Re: TECH: Sci-fi? Or Phantasie?

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Fri, 13 May 1994 18:35:02 JST

jc asked...

To reach down a little further into the discussion of what is SF and what's not....
Why do we care? ...

honest answer - I don't. However, I finally had to think about why some stories with well-written characters, plot, and so forth, simply didn't produce the same excitement for me as a reader that other (sometimes very badly written) stories did. When I thought about it (and compared them), I found that the "flat" stories were those that didn't mix their peculiar assumptions into the story. Yank out the background, slap it down in the present, and nothing needed to be changed.

there is a special charm for me in a story that makes some special assumption(s) and "drives" the story off of that, rather than just using it (or them) as an ornament for an otherwise pedestrian tale.

so now when I read some drivel that has cardboard characters, peeling backdrop scenes, and so forth - and it rings a bell anyway - I start looking for the SF slant. On the other hand, when I read something well-written that still leaves me flat, I start checking - and usually the plot and so forth are oldies, without that SF twisty to liven them up.

On the other side of the coin, in trying to write the darned stuff, I feel it is important to know what I'm trying to do. Not that I necessarily do anything even close to what I think I'm trying to do, but it gives me warm fuzzies to think I have some method (instead of alien facehuggers... AAACHoo!).

while I'm meandering - Randy mentioned happy endings and jc pointed out that some authors should be killed for their endings (keeping the reader curious about how the "heroes" could possibly get out of this, only to find out that they don't!).

While I like happy endings, I prefer any ending - RESOLUTION - to what some authors seem to be pulling. I realize that it isn't necessarily "realistic" to expect every story to have an ending, but - isn't part of the trick of fiction that the stories aren't necessarily realistic?

So, if the author just shuffles and says "things went on..." - I am not happy. If the author declares it was only a dream, it was only a game, april fool's, etc. - I'm ready to borrow a kitchen knife.

Do something - blow up the town in pyrrhic victory, give the vampire pyorrhea to save the children, let the python crush the police into hamburger for the 4th of July picnic - but resolve the story. Carrie (I think?) was neat because (along with many others) she was dead. Full stop. and the hand from the grave was NEW - not just the same old story straggling on into the sunset...

I think that's the real ugly part of some of these "unhappy endings" - they don't end. Even if the ending is to have the hero(ine) break and give in to the fault - let the reader know, don't just leave them hanging...

Sigh - if the blob is going to eat the town, let the romantics do something interesting as the last act. Break into the Hilton to use a hottub, down the Dom Perignon, and declare undying love as the creeping crud slowly dissolves them, leaving a single rose gently rocking in the waves, drifting slowly into the ring of greasy kid's stuff blobbo left in its wake... Eat a chocolate chip cookie and damn the zits!

Finish the story. Please?

TECH: Literary Fiction v. Popular Fiction

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Tue, 10 May 1994 18:35:02 JST

greg quoted penner as suggesting that these qualities distinguish literary from popular fiction (darn - conventions, stereotypes, now qualities? wish the categories would quit shifting on me...)

1. Completeness and integrity of the fictional world.

I'm surprised to see this as a distinguishing mark. I thought consistency and integrity were essential to good writing.

2. Complex characters

If this is the common complaint that popular fiction uses stereotypes while literary fiction uses "better" characters - come on. Let's get real here. I've found flat, round, even four-dimensional complexities in all kinds of writing - and again, it seems as though this is essential to good writing.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that popular fiction tends to deal with popular kinds of characters, while literary fiction tends to deal with marginal or unusual characters - hey, some folks like plain folks, some like it hot. There are times and places for both (there are some very marginal characters in popular fiction, too).

I will admit that popular fiction sometimes doesn't push a character to the limits - but sometimes character delving isn't terribly interesting, either... balance, now, that's a concept.

3. A prose style that aims at its own individuality and interest

AH! Fascinating, as the guy with the eyebrows would say.

I prefer that the style should be TRANSPARENT to the reader - not grab attention. I agree, in general, that popular fiction does tend to avoid styles that poke the reader in the eye and say look at how clever a writer I am. Not that the styles aren't there, but when they start getting between the reader and the story, popular fiction pulls back. I like it that way...

So - literary authors let their writing get in the way ON PURPOSE? I always thought it was just bad writing. Now I'll have to think about this. Why would anyone want to do this?

4. Economy of means.

I'm not sure what this means.

5. An organic relationship of mutual influence between plot and character.

Nice words. Since I thought making the plot and characters go together was another fundamental for good writing, I guess I don't understand what's supposed to be different.

6. An attempt to create and satisfy needs entirely within the scope of the narrative.

Huh? Sounds like a fancy version of closure, don't leave dangling threads, and so forth. Not clear to me what the uniquely literary contribution is.

7. The primacy of point of view vis-a-vis content.

egads, but that comparison was pitiful. given the rather incredible emphasis by good popular writers on not doing what he accuses popular fiction of doing - has the man read popular fiction, or does he just like sniping at a stereotype without reason?

Matter of fact - mystery (one of the genres, and fairly popular) uses point-of-view and limited knowledge rather heavily. Might even consider this one of the trademarks of that genre.

Sorry - while I do think popular fiction does require content, I think limited knowledge and careful use of point-of-view are simply part of good writing again, without any real distinguishing value for identifying literary vs. popular work.

I can see I'm not going to pass this test. Out of seven items, one I don't understand, one I consider a black mark against any kind of writing, and the other five I thought were common to good writing of any kind.

As an alternative point or two...

Randy has talked about the texture of the writing before, suggesting that the literary writer works at making the writing, characters, plot, allusions, and so forth work together for effect. This implies (I think) that the literary writer needs to be willing to use or abuse conventions of any of these to make the whole work together. The popular writer, by contrast, is more likely to stick with the conventional methods even when they need to be discarded or modified for a particular effect. This doesn't mean that the literary writer can't use purely conventional methods when appropriate, or that the popular writer necessarily sticks wholly to conventions, but that the likelihood of modification to conventions differs.

I suppose (metaphor coming...) that the popular writer is still sticking pretty close to the score, while the literary writer is more likely to jazz it up and play in the cracks. Of course, clubs differ - some want a player who sticks to the golden oldies, while some want improvisation. Offhand, popular fiction seems like a better place to start (after all, playing by the rules is one hell of a lot easier) until you've got the rules cold, then start improvising.

Thanks for the pointers, Greg! Sorry I didn't do better at understanding them.