Jo Walton ([info]papersky) wrote,
@ 2004-02-23 08:46:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The Dyer of Lorbannery
There comes a point in writing, and it's a spear-point, it's very small and sharp but because it's backed by the length and weight of a whole spear and a whole strong person pushing it, it's a point that goes in a long way. Spearpoints need all that behind them, or they don't pack their punch in the same way.


Examples are difficult to give because spear-points by their nature require their context, and spoilers. They tend to be moments of poignancy and realization. When Duncan picks the branches when passing through trees, he's just getting a disguise, but we the audience suddenly understand how Birnam Wood shall come to Dunsinane.

Shakespeare there is making a spearpoint out of air -- goodness knows, maybe it was in Holished, but that doesn't matter because he couldn't have expected his audience to know it. There are all sorts of things you can expect the audience to know, that you can rely on them essentially bringing along their own spear-shafts for. Card talks about hurting children as a way of creating sympathy -- hurting children is something where people bring their own spear-shafts to slot into the point you give them.

There are a whole lot of things like this -- though sometimes they change over time, and readers of another age, without the spear the author expected, laugh or are confused when they learn that a character has lost a hat, or had sex with his boyfriend. [info]coffeeandink wrote a little while ago about what a non-revelation hidden homosexuality is these days, when writers as recently as the 1970s could confidently expect a certain kind of spear coming ready to the hand there.

For a writer using that historical period now to get that spear-point effect (the one Sumner Locke Elliott's The Man Who Got Away gave me in 1980 and didn't give Mely in 2003), it would be necessary to do a lot of set-up about the significance of male friendship in the context of the time, and even then it wouldn't be a revelation in the same way.

Sometimes the spear has to be very long -- the events at the end of Dunnett's Pawn in Frankincense don't reliably work without the spear reaching all the way back to A Game of Kings, just reading Pawn hasn't been enough for two readers that I know of. Likewise some of Bujold's spearpoints work much better with the longer context, although they do still work without.

When writing SF and F, it's possible to make the whole spear out of air and know that's what you're doing. The example I usually give of this is Cherryh writing about people going through Jump without drugs. There's no such thing as Jump -- FTL hyperspace -- and humans don't need drugs for it, she made it all up, but she also set it all up such that by the time the reader gets to it, it's a spear-point.

Another is the one I used as a title for this -- in The Farthest Shore, a minor character shouts out her name for all to hear. For someone who read that page alone, this would be inexplicable and possibly silly. For someone who has come all the way through Earthsea as far as Lorbannery already, it's terrible and revelatory -- and when Ged does the same thing later, quoting his own name in what Orm Embar says to him, there's an even longer spear-point that goes back to Ged's naming at Ogion's hands near the beginning of A Wizard of Earthsea.

Now we get to what I wanted to say.

It isn't always possible to build the spear so that it will work the first time through.

If you keep stepping back to show the reader that there is irony here, that there is a wider context, that things work out this way, you risk losing absolute raftloads of immediacy. You can do that now and again, but not too much. You certainly need to do a lot of set-up, carefully, towards what you want to do later, and the reason for that is so that when you actually get to doing it, it can stand alone at that point, be that point, because the spear needs to be behind it, and a spear-point supported right there with scaffolding doesn't have any impact at all.

It needs to be moving when it hits you, and it needs to have the spear already there, whether you and the reader built the spear together along the course of the book or whether the reader came into the room with it. And if you're building the spear, you have to come by it honestly, even though you're doing set-up, it all has to fit with what's there it all has to work in its own context or you won't end up with anything but a pile of splinters.

And sometimes you don't have room and it isn't going to be fully there until afterwards, and I think it's better to suck that up and trust the reader to think, to come back and re-read, to get the impact then, than to try to hammer the spear-point in when there hasn't been time to build the spear, because what happens then is telling in the way that people mean when they tell you not to do it, and distancing, which can blunt the impact not just the first time but always.


(Post a new comment)


[info]matociquala
2004-02-23 06:28 am UTC (link)
*applause*

I really have nothing intelligent to say in response, except 'yeah.'

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]desayunoencama
2004-02-23 01:23 pm UTC (link)
Ditto!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ionas
2004-02-23 06:47 am UTC (link)
It needs to be moving when it hits you, and it needs to have the spear already there, whether you and the reader built the spear together along the course of the book or whether the reader came into the room with it. And if you're building the spear, you have to come by it honestly, even though you're doing set-up, it all has to fit with what's there it all has to work in its own context or you won't end up with anything but a pile of splinters.

And sometimes you don't have room and it isn't going to be fully there until afterwards, and I think it's better to suck that up and trust the reader to think, to come back and re-read, to get the impact then, than to try to hammer the spear-point in when there hasn't been time to build the spear, because what happens then is telling in the way that people mean when they tell you not to do it, and distancing, which can blunt the impact not just the first time but always.


I think I am grasping what you are saying here, but when I try to reshape it in my mind, I find I'm still juggling water. If you have the time, could you provide an example or two? (the examples you used in the previous points resonated vividly and I knew I was comprehending the, um, ah, point.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]papersky
2004-02-23 07:23 am UTC (link)
You know how there are books that seem good and when you re-read them, there isn't anything there? And there are other books that seem better and better the more you re-read them, the more depth and dimensions they display?

Also, by the time you get to the "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech, you have to actually already feel sorry for Macbeth and Lady Macbeth or it isn't going to work. If he'd essentially stopped the play there for a speech explaining why you should pity them despite their being terrible people and murderers, you wouldn't. The imaginary speech would be the hammering down the spear-point.

As for distancing, some of Dunnett's unnecessary mystery has that effect, when she doesn't tell you who someone is or what someone sees for no reason but the effect on you, when the characters know, it can have the opposite effect to what she wants, it can make me care less.

Am I making sense?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]ex_ajhalluk585
2004-02-23 07:41 am UTC (link)
That's why I stopped reading Dunnett after the first one, because when Lymond explained that actually the raid on his mother's house had all been a set-up and all the jewellry had been returned, I just went "WTF?" Because we, the readers, had been put in the position where everyone in the novel was apparently against him, apparently on inassailable grounds, and we were starting to think: well, there has to be a "real story" which exonerates him, and then that particular bit of hammering home made me think, "Look, someone who goes to those extreme lengths to make everyone think badly about him; well, they've probably got a point, at that."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]papersky
2004-02-23 07:46 am UTC (link)
Yes... and that's exactly what I mean, because where the author wants you to be thinking "Ah! Ah-ha! Clever boy!" what the reader may well be thinking is "Oh get a grip!" which is the absolute last thing one wants in the reader's mind ever at any point, because when that comes in, sympathy has just gone out the window. Trying too hard, hammering it in, can lead very easily to that. That's what I mean by building the spear honestly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]robling_t
2004-03-02 06:38 am UTC (link)
because where the author wants you to be thinking "Ah! Ah-ha! Clever boy!" what the reader may well be thinking is "Oh get a grip!"

...You know, I think you've just nailed a big part of my "wandering away after 100 pages" problem I was just writing about (ironically in the context of having for once finished something: Tooth and Claw!); and Dunnett, if I had but thought of it before giving up and hitting "post", was one of the failed-to-finish books in the very same library-load with T&C. Writerly beating-readers-over-the-head-with-writerly-cleverness has been bugging me more and more as I work on my own writing, and your post does a good job of articulating the problem, thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re:
[info]ionas
2004-02-23 09:05 am UTC (link)
You know how there are books that seem good and when you re-read them, there isn't anything there? And there are other books that seem better and better the more you re-read them, the more depth and dimensions they display?

Yes! That snaps it all into focus. Much of the pleasure in rereading is in savoring the setup that escaped one on the first read, and the spear-point moment is just a poignant, even if no longer a surprise.

Books whose spear-point boils down to shock and nothing else do not keep my interest long, though I know there are readers who read just for that, and sometimes only that.

And yes on the point about the Dunnetts. The deliberate withholding of information worked as frustration for me, as trickery, and though it kept the tension up for the first read, it causes me to want to skip on successive reads. There is no, as you say, building of the spear.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]misia
2004-02-23 06:58 am UTC (link)
Yes... and lord but it's hard to trust the reader to do his/her part! At least it is for me. The temptation to get out the sledgehammer is always so very huge, and I often succumb.

(Reply to this)


[info]coffeeandink
2004-02-23 07:24 am UTC (link)
There comes a point in writing, and it's a spear-point, it's very small and sharp but because it's backed by the length and weight of a whole spear and a whole strong person pushing it, it's a point that goes in a long way. Spearpoints need all that behind them, or they don't pack their punch in the same way.

It occurs to me that when the revelation or moment is about environment, rather than actor or event, that's when "sense of wonder" is created for SF. Or is that kind of thing too big to fit what you're talking about? Does the spearpoint need to be a small moment, or one unforegrounded by the narrative?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]papersky
2004-02-23 07:32 am UTC (link)
No, it certainly can be a sense of wonder thing, and it certainly can be a tiny thing.

Actually, realizing that something you thought you knew is wrong in the context of the novel -- as in Foundation when there's a fop from Trantor speculating on human origins in Sagitarius, in Sol... and you the reader are going "Sol, moron!" and then he goes on to say "Or maybe there were humans on all the planets already and there isn't one origin" -- which at ten, got me right between the eyes. What Asimov later did with this little bit of scenery distressed me because it diminished the power, cut away the spear in retrospect, if you will.

It's because SF and F can do this that I love them so much. Straight fiction is only going to give me revelations about people, which is all well and good, but I do appreciate the possibilities SF provides of getting them sparkling from all over.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]browngirl
2004-02-23 07:31 am UTC (link)
If I ever become a decent writer it will be in large part because I know you.

A.
thinking of spears

(Reply to this)


[info]wild_irises
2004-02-23 07:47 am UTC (link)
Added to my memories. So worth rereading and thinking about.

I expect I will be able to add to your list once I've internalized the concept.

(Reply to this)


[info]kate_nepveu
2004-02-23 07:49 am UTC (link)
I think this partly explains why I like that scene in _L.A. Confidential_ so much.

Hmmm, thinking of Guy Pearce movies, the whole of _Memento_ is the spear, which is why it works (and why _The Usual Suspects_ doesn't, as far as I'm concerned).

The Sarantine Mosiac is an interesting one to consider in this regard: I know at least one person who found _that_ _moment_ much more powerful and shocking because they knew it *didn't* happen that way in our history. I can't recall now if I know anyone who didn't know how our history turns out and who's said what they thought of that moment.

Hmmm. *wanders off, thinking*

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]tanac
2004-02-23 07:13 pm UTC (link)
I've read the books, but don't know the historical truths (or where they deviaed) -- if you tell me the moment you're referring to, I can try to remember how it hit me at the time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]kate_nepveu
2004-02-24 06:57 am UTC (link)
Ee, I really can't do that here, because it would involve incredible, book-destroying spoilers. At lunchtime or after work I'll do it on my own journal and post a follow-up link here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]tanac
2004-02-24 07:07 am UTC (link)
Or you could just email me: tracey at folkandfairy dot org

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]kate_nepveu
2004-02-24 07:47 am UTC (link)
Nah, it might be of interest to others.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kate_nepveu
2004-02-24 07:14 pm UTC (link)
Done.

REALLY BIG SPOILERS, don't click on the link unless you've read both _Sailing to Sarantium_ and _Lord of Emperors_.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/kate_nepveu/44813.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]oracne
2004-02-23 08:16 am UTC (link)
It isn't always possible to build the spear so that it will work the first time through.

I've just been learning/working out similar issues, though not quite in the same way.

If that makes sense.

(Reply to this)


[info]mnemex
2004-02-23 08:46 am UTC (link)
Mnnnnn. Yes.

I think this is one of the reasons I like Forgotten Beasts of Eld so much.

Definately something to think about.

(Reply to this)


[info]oursin
2004-02-23 09:01 am UTC (link)
This calls to mind, for me, rightly or wrongly, the Chekhov remark about the gun on the wall in the first act. But what you're saying, I think, - or am I getting this totally wrong? - is that the spear is when that gun, which the audience has almost forgotten about, or is just assuming is part of the scenery, goes off. And everything is changed. But I'm also reminded of V Woolf's remark about the whole of Emma pivotting on 'With you, if you will ask me'. (Which may be the same thing?)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]papersky
2004-02-23 09:15 am UTC (link)
I think Chekhov's gun has two barrels -- firstly that you need to show it if you're going to fire it, and secondly that if you show it people will expect it to be fired.

Good point about Emma. I think it is the same thing.

Emma is an odd book, thinking of it in terms of pivots. The weird withdrawal at end of it (though it's nothing to MP) makes me feel as if Austen has suddenly interposed a glass wall between me and the characters and I'm banging my head on it, why wasn't I invited to walk around that garden? I came all this way and now you don't invite me? No, madam, you are not entitled to privacy at this point and I have no idea why you imagine you should be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]desayunoencama
2004-02-23 01:35 pm UTC (link)
I think the Checkov gun thing is a separate issue.

What this distinction reminds me of, though, are the ways that humor can be constructed. On the one hand, you have the surface-level pratfall/spalstick kind of humor, which in literary terms is usually a play on words or bon mot or something.

But then you have situational humor, something that is so funny because of the context. Using your terms, it's the spear point used in a comic fashion (for a comic thrust?).

The things that make you laugh out loud when you're reading, and if someone asks you what's so funny you can't explain it because they need to have read the entire book (or series) up until that point for it to make sense.

One of the things I love about certain series--Bujold, say, or in mysteries S. J. Rozan's Lydia Chin/Bill Smith or Dana Stabenow's Kate Shugaks--is how reading them in order is almost necessary because of how each builds and further deepens the characters so much.

Like, with the Stabenows, you can start anywhere among the first few books, but something happens in BLOOD WILL TELL, where you really need to read the earlier books before reading it because suddenly everything changes. She does it again with HUNTER'S MOON, and in many ways you can't read HUNTER'S MOON if you've read any of the books that follow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]desayunoencama
2004-02-23 01:43 pm UTC (link)
There are a whole lot of things like this -- though sometimes they change over time, and readers of another age, without the spear the author expected, laugh or are confused when they learn that a character has lost a hat, or had sex with his boyfriend. melymbrosia wrote a little while ago about what a non-revelation hidden homosexuality is these days, when writers as recently as the 1970s could confidently expect a certain kind of spear coming ready to the hand there.

It's hard sometimes to talk about or recommend books without giving away a secret that will later be one of these spear -points. Take the film The Crying Game which by now one can give spoilers about, I should hope, but if one knew beforehand, it's a very different viewing of the film.

Of course, these secrets are not always about sexuality, although these examples were.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: sometimes they change over time
[info]ambar
2004-02-23 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Sometimes these things can get better with time. Consider Bujold's running joke through Shards of Honor, Betan characters responding to references of "your president" with "I didn't vote for him." That got a lot sharper after the 2000 elections.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]robling_t
2004-03-02 06:44 am UTC (link)
It's hard sometimes to talk about or recommend books without giving away a secret that will later be one of these spear -points. Take the film The Crying Game which by now one can give spoilers about, I should hope, but if one knew beforehand, it's a very different viewing of the film.

Two more examples: The Sixth Sense and Fight Club. The first in particular is what I'm picturing by the spear and its point, am I close...?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tanac
2004-02-23 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Ken and I are currently watching Babylon5 - second time (or more) through for me, first for him -- and so many things are more poignant or powerful now that I know what is coming next. I'm finding it even more heart-breaking/awesoe this time through, and I liked it a lot the *first* time.

To give an example. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]goljerp
2004-02-24 04:09 pm UTC (link)
I know what you mean. Joy and I are doing the same thing - we're in the 3rd season now, and all the stuff with nightwatch seems so much more immediate now!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Anti-spearpoints
[info]dsgood
2004-02-24 10:05 pm UTC (link)
What's the opposite of a spearpoint? Example: the scene in Ira Levin's _Son of Rosemary_ (sequel to _Rosemary's Baby_) in which Rosemary wakes up and realizes It Had All Been a Dream.
(That's not the ending, which has a clever twist.)

Much thanks for this; it was something I needed to think about
today.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Anti-spearpoints
[info]papersky
2004-02-25 07:13 am UTC (link)
I think the ending has a Stupid Twist, but I am trying to forget that I ever read that book.

I think that anti-spearpoint is best seen as a slap in the face. I can think of other examples, though perhaps not as awful -- in Hambly's Darwath trilogy, the terrible scary creatures of the Dark turn out to be nice but misunderstood aliens, and I think the books suffer from that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]txanne
2004-02-27 12:33 pm UTC (link)
I'm in the process of reading _The King's Peace_ for the first time. I'm a medievalist, so it's embarrassing to say that it took Morwen's death for me to figure out what you were doing...but when Sulien said, "I wished later that I'd let him die," that was the spearpoint, and my knowledge of Chrétien, Robert de Boron, etc., was the spear. Now I know who Sulien is, and oh how it hurts!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2004-03-02 12:53 pm UTC (link)
Of course, the reason for writing a story not in our world is so that you can change the end.

I did deliberately have one beta reader who knew nothing about any of the Arthurian or historical stuff to make sure that it made sense without the trailing context.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]diony
2004-02-27 02:44 pm UTC (link)
I'm very glad you wrote about this, because I've never been able to put it into words. It's why, when I was 13 or so, I loved reading really long series of comic books -- so many spear points! And also, I think, why I love Dean's Tam Lin so much -- that's one that (for me) only happened on rereading. Oh, and that bit at the end of The Pride of Chanur, too. (And did you know Cherryh has a weblog?)

I could go on and on, apparently, but I'll restrain myself.

(Reply to this)


[info]lobelia321
2004-03-03 04:51 pm UTC (link)
I come to this party late, linking via [info]kate_nepveu but just wanted to say that I like the spearpoint metaphor.

If you keep stepping back to show the reader that there is irony here, that there is a wider context, that things work out this way, you risk losing absolute raftloads of immediacy.
Not sure, though, how irony figures into the equation. And further, though am not sure this is what you mean at all: immediacy is not necessarily and always a desired effect. Sometimes you want immediacy, and sometimes you want distance. (I think someone above was making the point about the end of Austen's Emma where the garden scene is presented with distance, and that's what she wanted there.)

It needs to be moving when it hits you,
I like that metaphor, too. I take it you're primarily talking about pace and rhythm here? This is very hard to get right. I file and file away, rearranging sentences etc.

because what happens then is telling in the way that people mean when they tell you not to do it,
Heh, I have no problem with telling. In fact, I clicked my way through to here after a long anti-show-not-tell rant, *g*.

not just the first time but always.
How do you mean 'always'?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2004-03-04 06:16 am UTC (link)
Irony and immediacy: well, no sometimes you don't want immediacy, I agree. But if you sacrifice too much of it you risk losing reader engagement, you get the situation where the reader says "I don't care what happens to these people" and stops reading. I think every time you put distance in there on purpose you're taking a risk, and sometimes it's a risk you need to take to get the effect you want, but often it's blunting the spearpoint. So for example, Dunnett with her POV tricks. Now perfect examples of this done right are the clown bringing the asp in Antony and Cleopatra and the "Get some perspective" message towards the end of A Fire Upon the Deep. Those give you distance to draw you closer in.

Telling: There are places for telling, too, definitely, and indeed, everything is telling, and I don't subscribe to that as a rule, but I think that's what's behind what the rule is trying to get at.

My best show-not-tell example is the film Blade Runner where the voice over explanation is diminishing and irritating and one wishes to tell it to shut up.

Always: every time you read it. So it can't be just surprise.

Some of what I'm talking about is things you can't do on the first time through -- I think a lot of the ironical distance thing is attempting to get effects on the first time through that aren't possible, and in making that attempt spoiling the story long term.

I don't want to read something once, I want to read it again and again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lobelia321
2004-03-05 02:02 am UTC (link)
I'm starting to think that slash is one big spearpoint. As soon as the name of any character gets mentioned in a fanfic, there is the spearpoint all sharpened and ready to be deployed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]papersky
2004-03-06 08:33 am UTC (link)
Yes. I think that's why people like it, or one reason why, the reader already cares about the people, and by making them do something in or out of character you already have a lot of spear following behind. Of course, you can also lose people that way -- who say "But Kirk would never drink tea!" and put it down. I think this also relates to what Kate was saying about history in the Sarantium books -- if you use real history and mythology you get part of the spear for free, as long as people know it.

I once went back and put in another chapter in something when I found out that normal people didn't already bring along a lot of freight about the battle of Lepanto. I call this knowing where the reader is standing. It's something it's possible to fuss about too much, but I used to know someone who had no idea what normal people knew about, and while his writing was brilliant, it could also pass right out of comprehensibility, waving.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lobelia321
2004-03-06 01:35 pm UTC (link)
I used to know someone who had no idea what normal people knew about,

*laughs*

I like this designation of "normal" people. Yeah, who are they again?

Characterisation is one of the biggest talking points in fanficdom, along with pov and Mary Sue. And the spear can help you to ride it out, or you get readers complaining about the character not corresponding to some idea they have about the "real" or the "canon" person. *shrugs* But I don't hang around with such people. Once people start matching fic to fact (whatever is fact -- and coming from rps, that base is even wobblier than with fps -- I mean, what the hell *is* rps canon?), I get bored and wander off. *g*

I am spoiled, SPOILED, for origfic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lobelia321
2004-03-15 03:11 am UTC (link)
My best show-not-tell example is the film Blade Runner where the voice over explanation is diminishing and irritating and one wishes to tell it to shut up.

I found this very interesting. I'm not sure that the addition of the voice-over for the released version of Blade Runner (vs the so-called 'director's cut') is an instance of injecting telling into what had up to then been showing. Voice-over, for me, falls into the category of point-of-view or focalisation. It's the narrator becoming apparent, and it's one of the ways in which film tries to compensate for the seeming absence of a narrator. I mean: who *is* the narrator in a film? Is it the camera? Is it the 'main character'? It's a different situation from text-based narrative. So what I think is that voice-over in film is (sort of) the equivalent of interior subjective point-of-view in a text. Interior pov can be so-called show or so-called tell -- although I have to say I find it almost impossible to find examples of how you could possibly *show* somebody's private thoughts. Thoughts can only be told -- that is one of the beauties of the novel, that it enables the reader (and writer) to delve into people's brains, not simply to record their actions and gestures and facial expressions. Film finds this more difficult: as in theatre, everything going on in somebody'e head must be visible or audible somehow (gestures, dialogue etc.). One way to compensate for this is the voice-over, another way is the use of music for emotional effect. I'm sure there are more.

But do you see what I mean? It involves more than the show-not-tell opposition which, in my opinion, always *reduces* what is in fact a wonderfully complex business, namely the business of narration.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]papersky
2004-03-15 06:43 am UTC (link)
I think in that particular example I'm right, the voice over is intrusive and tells you more than you need -- especially at the end, I want to throw something at it to make it shut up.

As far as I'm concerned, everything is mode, or what you're calling narration. You make your mode choices right away, and it affects everything else you can do -- the distance between you and the reader, between you and the characters, between the characters and the reader, everything from the kind of diction you can use on up. I'm not espousing "show don't tell" at all, there are times for telling and times for showing and sometimes outright telling is much better than slow boring showing. But what I was trying to say there is that there is a kind of telling that inspires people to say that and it's bad because it's flat, and there's another kind which is this desire to make things work the first time through that can't have their full impact until a re-read.

You can start a story "He was the most beautiful man on thirty-six planets, and she was the strongest hero in space, and when they first kissed in front of the holocams, the futures market on Carmel went through the overhead and there was a typhoon on Halcyon caused by so many consumers sighing at the same moment."

That's pure "tell" and it's a great start, and it's at a certain ironic distance, yes? Now, if it isn't the start, if it's in chapter 19, if you've been living with these people up close and care about them, if you're already invested in them, you're going to care less about that kiss when it's set off like that. At least, you are unless it's all done very very well, and no matter how well it's done, you as the writer are only allowed so many of those before the reader becomes entirely disengaged.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lobelia321
2004-03-23 01:47 pm UTC (link)
Hi again.

Can't remember if you said you were interested but in case it was you: I've finished my narratological analysis of fanfic. It's here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lobelia321/257093.html#cutid

:-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lobelia321
2004-03-29 12:10 pm UTC (link)
Um, sorry! I found your discussion immensely interesting but I've been so busy incorporating some of the points in my narratological analysis of fanfic that I forgot to reply to your comment!

:-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carandol
2004-10-13 04:37 am UTC (link)
"You can start a story "He was the most beautiful man on thirty-six planets, and she was the strongest hero in space, and when they first kissed in front of the holocams, the futures market on Carmel went through the overhead and there was a typhoon on Halcyon caused by so many consumers sighing at the same moment."

Mind you, I can see where you could write a story where that was the first *and* last sentence, and it would have a terribly different meaning than the reader had thought it had, once you'd attached the haft to the point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]quine
2004-03-07 12:49 pm UTC (link)
This reminds me of an article I once read about the flashpoint effect in films (I don't remember what the writer actually called it, unfortunately). They used Gosford Park as an example: the point when the maid, Elsie (Emily Watson), bursts out in defence of Billy (Michael Gambon) while serving at dinner, and you know that she's just lost her job. It was something which could only be shocking in the context of an upstairs/downstairs movie (or similar).

The spear analogy is thought-provoking. Thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]daquela
2004-03-07 02:18 pm UTC (link)
One of the weirdest filmic spearpoints I have come across struck me while watching Frida in a Connecticut cinema. There is a moment towards the end of the film when the character of Frida Kahlo sits at a table side by side with an old woman, who starts singing drunkenly.

The woman was a headshaven Chavela Vargas, and she was singing "Yo soy la pelona" ("I am the bald woman"). In the credits, Vargas is credited with the role of Death, but that doesn't cover half the story. I am sure I was the only person in that cinema who understood the reference: and it was so strange, feeling that in some way something is being addressed specifically to you.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…