Re: Raising the stakes
- From: R. L. <see-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:55:47 -0800
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:21:27 -0700, Crowfoot <pagemail@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1hbo4vb.1u2wpcng98gerN%mbottorff@xxxxxxxxxxx>,/snip/
mbottorff@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:
Helen Hall <mhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's another problem here, which I see as a reader: if it gets too
mechanical -- what's the best point at which to make things the worst
they can get on this plateau of worst-ness? -- I, as reader, get yanked
out of the story by a feeling of being clumsily manipulated by the
author in order to a) make things more awful and b) make the book
longer. It feels like this: we were overcoming A to get to B, but now
A is done with, we find that there's an A-sub-one to get past too, and
look, here comes an A-sub-two, and you know what? Forget it. I'll
just turn to the last chapter for the payoff, and go on to another book.
Yes, me too. Or if I start suspecting it's going to be that kind of book,
I don't get into it in the first place.
/snip/
On the other hand, like all readers I positively rejoice in being
maneuvered by a real talent. Jane Austin is a good example,
because she wrote what were essentially romances, the plot consisting
of a string of obstacles unfolding for the sole purpose of keeping our
charming protagonists from coming together at last in harmony.
I guess what I'm saying is, beware of formulae. They take very careful
handling.
I love Ransome's SWALLOWS & AMAZONS as very civilized and non-manipulative.
But the structure does use some now-infamous patterns -- e.g. 'Yes, you can
camp there, but only if you make the pigeons ring a bell.' And I remember
noticing in IVANHOE years ago that every time the good guys succeeded in
something, it somehow backfired and made things worse; which led me to
shelve the book in frustration.
* You must make your characters suffer.Number one most common reason for me to put down a book seems to be
because everyone is suffering, and I've decided it isn't worth caring about
these people.
Exactly. Maybe it's partly not wanting to make any further emotional
investment in characters that you know the author is just going to
tighten the thumbscrews on until page 759. Screw that -- as it were.
Yes. If I care about them, I don't want to watch them suffer. If I don't
care about them, I won't read the book.
/snip/
This is the most interesting because it reveals character
and the changes in character under stress, not just the speed and
clarity of the character's adrenaline rush when the heroine is tied to
the tracks and the train is coming (although a modicum of this is
also fun to read, IMO).
Hm, for me the fun there is when I get carried away by the adrenalin but
the hero manages to think of some ingenious rescue I missed.
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Raising the stakes
- From: Helen Hall
- Re: Raising the stakes
- References:
- Raising the stakes
- From: Helen Hall
- Re: Raising the stakes
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Raising the stakes
- From: Crowfoot
- Raising the stakes
- Prev by Date: Re: Raising the stakes
- Next by Date: Re: Internal and External description
- Previous by thread: Re: Raising the stakes
- Next by thread: Re: Raising the stakes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading