Sep. 29th, 2008

[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 11:25:48 JST

HI, MARY! WELCOME TO THE GRUNGE WRITERS ROUNDTABLE!

Mary asked
- Is a story better because it has a write-your-own ending? I'm just
- wondering. I've always hated those kind, but now that I think of it,
- the stories with predictable endings/or surprise improbably endings
- are sometimes unsatisfying also. The story about the boy with leukemia
- ended to patly for me -- I was hoping for a different outcome -- maybe
- I would have preferred a write-your-own ending.

better? not inherently. if you like structural notions such as a "story question" which eventually results in a "story answer" or perhaps conflict and resolution, the "write-your-own ending" format is unfinished, incomplete, and not to be tolerated.

On the other hand, given the reader's own drive for closure and the ambiguity of some questions raised in stories, it may be a useful technique on occasion. Not to avoid resolving the issue, but deliberately raising an issue, developing the alternatives, and whacking the reader between the eyes with the dilemma.

If the "write-your-own ending" is a simple escape from digging up a satisfying, unexpected, logical, etc. ending - then the writer is being lazy and should be chastised for it (let the critics at 'em, serves 'em write!). On the other hand, it is possible (if carefully handled) to make the "unfinished" nature a satisfying ending, embodying the dilemma, frustration, confusion (pick your own words) that the protagonist feels.

How do I say this? The writer is trying (fumbling) at making the reader experience (vicariously) something, with some hope of raising some thoughts in that lump over there. One method, generally used, is to walk the reader right along the path, from beginning to end. Another method, somewhat more technically difficult, is to raise the questions and hope the reader tries to finish the path on their own (goes all the way back to Socrates, I believe). Still another approach (very tricky) is to provide the reader with an ending and trick them into finishing the path on their own in rejection of the ending given.

Which is "best"? Depends - on the writer, the reader, the questions or subjects being tackled, and other cosmic influences.

Personally, I have a strong desire for closure - I like endings. I'm not even too happy with the cliche "arm from the grave" horror bit, with its suggestion that the horror isn't really over.

I'm with Roger - I wish I knew what I was talking about. Maybe I'll take up Tarot readings...
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 18:00:05 JST

I, and others, have been using the word "stereotype" fairly freely recently. However, I have noticed that some of the uses aren't quite in synch with the way I use it. Therefore...

Debating 101 says always define your terms before starting, so I looked at some dictionaries.
[Webster's New World] a fixed or conventional expression, notion, mental pattern, etc.

[OAD] an idea or character etc. that is standardized in a conventional form without individuality
Interesting - one dictionary simply says conventional, while the OAD adds the notion that the stereotype "lacks individuality."

I tend to think of a stereotype as a typical person, someone you may be able to classify or categorize easily. Someone who fits (largely) in the middle on whatever scales you are using. I.e., a member of the majority, rather than one of the statistical outlyers. An identifiable "type"?

This does not mean they are necessarily a "flat" character, merely that their peculiarities are ordinary ones which may be seen in many other people.

I suppose one way to put it is that these are the people who (mostly) are the way we expect them to be and do what we might expect merely from a superficial description. The person who works to support a family (instead of having a secret laboratory, neurotic compulsion to power, or whatever). The president of a company who is doing a good job without crushing everyone in sight, embezzling funds, etc. The child who is well-adjusted.

So I go along with the idea of stereotype as conventional. That does not (to me) seem to imply they lack individuality. A conventional person - a "Father Knows Best" type, for example - can be absurdly individual and out of place in today's world. It seems to me that one of the major plotting "themes" available today is that of the conventional person faced with the uncertainty, confusion, and outright unconventional world around them.

Other people seem to consider a "stereotype" as a "flat" character, or perhaps an "Everyman" abstraction that lacks definition. An identifiable mask for the author to cloak some idea in to let it stalk around?

I don't think of stereotypes as lacking individuality. They are identifiably unique and interesting, even though they are just ordinary people who might be met anywhere.

To "break the stereotype" simply because it is expected or conventional ignores the fact that the stereotype may have grown out of very real social, economic, etc. circumstances, and there are usually many people who fit it altogether too well. Each an individual, but largely predictable. That's why people use "stereotypes" - they identify useful patterns of behavior in a simple way, allowing them to deal with people mostly in terms of the "type" instead of having to worry about unpredictable reactions.

Interestingly, Analog (Oct. 1993) has an editorial about "Nouveaux Cliches" in which Stanley Schmidt challenges writers to three points:
1. Don't confuse weak characters with strong characterization
2. Remember that human beings are not the center of the universe, or even the only interesting thing in it.
3. Dare to be fun!
His major point about characters is that some people ARE happily married, some people can manage their own lives, some people ARE the majority, yet the "cliche" of current writing is that no one has virtues, everyone is a psychological disaster area, no one can manage their own lives, marriages are all falling apart, ad nauseum.

(or as I would say, some people are stereotypes - ordinary people.)

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems possible to me to portray an ordinary person AS an ordinary person and still make them interesting. Frankly, I don't enjoy all the broken and fringe people that seem to populate current literature - they don't act like people I know, they aren't familiar, and their "solutions" seem to be surrenders.

Joe B. mentioned
- probably somewhere in the middle. I think this way of
- thinking probably helps prevent overreliance on stereotypes
- by acknowledging that people often appear "contradictory"
- merely because we tend not to accept their complexity, their
- changeability, and , like Whitman, contain, if not multitudes,
- at least small crowds. Thanks!
Joe - does this mean you see stereotypes as "flat" characters, one-dimensional characters?

Anyone - when you say "stereotype", what do you mean? How does this relate to the characters we use in writing?

Can you portray someone doing exactly what is expected - and still have an interesting, strong character?

[I haven't even touched on my thoughts about plot and setting, but they are parallel. Incidentally, anyone want to discuss the inherent stereotyping and generalization of language, of words themselves? I mean, how do you communicate if you don't share concepts?]

Any responses, comments, or thoughts gratefully read.

Apologies for accidentally bringing up a writing topic. Flog me. (no, not you, TJ.)

Profile

The Place For My Writers Notes

February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2 345 6 7 8
910 11121314 15
161718192021 22
232425262728 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 07:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios