The Web of Neonorne

Adverbs and Point of View

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:24:52 GMT

Can't seem to be able to write today either. Still feels my story is the dumbest thing ever. Procrastination blossoms and my mood approaches cellar level....

So, thought I should at least write something in here - that way, I do at least write, right?

Ahem.

In my (probably limited) experience, wannabe readers are frequently told by various experts or "experts" that adverbs are made of evil. Too many adjectives get a lot of flak as well, but adverbs seem to be named the worst enemy of "good writing".

Language as such is about judgment. Parsing the world into manageable units and then decide what class of unit does this particular phenomenon in front of me or inside of me (or behind or above or.. yeah, I'm being nitpicking and cranky today, what of it?) belong to? If we're going to be philosophical about it: Saying that something is a ball is no less a judgment than saying that it is flaccid and runs poorly...

So, no word is neutral, agreed? Every word implies a judgment. What is this object? What is going on here? How do I feel about it?

As I writer of course, I have to constantly re-formulate those questions to mean: Who sees/feels/manipulates that object and why is it of interest to them? Who observes/experiences that action and why is it significant? And what do they feel about it? Adverbs may help a lot in this department...

Because, no matter how philosophical I want to be, I have to admit that some classes of words imply more judgment than others. And adverbs are about as "judgmental" as you can get. That's probably why the "show, don't tell" camp find them so despicable.

But that's precisely why they can be a very good tool if you want to thoroughly (Ha!) investigate one character's point of view. If you use the adverbs to imply your, the writer's, judgment, then a "show, don't tell" attitude may be better and the (excessive) adverbs should be pruned. But if you use them to imply the character's judgment, they may do exactly what you want.

I want to show how my characters see their world and the situations they are in. I want to show their judgments. I can't see why a whole class of words should be banned from a writer's tool kit. Adverbs have evolved in language for a reason.

Of course, "purple prose" is never good - throwing in some extra adjectives and adverbs just because they look good or sound cool or something. But NO kind of word is ever good if it is just there for its "coolness" or "high brow" or whatever factor.

I guess what this boils down to is that there are no rights or wrongs in writing. It's all in the execution.

Infodump, Dialogue and Point of View

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:29:49 GMT

Part of the problems I have in my writing right now is the dreaded infodump problem. (There are other problems, too, possibly more serious...)

Of course, one place to dump the info is in the dialogue, which has its own problems (as in the well known: would these people really tell each other these things at this point in the story?) I'm well aware of these problems, struggling with them all the time - but there is one aspect I haven't been quite aware of yet.

In the story I currently write, I strive to always write from some person's point of view. I try to avoid the "key hole" perspective like the plague. (You know, the common one where the writer invites the reader to "stand outside the door" as it were, and watch the characters through the key hole. While all the time whispering in the reader's ear what the characters think and feel and want...) I don't do first person perspective, but I really try very hard to look at each sentence and ask the question: who says this? Is it the character's thoughts/reactions/emotions etc. I report now - or is it me, the writer, speaking here?

I've discovered how this is much harder than I thought. Far too often I discover sentences or whole paragraphs where it is clearly me saying something "omniscient" to the reader, instead of reporting how the character reacts to something through their own "filters".

Not saying this is the way it should always be done, but this is the way I am trying to write right now.

There is a consequence of this perspective, though, that I hadn't thought of beforehand, but am really struggling with now: The infodump problem. When I want to always "go very close" to a character and only report what they see/think/feel at any particular point in the story, I limit my options of how to present necessary backstory to the reader. I cannot just tell it whenever I think the reader needs to know it. I will have to make a plausible reason in the story for a character to reflect upon/remember their backstory or talk to someone else about it. Which means I cannot get away from infodumping in dialogues...

- and there are two of these dialogues in particular that I can't get to work, no matter how hard I try!

I have worked very hard to make them flow naturally, take care of each character's individual voice so they don't sound the same, be very careful not to let the infodump seem contrived or irrelevant etc. etc. I think I have managed that to a large degree. But no matter now much I re-write and re-write, I still think the dialogues come across as - not boring exactly, but more detached with less emotion, less temperature than the rest of the text.

At first, I couldn't figure out why. But then I thought - well, when you just write out somebody's lines, that's sort of seeing them from the outside, isn't it? And when there are too many lines like that, it does become sort of without anyone's perspective - like the script of a threatre play in need of real actors to make it come alive...

I know, I need to break up the exchange of lines in the dialogue with reactions from the character I want to "have the perspective". But too much of that will be boring and repetitive, too. I mean, it's not that many different emotions and reactions a character can have during an ordinary dialogue - and how many cups of tea can they make and drink during a conversation before it all turns ridiculous?

Another solution is of course to break it up with some indirect reporting of the dialogue, instead of writing out all the lines. But then again, too much of that may also lose the person's perspective that I want.

Sigh. Sometimes it feels like I can't write at all....

Catching up

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:41:02 GMT

Haven't written here in a long while. I'm trying to write my story and get it finished some day..... and now I'm stuck again. Introducing a whole bunch of new characters and taking the main characters to entirely different places, the whole atmosphere changes - and I'm stuck. Afraid of losing my drive, motivation, have the temperature drop and -- well, yes, screw it. The whole thing is just dumb anyway, isn't it... ?

Sigh. And then I hear from my significant other that every writer experiences this and don't I know how many times he has been stuck at this place?

Sure. *grumble* As if that helps right now. Because *my* story really sucks!

So yeah.

KInd of astonished to see just how long it is since I wrote anything here. I had so many plans... But I should know from before that it is never wise to state what I will do later, in case I will never get round to it. Which happens all to often says the queen of procrastinations.

So. I won't write anything more about Twilight in here. Didn't even finish the thing - I was never interested enough. And you know - I've been writing. ;)

I did dip one toe in HP fandom again the other day, but it didn't go too well. (One result of that can be seen in the comments on the old Lupin post down here somewhere) No point dredging up old discussions with Snapefans for instance, when they have so moved on. (I don't like Snape. Don't hate, I said don't like. Not the same thing.) Been surfing a little on Sirius-centric fanfic sites and journals instead, that was fun. May do more of that when I need a break from things.

I have debated with myself whether I should create a separate journal for my own fanfic attempts and fandom musings, but I don't know - may take too much time. Will see.

For now I will write a bit of the problems I'm struggling with in my writing, to see if that helps.

Character Development in Writing

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:33:56 GMT

There is an interesting discussion going on in the comments to this entry in Sherwood Smith's (sartorias ) journal. How do writers develop their characters, and what kind of approach do we have to them? It all started out as reactions to various techniques in writer's workshops, one of them being "interview your character".

sartorias listed the following three possible approaches to characters:

*My characters are fictional dolls. I give them life, I kill them at whim--whatever the story, my editor, my mood dictates, and don't give it a second thought. Because they are not real.

*My characters may or may not be real. I can't even begin to define what "real" is. The only thing I can say for certain is, my characters have never entered my physical space, so I don't pretend that they have.

*My characters are more real to me than the people around me in meatspace. My characters talk to me all the time.

Since this is so very much what I struggle with these days, make my characters come alive on the page, I have posted my answer in that thread behind the cut.

I can do all three approaches, depending on the story and the importance of the character.

Meaning, I guess, that I go in and out of modes and approaches all the time as I write.

I could never allow anyone else to interview me as one of my characters though - or interview them myself, not even in my head. Even if I do privately roleplay my main characters a lot - and I mean a lot. Sometimes that happens spontaneously - I may suddenly find myself walking outside as one of my characters would maybe walk, and reacting to my environment as if I was that character. While at the same time I am fully aware of who and where I am of course, I'm not at all psychotic...

But think up random questions that has nothing to do with the character's function in my story? As in what is your favorite breakfast cereal and what kind of music do you like? That doesn't sound helpful at all to me, only very very contrived. Even when I have come to "know" my characters enough to roleplay them, I don't always know what kind of music they like or whatever - heck, I don't even always know what eye colour they have, because that is very often so not relevant to my story. (Looks is the least important thing to me anyway, and I find elaborate descriptions of how a character looks immensely boring when I read. I usually just skip it.)

That said, even though I may have got one character that much "under my skin" that I can roleplay them, I still don't have too much qualms in killing them off or changing them in major ways if I see that this will work better for my story. Or drop them altogether. And then another character may rise from the shadows and become the one that takes over my walking..

Kind of weird this process, and I am not sure I understand it. Just as I am not sure I always understand where my stories and plots and even sentences come from. Of course, yes, my subconsciousness, but that is just a word. The experience is that this is a process beyond my control and I must just let it happen. It doesn't mean that I never start out with a specific scene or plot point or character trait in mind, before I start to write - I often do - but when I write, I must just let it come. If I am too conscious about the sentences and character's lines etc. as I write them, it will never be good.

It is, of course, when the revising and editing and rewriting starts that the hard work begins. Even though something just "came" to me beyond my control doesn't mean that it in itself will be good or work in my story. It may still be axe-worthy.

But yes, I will not in any way say it sounds like "twee" if a writer says they feel their characters are separate beings, and can talk to them or "hear" them talking. I do feel my characters are, in a way, separate beings even though they don't talk to me, exactly (I can "channel" them in my roleplaying, though- then I just say out loud whatever it is that they say to each other, and what they say may sometimes surprise me!) The "twee" factor only comes into play if the writer will use this as defense or believe that they can't help it if the story turned out to be bad or lacking in logic. "It wasn't me, it was my character!"- now, there's a ridiculous argument!

Twilight Read-Along, Intro and First Chapter

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:39:12 GMT

Behind the cut is my read-along of the introduction and first chapter of Twilight. (I am not going to do one entry per every chapter, promise.) See the attitude I tried to maintain while reading described in the post below.

I am not trying to do a balanced review here. No loyal recap of the actual story or anything. This will be my own personal reactions recorded while I read, with some afterthoughts.

I have two demands that must be met if I am going to say that this is a good YA vampire romance: I must be absorbed into the story and able to suspense disbelief while I am reading. And the characters must not express values conflicting too much with my own in ways the writer seems to support.

I will probably write more about the places in the novel where I was thrown out of the story, although I will comment on some of the good things as well.

Places that threw me out were the ones where I started to argue with the writer; said to myself: "no, don't believe this" while reading; or places where I was bored for one reason or other. This is the same for all the chapters.

Starting with a quote from the bible, Genesis 2-17, about the forbidden fruit. And the picture on the front of the book is of two hands holding a red apple. And the book is about the love between a girl and a vampire.

Ok, ok this is a bit too much for my taste. I got that whole "forbidden fruit" thing already from the fact that this book is about a girl and a vampire falling in love. This quote doesn't add anything to that - and adding something you wouldn't have thought of yourself right away without reading the quote is the only reason to have a quote prefacing your book in my opinion. Unless you want to come across as pretentious.

Personally, I think having pretentious quotes is not a very good idea for most books. And it is especially not a good idea for novels meant to be entertainment only. It is so easy to make fun of, you know.

And I definitely wouldn't have chosen the Bible. Or any other holy text for that matter. Not because I think it is blasphemous or anything, but because holy texts are among the most solemn texts we have, and the ones most imbued with deeper meanings and symbols. No matter how sympathetic I try to be while reading this book, I can't for the life of me believe that it will tell me anything deep or important about The Knowledge of Good and Evil, at least not on the level that the Bible addresses these things.

Ok, not a main point. Just a note to self: don't do this if you ever get a book published.

Preface. Bella stares at the Hunter across the room and knows that he will kill her.

I liked this. Nine sentences only, and I am given a lot of information about the plot of the book without too much given away. Personally, I know I am not going to have any sort of "teaser intro" to my works, I prefer a first line of power that gives the theme of the whole book, or makes the reader ask the question that the rest of the book will answer. I really admire that kind of opening (which does not mean that I will be able to do it myself!) I am not really fond of teasers at all. But as teasers go, this is not a bad one.

What am I told? That the "I" of the book has moved to a place called Forks, where something wonderful has happened to her ("when life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations...") that also put her in mortal danger. And now she is ready to sacrifice her life for someone she loves. The Hunter, who looks "pleasantly" back at her, and "smiles friendly" as he moves in to kill, is obviously meant to be very creepy and evil - someone taking pleasure in killing - so I must probably brace myself for a black and white type of story, with not too much grey area. Good heroes, Evil villains, The Battle of Good vs Evil, are what this preface promises that the book will be about. I usually prefer the more Light Grey vs. Charcoal kind of story, but if it is well done, I can enjoy stories about heroines facing emblematic Evil as well.

There is, of course, the possibility that the evil Hunter has some nuances of grey too - by calling him the Hunter, it is implied that he sees her as legitimate Prey - and if we get his point of view some time, or are given his background story, his ideas of entitlement could perhaps be made understandable? Humans may enjoy hunting game, too, and still have morals and ideas of right and wrong. But - I am not really hoping for it, the way this is written. Twice emphasizing how the Hunter smiles as he kills doesn't promise well for shades of grey, no.

To judge whether this is a good introduction to the book or not, I must of course read the whole book first.

Chapter one, First Sight, in which Bella Swan comes to Forks, and we are shown her background and her family life before she sees the one to be her True Love for the first time at her new school.

Actually, when I first read this chapter, I thought it was well done. The writing is not shiny and wonderful and breathtaking - but it works, it flows well and sets up the main character and her background efficiently for me, without using too much space for it. We get to see the potentially dangerous and bewildering vampire after very few pages, and at that point, we know enough about Bella to follow the story. There was nothing jarring here for me. (Ok, maybe her name, a little bit. "Beautiful Swan" - yes, that is a bit too much.)

I don't mind that it is written from the first person perspective. This means that we will not be given any kind of objective narrative of the events, it will be Bella's personal account, everything and everybody seen and judged through her eyes and filtered by her personality, emotions and understanding. And that in itself is just fine. There will only be two problems with this perspective that I can see, and that is if Bella starts to tell us something she ought not to know, or says something that seems to be out of character for her just because the writer needs us to get that information or wants to give us a lecture on a topic or other. Didn't see anything of that in this chapter.

I've read several complaints on the net over how Bella comes across as this spoiled, endlessly moping teenager who thinks her life is so hard because she has to live in this dreadful little town in Washington instead of beautiful sunny Phoenix. And yes, she does complain a lot over things that doesn't seem to be worthy of complaint, as in this paragraph here:

It was beautiful, of course; I couldn't deny that. Everything was green: the trees, their trunks covered with moss, their branches hanging with a canopy of it, the ground covered with ferns. Even the air filtered down greenly through the leaves.
It was too green — an alien planet.

She complains about all the summers of her childhood when she had to stay in this rainy place too, to be with her divorced father. But I didn't read this as spoiled and it didn't annoy me. She is homesick, that's how all this complaining reads to me. She doesn't want to be here, she wants to be with her mother.

Remember, this is all told from her perspective, without any distance. This is her level of insight, and it is realistic for a seventeen year old. I think the writer has given me enough information to be able to read this as the only half acknowledged longings and wishes of a divorced child: she would have wanted her father and mother to stay together, like all children want if there is nothing the matter with their parents. But the mother took her daughter with her when she left, and then raised her girl to see the town from her perspective: I had to leave, I couldn't stand it there:

It was from this town and its gloomy, omnipresent shade that my mother escaped with me when I was only a few months old.

Of course the "gloomy, omnipresent shade" could also be a kind of foreshadowing for gloomy things that will happen - but we have already had that in the preface, we don't need that here as well. If it is meant to be foreshadowing, I think it is more about setting up the surprise for Bella: we as readers know from the preface that a wonderful dream will be realised for her in this little town, worth dying for, and she will probably come to love the place!! Because, little did she know.....

In itself, this is a bit cheap - and not very original, to say the least.

But personally, while reading, I heard the mother's words through the words of the daughter here, echoing the tragedy of her life that is the fact that the father wouldn't escape from that dreary place as well, and come to live with them in the sun. Instead he insisted on staying behind and let his daughter leave him. I don't care if the writer intended this or not, in fact, I don't know what she intended here - but this is how it reads to me.

Bella's mother has recently married a man that travels around a lot; and she would rather follow him than stay behind with her daughter. I have read blogs where people see this as one of Bella's Mary Sue traits: she is so wonderfully selfless that she leaves the mother and goes to a place she hates just so her mother can be happy. Insert eye-rolling here. But again, I read this differently - I see Bella's loneliness and grief through the kind of self-image she has built to protect herself.

Part of the mother/daughter exchange at the airport goes like this:

(the mother says:) "You can come home whenever you want — I'll come right back as soon as you need me."
But I could see the sacrifice in her eyes behind the promise.
"Don't worry about me," I urged. "It'll be great. I love you, Mom."

I could see the sacrifice behind her eyes- what kind of message is that to the daughter? Mixed at best. I will come and stay with you if you need me to - but please don't need me to! This doesn't make staying with the mother necessarily the best option for Bella, and going to live with the father totally selfless. There is a lot of pain hinted at here. I think enough is shown to make Bella's choice in this situation understandable as a kind of survival strategy, while at the same time also being an act of love. As mixed in its motivations as the majority of human actions are. It is not necessary to read it as purely selfless and Mary-Sueish.

Bella describes her mother as erratic, harebrained and childish, and worries if she will be able to take care of herself. At this point, I as the reader start to see a girl who has not been abused or neglected by her mother, but who early on was the "adult" one in the relationship; one that too early had to assume the responsibility for housework and bills and her mother's emotions. This is not unrealistic at all, there are a lot of children growing up with this kind of responsibility. Bella is stretched and tries to be more mature than she actually is. This will make her vulnerable, and I can see how a girl like Bella may be seduced by someone offering to be the strong one: she will long for someone to take care of her for a change, and let her be the child she should have been allowed to be earlier. How this will actually be played out when she meets her vampire boyfriend remains to be seen, but it is not a bad set up.

Then there is her father. He obviously loves her and wants her to be happy in his home. He buys her things, a car etc., but is not very good at expressing his emotions - and he is not willing to, or able to, change his routines for her sake, give up his long weekend fishing trips (this comes from later chapters) or investigate what she really needs. For instance, she is given her old bedroom no longer suited for a girl her age - even the old rocking chair used to rock her to sleep when she was a baby is still in there. At the end of the day, he is not able to nurture her emotional needs any more than her mother is. He seems to treat her more like an adult than a vulnerable, adolescent girl. A kind man, but helpless as a father. This is emphasized by the fact that she calls her father "Charlie" when talking about him - we get that she can't really see him in the father role. Basically, Bella is on her own.

Comment from the next chapter inserted here: Naturally, Bella assumes the same role here as she did in her mother's house: she starts to cook and clean and do all the shopping. Some have seen this as misogynistic, anti-feminist, Bella assuming this old-fashioned girl's role in her father's house. Again, I disagree with this criticism at this point in the story (what I will say later remains to be seen!) In her mother's house Bella was conditioned to be the "mother" to her own mother, now she does the same for her father because this is what she knows and is how she has learned to feel self-worth. It doesn't anger me to read about this, I don't necessarily read it as an ideal for all girls. I feel for her.

And at school, yes, the other kids approach her and try to be friendly, but she doesn't appreciate this and would rather they didn't. Does that make her an arrogant brat from the big city that couldn't care less about the backward small town kids? Well, maybe. A little. But again, she doesn't want to be here and she doesn't want to be at the centre of anyone's attention. She feels like an outsider already, before she has even showed up at her new school, and we get the idea that she felt like that in her old school too:

Sometimes I wondered if I was seeing the same things through my eyes that the rest of the world was seeing through theirs. Maybe there was a glitch in my brain. But the cause didn't matter. All that mattered was the effect. And tomorrow would be just the beginning.

You don't have to read this as if the writer tries to tell us that Bella is so very very special, so set apart from ordinary kids. On the contrary, I think, it makes her come across as very very ordinary. I could totally relate to this "glitch in the brain" feeling, and I understand how very many other readers did as well. I sometimes felt like an alien when I was a teen, and wondered if the other kids had some sort of unknown code they hadn't told me since I felt so utterly lost among them. Although this description is not necessarily wonderfully original, I don't think it is trite either.

Bella also worries about her looks, although there is obviously nothing much the matter with her - but I have known more than one perfectly nice and beautiful young girl who is sure that she is the ugliest girl on the planet whose nose is off or cheeks too fat or chin too week or eyes too large or whatever else she can think of that nobody else can see. And anyone who wants to be with her are obviously not cool, all according to the wonderful logic of Groucho Marx: I don't want to be a member of a club that wants me as its member....

Bella does have some arrogance, but most of her reactions can be read as this basic adolescent insecurity I think.

All in all, I thought this chapter did a good job in setting up Bella's personality. I believe in her and feel for her. If she was an adult, I would roll my eyes at some of her thoughts and reactions - but as she is a seventeen year old with a background that has made her vulnerable, too stretched and basically lonely - without any brilliant insights of her own issues, which is not to be expected - I can understand her and feel for her. And I can see that she would be the perfect prey for a vampire seducer.

As for her first encounters with Edward, I'll come back to that.

(I am not going to write this extensively about every chapter, or talk about every single topic of the book in the order it appears. I am not that organised...)

Twilight. The Dream of True Love is NOT a Bad Theme

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:05:18 GMT

So. My reading of the first book in the Twilight series. My reasons for reading, see entry below.

There are many parodies and snarkfests over this book on the net, as there is also a lot of fiercely loyal fan love. Don't expect an excess of either in my upcoming read-along comments. The following is a description of the kind of attitude I had when I started reading:

Yes, this is a romance novel. But Austen herself said love and money are the only things worth writing about. Granted, pure romance is not my genre, I normally need something a little bit more to pick up a romance than true love alone. But here be vampires, so maybe?

Then - it is also rumoured to be a wish-fulfillment novel, written from the first person perspective of a teenage girl who finds her soulmate and eternal love in a dangerous vampire boyfriend. This would not be something to normally tempt me either, and if it wasn't for the fact that I wanted to find out what this book is about since "everybody" talks about it, I would never have picked up the book based on its backside blurb. But I am still not going to snark on that fact either.

Here is a review that addresses this theme better than I can, because the reviewer, Caitlin Flanagan, reacted to the book with her inner thirteen-year old in a way I didn't. It says on the website that she is currently writing a book about the emotional life of pubescent girls. Based on this review I would say she is qualified and that her book will probably be interesting.

It's the old Beauty and the Beast story, isn't it, a perfectly legit and good theme. And the dream that Love Will Conquer All and save us from our misery and boring everyday life is an old, very deep and very human wish. No need to snark on that, any more than there is a need to snark on the action- and superhero films and stories catering to the equally archaic human dream of invincibility. It is not the theme in itself that will make the book good or bad, it's the realization of the theme and the actual writing. (Yes, that is even true of the seemingly silly idea of the sparkling vampire.)

From all that I have heard and read, this book is a report from within a teenager's obsessive all-consuming First Love, written without irony and without distance, and not ending where "real life" True Love starts: when the love haze lifts and you see the object of your infatuation for what he is: another human being just like you, as much in the need of being rescued from his misery and everyday boredom as you are. Not a demigod descended from heaven to carry you away. That's the real test of the depth of anyone's real love.

But this book is obviously not about that, and I am not going to criticise that fact. I am going to let this book speak to me on its own terms. I don't expect the book to be an investigation of a teenager's obsession, I expect it to be a report from within that obsession, before you wake up. The fact that Stephenie Meyer on her website says this is the real true love and not the high school romance; the fact that this is how she feels about it, is probably why she has been able to write it from that place within. She remembers that place; she is not faking. That may be the reason why so many recognize and identify with where the protagonist is coming from in this book, and why it may be worth reading on its own terms. We'll see.

This entry is now long enough, so the actual read-along comments will start in the entry immediately following this. I may not be able to post that until tomorrow.

About bestsellers, preface to reading Twilight

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:29:28 GMT

Twilight is not published in my country, and I haven't seen it advertised in English version in bookstores here either. Maybe I am just not paying attention, who knows. But suddenly everyone everywhere on blogs and whatnot talks about these books. Some states this is the "next Harry Potter" - some even states this has "so much more DEPTH" than Harry Potter. Some wonderful snarks, parodies and lolfan reviews have emerged too, here for instance

So. I am curious. I want to check it out myself. I am half way in the first book and I don't think I will read the next three, since everyone says this one is the best.

First let me say - this is a bestseller. And to be a bestseller, a book must do one thing, and one thing only: tap into some theme or dream or wish shared by very many in contemporary society. To be a bestseller across cultures, it must tap into archetypes, archaic instincts, basic human fears or hopes. The argument that a book must be "good" - as in having good writing, excellent characterisations, deep meanings etc. - because it is a bestseller, is not valid. It may have these things, but it is not required in order to sell to the masses and make the writer rich.

The only thing required of a bestseller is that the language and/or the characterisations are not so bad and clumsy that they get in the way of the story. The language must be serviceable, functional, that's all it takes. The characters don't have to be realistic, in fact they may be bland and one-dimensional, as long as they deal with central archetypal themes and are placed in situations that seem interesting to a majority of readers.

And then, of course, there is the mystery factor of bestsellers, the reason why publishers can't figure out a deadpan formula. Somehow you as a writer must tap into the contemporary form archetypal themes take in the mind of modern readers. Not something easily calculated or understood before the fact. Maybe this is why many bestselling writers confess to have just written their own dreams or wish-fulfillments, without too much analysis, to please themselves. They share our contemporary archetypal landscapes, too.

If, on the other hand, the language in a book is too original, the characters too complex and the book on the whole is more about investigating archetypal themes in some setting than it is about retelling them in that setting, the book will probably not sell in the same number of copies. Because then it will talk to only those who want to be challenged and not those who just want to be entertained. The latter group is by default larger than the former. (NOTE: I am not saying there is anything the matter at all with those who read only to be entertained!!!!! Also, a book may both challenge and entertain at the same time - those are probably the ones with the largest selling potential - especially if you as a reader may choose to skip the deeper meanings and still be entertained while you read.)

We want to read the kinds of stories bestsellers tell - over and over again. These stories are about us, and we know it. That's why we are so much more tolerant towards almost-boring language and carbon-copy characters in these books than in books with more original themes. With archetypal stories, we are able to add to the story and the characters what they lack as written to come alive for us. We just need the writer to not stand in our way with too glaring ineptness.

Verdict on Twilight so far:
What level of ineptness that comes across as glaring will vary among readers of course. So far - as I said I am about halfway now, page 300 and something - Twilight seems to oscillate back and forth across the cutoff mark for me. Sometimes Stephenie Meyer's writing works for me, sometimes it absolutely doesn't. Sometimes I find her characters interesting and possible to relate to, sometimes something they say or do throws me head first out of her story in gaping disbelief or disgust.

I plan to post read-along comments to each chapter, or chunk of chapters. So if there is anyone at all out there interested in my reactions to Twilight, stay tuned.

Why I don't love Lupin as much as I wish I could

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:47:14 GMT

More HP obsession info dump.

I listed Lupin as my least favorite character among the good guys in my old HE app, because I can't get over his cowardice. And no, not so much the "leaving Tonks to help Harry" thing. Much more because of his cowardice during Harry's year three. The more I think about it, the more shocking it is....

I

There is one definitely "good guy" that I have grown to be less and less fond of in the Potterverse: Remus Lupin. Which I kind of regret, because he has many qualities I do hold in very high regard. He is genuinely kind and considerate, sensitive and tactful, with an admirable ability to see the potential in everyone while tolerate or overlook their weaknesses. (In fact, if this had been coupled with Sirius' moral courage, fiery love and fierce loyalty, you would have had my ideal man!!!) I also feel a lot of pity and compassion for him when I take into consideration his werewolf fate.

But Lupin is a major coward. Not physically - he ran to the Shrieking Shack to come to the kids' and Peter's defence without waiting for back up when he saw them on the Marauder's map with what he then thought was a mass murderer. And he was willing to risk his life in service for the Order. But he fails abysmally when it comes to moral courage.

I am not really talking about that infamous pensieve scene in book five. Lupin was young, and I can forgive him for not going against the only ones who not only accepted, but embraced his werewolf state. Besides, I would never define someone's character solely by what they did at the age of 15. (If I did, I couldn't love Sirius as much as I do....) Also, the way he abandoned his family to go and fight with Harry in book 7 does not provoke me as much as it does many others. Although it does seem to involve a certain difficulty on Lupin's part to face the shame his condition may cause both his family and himself, you could also say that fighting the DE regime was the best way to protect his son's future, by way of fighting anti-werewolf prejudice and legislation.

However, Lupin's reaction during the larger part of book 3 to what he thought was Sirius' life-threatening attacks on Hogwarts and Harry, goes to show that the above incidents were not accidental. He actually is a grand scale selfish coward! All the time, Lupin knew how Sirius was able to enter the castle in dog form, and what is more, he knew that he was the only one who knew this! Yet he chose to tell nobody, to save himself from a little embarrassment....

The more I contemplate this, the more outrageous does it appear to me. Lupin could not stand admitting to having betrayed Dumbledore's trust as a teenager when he left the protection of the Shrieking Shack to play with his friends in werewolf form. Not being willing to admit this forgivable transgression of his youth to Dumbledore, the very champion of forgiveness and second chances, who had even hired Snape the former Death Eater as a teacher - when Harry's very life was at stage?

Sorry for all the italics, but this is just so horrendous to me. I can't believe Lupin's choice here, and I can find no valid excuses for it. It was not about revealing the actual fact of being a werewolf, which could have been somewhat easier to understand. Both Dumbledore and the rest of the teachers knew about that already. It was only about admitting that yes, as a teenager, not everything I did was honourable. To me, this is a betrayal that approaches Peter's sell-out of his best friend James. Peter, after all, feared Voldemort's torture, Lupin feared only Dumbledore's possible mild reproaches - or rather, he feared having to admit to something he was ashamed of in front of a person he respected.

Somehow, the saddest thing about it all is that by being so unwilling to admit to how important those nights with his Animagi friends once were to him, by holding this to be such a shameful thing that it was worth sacrificing Harry's actual life to keep it a secret - Lupin does, in a strange way, betray both his former friends and himself, what he was and what he is. Such a shame.

Lupin will be kind and considerate to you, and never do anything to deliberately hurt you, and you may find his company delightful - but you cannot trust him. He might be willing to sacrifice both your life and your welfare should action to protect you cost him even a small black spot on his reputation among the people he values, or require him to face his own shame....

Siriuslove

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:06:15 GMT

Continued dumping of old write-ups of my HP- obsessions. Under the cut is my reason for calling Sirius my favorite character. And no, I am not a "marauderfan", I'm a Sirius-post-Azkaban fan and I don't ship him with Remus. I don't "ship" anyone at all, slash or otherwise, although I have enjoyed the shoebox_project . Why not? It's well-written and fun, then I don't care how canon or not it is. ("My Sirius is not like their Sirius, but who cares?")

Seen "from within" the Potterverse, reacting to it all as if it were real, Sirius Black is my favorite character.

Sirius is in many ways a deeply flawed and very troubled person, so I do understand why many HP fans don't like him. His most prominent fault is his fierce and dangerous anger that ignites too easily and has made him commit acts that are very hard to defend – as in the infamous Whomping Willow incident when he was a teenager. But we are given enough background information to understand what he had to deal with and how his character developed the way it did. I shiver to imagine what it was like growing up in that home filled with Dark Magic, with an instrument designed to run up your body and pierce your throat displayed at pride of place in the drawing room! Imagine having to deal with that screaming portrait as a real person when you were a small boy totally dependent on her - not to mention having to deal with her when you chose a Half Blood as one of your best friends at the age of eleven! To me, the canon evidence suggesting an abusive childhood is as strong in Sirius' case as it is in Snape's, perhaps even more so. And I would never condemn anyone forever for what they did at the age of 16.....

(Current ETA: As for Snape's side in the Snape/Marauder conflict, that's a whole different story! Suffice it to say here that I don't see him as the innocent victim - which does not mean that I defend Marauder taunting)

I do empathise with Regulus' survival strategies in that Dark Magic home: to totally identify with his parent's ideas and expectations - most children will do that. But I respect and admire Sirius immensely for his choice to become a Blood Traitor at the early age of eleven, while he was still dependent on his horrible parents. It would have been so easy for him to walk down the path they wanted him to take. Sirus paid a very high price for this choice to go against his ideological heritage and side with and fight for the good, both as a kid I am sure, and even more as an adult. Yet he never caved.

The way he was able to survive Azkaban is the strongest example of this. For twelve years he was forced to live in an environment where everything around him was designed to break him, everyone had abandoned him and the Dementor torture was meant to continue the whole day every day until he died. Yet he was able to hold on to the core of who he was through all those dark years, and never laid himself down to die or allowed himself to disappear into madness. This is testimony of a courage and a personal and spiritual strength almost beyond belief. What came across as arrogance in his schooldays may have been part of this strength. These things are not simple or black and white. There must have been multiple sources for his ability to somehow, somewhere deep below the Dementor-induced despair and self-loathing, hold on to the idea of self-worth, even though everything around him was designed to communicate the opposite.

Many fans lost their respect for him in OotP and agreed with Molly's and Hermione's description of him as an immature and selfish jerk taking ridiculous chances when going out in dog form (once....) allowing himself to "have the sullens", quarrel with Snape and causing Harry worries (by some taken to mean that he didn't really love Harry all that much after all. Basically along the logic of: if I feel bad because you suffer, then you're suffering is selfish because you make me feel bad)

I, on the other hand, especially when I am in my strongest "reading the books as if they were about someone real" mode, sometimes want to crawl inside the pages and slap Molly around the face for her lack of compassion and respect! (Hermione has the excuse of being only 15...)

To me, Sirius' reactions to his forced (and utterly unecessary, but that is a plot-related discussion) re-incarceration at G12 : mood swings, irritability, occasional withdrawals, lack of personal grooming, drinking, regression to reaction patterns from the only time before the trauma when he was happy: his school days with James - are actually text book symptoms of clinical depression and post-traumatic stress reactions. It is not uncommon for people who have survived severe trauma without showing any significant symptoms to break down completely when exposed to new circumstances with too many reminders of the original trauma. And such reminders of the Azkaban situation where plenty at G12 in my opinion. Here, while he was deprived of the possibility of acting as a free agent in his own life, Sirius was exposed every day to what was probably among his worst memories in that Dark childhood home. He was forced to listen during large parts of every day to the endless rants from Kreacher and his mother's portrait about how worthless he was as a human being (imitating the Dementors, you could say...), all in front of his friends and of Harry too - and on top of that endure Snape's constant digs and insults, his palpable glee of seeing his old enemy down.

I don't think it is very fair to judge who Sirius was as a character based on how he acted in a state of traumatised depression, as is how I perceive him in OotP. In books three and four, however, during the short time in relative freedom Sirius enjoyed after he broke out of Azkaban against all odds, we get to see what kind of man he could have grown into had he been allowed to live. Because when he truly was in charge of his own life as a free agent, I cannot see that Sirius did anything that wasn't responsible or commendable.

Even in the half deranged state he is described to be in the Shrieking Shack scene, Sirius willingly and with very little persuasion stepped down from what he must have seen as his just revenge, never to try it again, not even to mention it ever again, no matter how horrible the consequences of that act of mercy turned out to be. Because Harry asked him to. Because he acknowledged Harry as the true victim of what Peter had done, in spite of his own terrible sufferings.

Then he came back from the security of the South and risked both the Dementors and death in order to be able to protect and help Harry when he was in real mortal danger. Because he loved Harry, and truly put his life and welfare above his own. At this time, he took no unnecessary risks. Every advice he gave Harry was good, wise and responsible, all about fairness and caution. In the cave scene with the trio, he was not willing to accuse Snape of being a Death Eater and a traitor without proof, even though he loathed him for many reasons and the evidence he listed may be said to lean heavily towards the "guilty" side. This in stark contrast to how Snape had been all about feeding both Sirius and Lupin to the Dementors without hearing them out the last time they met.

I see Sirius, in spite of his flaws, as a person who at his core has an immense strength of spirit and moral courage. His ability to love, deeply and profoundly with a loyalty to the death, defines him in a major way. His love of freedom over personal security is also very prominent; this is a trait that may definitely get him into trouble sometimes, but it is still at the core of his strength I believe. I can also see a sense of old fashioned honour in this character that I do admire a lot. He would have died rather than betrayed his friends, and there is no shred of pretence or falsehood about him. The way Sirius came from the Darkest of places and still was Harry's hero resonates with something very deep inside of me. I wish I had a Godfather like that. Flawed and sometimes behaving like an idiot or not.

Hogwarts Houses

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:49:19 GMT

I once applied for membership in Hogwarts_Elite - I thought it would be fun. They all sorted me as a Gryffindor through and through - more or less unanimously, I think there were one or two Ravenclaws and some who said I was rounded and had a little of all houses in me - which pleased me more. Not sure about the Gryffindor thing myself - it was probably based a lot on my favorite and least favorite characters - and I do have my fair share of cowardice. Not too fond of the whole sorting concept either, within our without fandom. But it was fun, yes it was.

Turned out the membership was not so fun, though. No offence to HE, but it was mostly about contests. I'm not so fond of that. So I just quietly let my membership expire and made no fuss about it. But I have saved my old application - it does contain outlines of a few of my pet discussion topics in the HP fandom.

Like sorting. I think sorting is a very bad idea. (No, the irony of applying for membership in an online sorting community if that is what I think is not lost on me. But it was fun you see, because they did seem intelligent. Feedback is nice, so I answered their quetions honestly to see how they would perceive me)

Yet, I am interested in the house traits, and how they are all necessary to make a balanced world, and a well rounded human being. Even though your affinity would be stronger with one particular house, you do need traits from the other houses as well. A person who had no personality traits but the ones from their own house, would be a truly dysfunctional individual!

It was only when I started to think along the lines of imbalance, of what would happen if the traits of a particular house did not exist at all, that it became fun to answer this particular question in the app.

If no one had any Ravenclaw traits
the world would turn into a rather boring place. People would be stuck in the material, what they could touch or see only, and would regard imagination with suspicion. No one would be interested in following their crazy ideas to see where they would lead them. No one would be interested in the investigation of the unexpected or the unknown, unless a known value or benefit was obvious from the beginning. There would be no true curiosity, and very few new ideas. Also, fulfilment of plans could prove to be difficult, because there would be a tendency towards not considering different alternative solutions and methods carefully enough during the planning stages. Because of this, there would be very little progress.

People would not see the need of truly understanding any other view than their own, so would not engage in any true debates where the aim is to reach new insights. They might pretend to agree with their opponents if that seemed beneficial to them at any given moment. But they would never allow themselves to be truly challenged, never try to truly look at their own ideas with their opponents eyes, in order to learn or change. Because of this, no real wisdom would be reached.

Besides, since no one would be able to take a step back and look at things in a detached, dispassionate and objective way, no one would be able to negotiate between opponents or reach workable compromises in a conflict. As a result, strife and fights could go on for ever, and wars might last for centuries.

If no one had any Gryffindors traits
there would be little joy in the world. People would not know how to just live in the moment and have fun no matter what might come tomorrow, so many would collapse from exhaustion or worry. Nothing would be done out of passion or enthusiasm, only out of duty or self-preservation. There would be too much anxiety and focus on the possible negative consequences, for the society or for the individual, to risk changing the old and tested ways and traditions. New ideas would come up, but no one would personally commit themselves to any one of them in particular, so would not really get down to actually start changing anything. Because of this, there would be very little progress.

The lack of true, passionate devotion to chosen ideas would also mean no real idealism. The caution, suspicion, detachment and practicality in the world would make high ideals scarce, and no one would really be willing to serve a cause bigger than themselves regardless of whether they thought it would prevail or not, only because they believed it was good or true or right.

There would be a significant avoidance of open conflicts. No one would be bold enough to risk clearing the air. Even without conflict, there would be precious little open and direct communication. The tendency would be towards bending the truth or saying nothing, for either polite or manipulative reasons. Even when people did say something, it would be difficult to know whether they argued a point for the fun of it, or because they actually meant it. As a result of all this, people would find it difficult to trust each other. Suspicion, long time grudges and resentment would flourish.

Should disaster strike, or enemies invade, no one would be willing to volunteer for the dangerous rescue missions, or take the lead in the actual battle. The world could come under the rule of tyrants everywhere, because no one would be willing to risk their lives in the actual, unprotected, first line confrontation with the enemy, or walk in front of the protest marches, facing armed police.

If no one had any Hufflepuff traits
the world would be a very unstable place, where no planning for the future would be possible. There would be an abundance of constant new and exiting projects and ideas initiated, but no one would be willing to do the boring reality check to see if the shining new idea was actually possible or practical. There would be endlessly debating planning committees, and an abundance of aspiring and competing generals and chiefs. But there would be no foot-soldiers or indians willing to follow through with the commands and plans, walk the actual distances, overcome all the real life minor and major obstacles, tie up all the little loose ends - in short, see all the fanciful projects through until they were actually fulfilled. Because of this, there would be very little progress.

The society would in all probability deteriorate very quickly into corruption and exploitation. You would need personal connections, family ties or resources to get along; and if you landed in a legal conflict, chances would be high that the judge and jury were bought against you. Also, prejudice of various kinds would flourish. There would be little interest in looking at how institutions and organisations could be made open and inclusive. Equal chances for all would not exist as an ideal. As a result of all this, democracy would exist only on the surface, if at all.

Long term personal commitments, surviving all the hard times, all the disappointments and all the bumps in the road, would be scarce. People no one saw as interesting or attractive, because of either their connections or their personal appeal, would not be invited or included. The shy would have a hard time, and loneliness would be very common.

If no one had any Slytherin traits
at all there would be no humankind, because the species would have been extinct long time ago! If no one was able to look after their own interests and needs, economise with their resources and choose their battles carefully, everyone would end up exhausted and exploited, with nothing left to give, no matter how worthy the cause.

Because no one had any real understanding of strategy and timing, most projects would fail even with good plans and good intentions. There would be no understanding of how to persuade enough people to believe that one project was better than another competing with it, of how to "sell" one particular project in order to secure funding. No one would be willing to compromise, or engage in a certain amount of giving and taking, of necessary flattering and diplomacy in the real life policies. The best would frequently become the enemy of the good or even the possible, and very little would be achieved.

On the other hand, there would be no real appreciation of excellence and achievement. The will to test your limits and press on to be even better than those around you would be frowned upon, and too many would be satisfied with the way things just happened to turn out, without craving for anything better. Instead of a real competition where the best achiever could be chosen to head a project, the mediocre or even the barely passable would too often be picked as good enough. Because of all this, there would be very little progress.

There would be a lot of idealism and good will in the world, but also an abundance of naivety that would lead to disaster in too many cases. Too many people would tend to believe that good will was enough, that they could appeal to the high ideals of, or reason with, any enemy. Others might rush towards whole battalions armed witn nothing but an axe and a knife, just because they felt their honest fury should be enough. There would be little understanding of the necessity to keep your plans and preparations a secret until you have gathered enough strength, support or evidence to be able to safely show your colours to your opponents, or engage them in a battle you will have a reasonable chance to win. For this reason, tyrannies might prevail.

People would also have real difficulty with, if not being downright unable to, making the hard decisions when many opposing needs and interests were at stake. Sometimes you must hurt the few in order to save the many, or go for a smaller damage in order to avoid a greater one. One extreme example of this is the scene in Wolfgang Petersen's film "Das Boot", where the submarine is damaged while the ship is far under surface level, and the water is flooding in. At a point they have to close the security hatches against the water, even though people are still on the lower decks trying to repair the leak. If no one had had any Slytherin traits on board that ship, they would all have drowned while trying to save their comrades. Instead, they closed the hatches right in their friends' horrified faces. That way, cruel as this was against the ones left to drown, they were able to save the ship and the majority of the crew.

First Thread in My Web

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:14:06 GMT

There are so many conversations I would like to start. Mabye start out with some obsessions first - some of them old, but they won't let go.

Harry Potter was my first and only fandom, but Deathly Hallows was such a letdown. I am so much more cynical now...

It is lovely to be a fan and belong. It is wonderful to take part in conversations and lengthy discussions and rants and analysises where you don't need any expositions or explanations because everyone knows. Yes I miss it. And I will post HP rants here, even those that are now old and tattered - like why I still don't think Snape is a good person, no matter how much he was a secret agent for Dumbldore. (I never doubted that in the first place.) To be card-carrying member of the CIA is not the bench mark of humanity's highest moral standard, you know. And I love Sirius, no matter how flawed he was. You will hear about that too.

Yes, I still think of or talk about the HP characters as if they were real. Told you I used to be a fan, right? That's how it is when you live within.

HP will not be the only thing I shall talk about though. There are other things on the horizon. This post is just to get started.