my shower, I think, now that I've gotten that out of my system.

Comments

( 56 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]babushek wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 01:56 pm (UTC)
I am already one of your biggest fan-girls, but may I just say, your profession of Rule #4 makes me bow at your feet in adoration!
[info]jhetley wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:03 pm (UTC)
Well, the Holmes canon ignores rule 4 throughout . . .
[info]matociquala wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:04 pm (UTC)
FAIL!

You're not in Holmes' POV at the time; you're in the POV of a character who misses the clues.

*Sends Jim back to remedial murder mystery school*

;-)

Edited at 2008-09-08 02:05 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - [info]jhetley - Sep. 8th, 2008 02:06 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]truepenny - Sep. 8th, 2008 02:19 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]cristalia - Sep. 8th, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]truepenny - Sep. 8th, 2008 05:56 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]matociquala - Sep. 8th, 2008 02:20 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]jhetley - Sep. 8th, 2008 03:21 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]tamnonlinear wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:08 pm (UTC)
#4 reminds me of the old movie serials where you'd see the boat go over the cliff as the cliffhanger ending, then at the start of the next one they'd show the same scene except with the protagonist climbing out of the boat well before it goes over the cliff. Cheating!
[info]cucumberseed wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:13 pm (UTC)
Is this something we can sign? If so, consider this signed.
[info]rikibeth wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:15 pm (UTC)
I read a withholding narrator story I really liked, just recently. I am having a hard time remembering the title -- same author as Chocolat, set in an English public school. The thing is, I expected a certain amount of trickery, given that the blurb compared it to "The Talented Mr. Ripley." I expect it would be different if I hadn't expected trickery.
[info]sartorias wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:24 pm (UTC)
Oh yes. I am so tired of darling, loving characters who by their second sweet, all-embracing sentence reveals the big target on their back. (or backs.)

I'm tired of the dream sequence that tells the protag exactly what to do.
[info]colomon wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:28 pm (UTC)
I'm still mulling over the book I just read, where at least 50% of the tension in the book comes from the first-person narrator misreading (literally, it is four scrawled words, and she gets two of the words wrong) a vital clue. It feels to me like it might be the sort of thing that happens in real life, but is an enormous cheat in a book.

Actually, there are two more cheats in the book, now that I think about it. Bah. Good character, but ultimately not a good book, I think.
[info]wordweaverlynn wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:38 pm (UTC)
I'll take the pledge.
[info]leahclifford wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:52 pm (UTC)
"My job as a writer is to manipulate people."

Brilliant :)
[info]newguydave wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:52 pm (UTC)
5
What if the dream sequences are clearly labeled as dreams, and show why the character struggles with guilt?

I have an assassin haunted by the dreams of one of his murder contracts.
[info]matociquala wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 04:14 pm (UTC)
Re: 5
I'm still against it on principle, but do what you gotta do.

[info]renatus wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 02:54 pm (UTC)
However, my job as a writer is to make them collaborate with and enjoy being part of the manipulation, not feel like I'm jerking their chain.

Hear, hear.

I don't read stories to see an author show off what a Mr./Ms. Clever Pants they are. Such 'cleverness' is usually lazy storytelling/writing.
[info]mamculuna wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 03:13 pm (UTC)
I don't remember when Elizabeth George did that...I can believe it, but I usually find her clues work for me.
[info]darkfantasist wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 03:29 pm (UTC)
...okay, time to go take my shower...

But Bobby is already in there...
[info]bifemmefatale wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 04:12 pm (UTC)
Maybe Bear believes in saving water? :P
[info]carbonel wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 03:30 pm (UTC)
Regarding 4), does Dorothy Sayers' trick in Five Red Herrings count as playing fair?

She leaves out a huge clue, but she tells the reader upfront that she's doing so, because otherwise there wouldn't be much of a mystery.

(I think there isn't much of a mystery nevertheless, but it's still Sayers, so I reread it occasionally.)
[info]matociquala wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 04:15 pm (UTC)
Never read that one. I think I read one Sayers, and it was all right, but not anything that made me run out and get more.
(no subject) - [info]snickelish - Sep. 8th, 2008 04:38 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]antonia_tiger - Sep. 8th, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]takumashii wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 03:39 pm (UTC)
The withholding narrators I've been able to deal with have tended to be the ones with the big flashing lights going "Don't trust anything I say." Otherwise it feels very cheap - like the recent YA I read where, halfway through, the POV character turns out to be a vampire.
[info]jcfiala wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 03:42 pm (UTC)
#4 for the win. I'm perfectly happy to enjoy a good mystery as long as we all agree to play fair.
[info]corrinalaw wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 03:46 pm (UTC)
Agreed on #4.

Also, witholding narrators? No, no, no. It's in my brain under the category of 'stupid narrative tricks' along with flash forwards that create false suspense because you wonder how the character got there instead of taking the time to actually show me the story. Yes, LOST! I'm talking to you.
[info]franciskerst wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 04:06 pm (UTC)
in most cases, the schizophrenic or dissociative or otherwise completely unreliable/out of touch with reality narrator is played, and also a cheap trick.

It was well done in the "Ripley" series, but also very unpleasant to read (at least for me).
[info]martianmooncrab wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 04:41 pm (UTC)
I know Chuck Palahniuk and Dennis Lehane got away with it,

.. but then, I dont buy them, I purchase your books NEW and SHINY from the store.
[info]snickelish wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 04:43 pm (UTC)
5) Dream sequences are not plot.

Yes yes yes yes YES. As a reader I loathe dream sequences pretty much all the time, ever. It's a cheap trick pretending to be Deep Psychology, and it usually comes across to me as a way to develop character by an author couldn't figure out how to develop their character in the 'real' (fictional) world.
[info]kehrli wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 05:07 pm (UTC)
When the main character dies on page 25/30, the book is over. Sorry! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 more pages.

Bleh.
[info]trebor1415 wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 05:34 pm (UTC)
I really enjoy your posts on writing. Not the "how much I wrote today" posts, but this kind of stuff.

I still haven't read any of your books yet, but I'm going to have some of these things in mind when I do. It's interesting to "peek under the hood" of your process and it will be interesting to compare the final product to your thoughts about the work.
[info]rabidfangurl wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 06:26 pm (UTC)
George R. R. Martin tends to start every ASoIaF book with a likeable character who snuffs it, but then, his books have 32796849 POV characters who come in varying degrees of likeability and could snuff it at any moment, so this is not exactly as unfair as it looks.
[info]miintikwa wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 07:41 pm (UTC)
Yes. And even the unlikeable characters are pretty well-thought out and explained.

It's crazy how addictive those books are, as characters that I thought were my favorites bite it yet new ones leap up to take their places.
[info]doortoriver wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 07:56 pm (UTC)
This ought to be made into an Official Document so authors can sign it.
[info]ellarien wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
I read a book last month that broke rule #1 so precisely that I wonder if it was the one you had in mind. By the end, though, there were hints that the line between living and dead is ... fuzzy, and I think the abortive protag gets POV at the beginning of the next volume. It was still annoying.
[info]opheliastorn wrote:
Sep. 8th, 2008 11:16 pm (UTC)
To no. 1: Oh, god, yes. I read a book a few months ago that did just that - introduce a female character only to splat her and just a millenium or so into the future. It didn't help the story at all that said character was possibly the most interesting of the lot, in my opinion.

In other words ... grr.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 56 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

new england maple leaves manchesterct
[info]matociquala
it's a great life, if you don't weaken
Elizabeth Bear Dot Com

Latest Month

December 2009
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lizzy Enger