mark_asphodel (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mark_asphodel) wrote2011-07-27 09:26 pm
mark_asphodel) wrote2011-07-27 09:26 pm
Entry tags:
Rules Three and Four
So, moving on to the third and fourth rules in Mark Twain’s self-proclaimed rules for romantic fiction:
They require that the personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others.
But what about the zombies, Mr. Twain? Under which category do they qualify? Seriously, can anyone think of a work of fiction, fan or professional, which fell afoul of this particular guideline?
But this detail has often been overlooked in the "Deerslayer" tale.
Oh. Yes, so let’s just consider this to be Twain’s way of expressing disgust with Cooper’s means of characterizing... everything. Moving along... unless someone actually can think of an example wherein this is a problem.
They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there.
OK. This is not quite the same thing as “Law of Economy of Characters,” which arises from the constraints of movie budgets. But dramatically, this one makes perfect sense. Ever read a story in which a slew of characters were introduced in a chapter and then nothing happened with any of them? Or a story in which some character swanned in, was described in minute detail, and then had no impact on anything thereafter? Or an otherwise good “tale” marred by a really annoying and intrusive character who didn’t fit the tone of a piece... and who turned out to be an avatar of one of the author’s friends?
One of my favorite Gundam Wing stories, “Sweets for the Sweet,” was harmed by just this-- a deluge of author-friend cameos near the end of the story. Not to say a friend-insertion can’t be done without harming a particular story, but it’s as risky as playing with matches down at the oil refinery. Why are they there? What purpose do they serve? Is there any way you can accomplish that purpose using only canon characters?
Also, no fair introducing an orphan or kindly old man for the sole purpose of killing them off because you want some pathos but can’t bear to harm the main cast of characters (original or media-derived). Yes, I realize professional works do this, but it’s cheap. Hell, it works best in black comedies where the audience is in on the joke, IMO. “I gotta kill someone and I can’t harm my darlings” does not equal an excuse for getting a saucer-eyed child or senior citizen out of Central Casting.
When Orwell had a bomb fall in the street in 1984, he blew up a faceless prole and had Winston and Julia see, not the whole of the “dead personage,” but a severed, bloodless hand. That worked. Likewise, in Michael Demcio’s “Rhyme and Reason,” once touted as the longest fanwork in existence, he originally was going to have the protagonist (Chip) identify the victim of a library bombing by ring or some other cliched detail, but he wisely backed away from that angle and allowed the protagonist only a glimpse of the sheet-shrouded victims. In retrospect, the story had plenty of problems, but he didn't do that. So, yes-- even dead characters need an excuse for being there, and if the excuse isn’t enough... don’t go there.
Rules five, six, and seven are interconnected, so we’ll cover them in one go tomorrow.
They require that the personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others.
But what about the zombies, Mr. Twain? Under which category do they qualify? Seriously, can anyone think of a work of fiction, fan or professional, which fell afoul of this particular guideline?
But this detail has often been overlooked in the "Deerslayer" tale.
Oh. Yes, so let’s just consider this to be Twain’s way of expressing disgust with Cooper’s means of characterizing... everything. Moving along... unless someone actually can think of an example wherein this is a problem.
They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there.
OK. This is not quite the same thing as “Law of Economy of Characters,” which arises from the constraints of movie budgets. But dramatically, this one makes perfect sense. Ever read a story in which a slew of characters were introduced in a chapter and then nothing happened with any of them? Or a story in which some character swanned in, was described in minute detail, and then had no impact on anything thereafter? Or an otherwise good “tale” marred by a really annoying and intrusive character who didn’t fit the tone of a piece... and who turned out to be an avatar of one of the author’s friends?
One of my favorite Gundam Wing stories, “Sweets for the Sweet,” was harmed by just this-- a deluge of author-friend cameos near the end of the story. Not to say a friend-insertion can’t be done without harming a particular story, but it’s as risky as playing with matches down at the oil refinery. Why are they there? What purpose do they serve? Is there any way you can accomplish that purpose using only canon characters?
Also, no fair introducing an orphan or kindly old man for the sole purpose of killing them off because you want some pathos but can’t bear to harm the main cast of characters (original or media-derived). Yes, I realize professional works do this, but it’s cheap. Hell, it works best in black comedies where the audience is in on the joke, IMO. “I gotta kill someone and I can’t harm my darlings” does not equal an excuse for getting a saucer-eyed child or senior citizen out of Central Casting.
When Orwell had a bomb fall in the street in 1984, he blew up a faceless prole and had Winston and Julia see, not the whole of the “dead personage,” but a severed, bloodless hand. That worked. Likewise, in Michael Demcio’s “Rhyme and Reason,” once touted as the longest fanwork in existence, he originally was going to have the protagonist (Chip) identify the victim of a library bombing by ring or some other cliched detail, but he wisely backed away from that angle and allowed the protagonist only a glimpse of the sheet-shrouded victims. In retrospect, the story had plenty of problems, but he didn't do that. So, yes-- even dead characters need an excuse for being there, and if the excuse isn’t enough... don’t go there.
Rules five, six, and seven are interconnected, so we’ll cover them in one go tomorrow.
no subject
I like rule 4, though. I think it presents a critical hurdle for anyone trying to novelize an FE game, which has a playable cast of anywhere between 20 and 72 characters. (FE10 is the one with 72, with the small proviso that one of those characters is only playable for two and a half chapters and not near the end, and another is a hidden character who's only usable on the very very last stage if you've jumped through a bunch of hurdles and it isn't your first playthrough.)
no subject
Right, and those aren't a problem that I've ever seen.
Vigarde/Monica in FE8
I read this entirely the wrong way at first.
FE10 is the one with 72
I think FE12 has even more than that. Seventy-seven, maybe? Too many! I'm in the camp that believes that many factions of the various playable armies barely know one another, though.
no subject
I think the various subfactions have to know each other on some level. I mean, at the very least they need to recognize an ally on the battlefield. As far as knowing as in having interpersonal relationships, though -- probably not.
no subject
IMO, that's what standards and guidons are for... though those can certainly backfire (I think it was the battle of Tewkesbury where the Lancastrians fired on their allies because of standard confusion).
no subject
no subject
no subject
Color-changing with your allegiance! Goes into hammerspace when you shapeshift! Becomes spiffier when you receive a promotion!*
Has been known, on rare occasions, to generate a horse. Side effects may include turning pegasi to wyverns.
no subject