FILLER: Summertime Break?

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:38:10 EDT

Going to take a vacation? Leaving your terminal for some viewing of whatever it is that lies outdoors?

Congratulations! But...

before you run off...

1. Print yourself a copy of this message.

2. Set your mailing list to nomail

3. Put the copy of this message on your terminal...

4. GO! Have fun, dance, eat, drink, feel the solar rays freckle the pale glistening of your epidermal layers...

5. When you get back, take the copy off the terminal. peer at the paper. find the next step.

6. Set your mailing list to mail.

7. Relax. Write us a note about your travels with indigestion, your tete-a-tete with the uncrowned rulers of the world, your little tumble down a rabbit hole into wonderland...

[yes! by taking these simple precautions, you too can avoid the heartbreak of overfilled mailboxes, the agony of bouncing mail, the fear of accidental removal...and make sure that truth, justice, and bad jokes continue to pester you when you return...]

if the gold is at that end of the rainbow, then what's at the other end?

TECH: Diablo ex Machina

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:08:47 EST

Most of us have heard of the deus ex machina ("god out of the machine")--where Euripides would use a mechanism to usher in a god (or the power of a god) to rescue the hero or untangle some wrinkle in the plot. Aristotle taught us to avoid it, preferring that the resolution grow from the action.

[and yes, a fortuituous natural disaster, "accidental" coincidences, and similar "out of the blue" bits also fall into this class of cheap plot solutions.]

So we know to avoid artificial devices for resolving difficulties in our writing. The hero/ine needs to make their own breaks, the villian hang themselves with their own ropes, and so forth.

But I want to warn against a tendency I've noticed in some SF/F novels of the last few years. It's the "diablo ex machina" style of character development, especially for the antagonist or villian.

Specifically, in answer to questions such as why does the "bad guy" prefer sex with little children? (or have some other less than appetizing personality trait or quirk)

Simple, s/he's the president of a megacorporation. (or maybe the child of a rich person...)

Or s/he's the politically appointed head of the welfare department. (cabinet post, whatever...the political appointment seems to be the tarbrush)

S/he's a manager.

S/he's a rock singer.

S/he grew up in New York. (well, that one might be...no, that's silly)

I.e., in response to the opportunity to show us where this kind of character fault comes from, the answer is to point to their position, group, or something similar.

I always feel cheated when the author pulls this. Presidents of megacorporations don't automatically have bad personalities. Even the children of presidents aren't automatically bad characters.

Success doesn't automatically mean someone is in league with the devil!

My advice is, don't pull your devil out of the machinery--make them real. Make them someone that might very well be sitting at the corner table in the restaurant, winking at you. Make them people that the reader can believe might be living next door... take the time and do some research into the real causes of whatever antisocial traits you want to endow your bad guys with.

And I think your readers will thank you, for making that "bad guy" just a touch more real than the diablo ex machina.

Oh, and don't forget--no gods from the machinery, either.