Consistency?

[glainfach]

A thread in another forum got me thinking about consistency in writing long stories. So here's what I would like to know, I'll add my own thoughts after a few other replies.

1. How important is consistency to the telling of a lengthy story? Should an important story element be modified or removed if it violates the consistency of the story line?

2. How much inconsistency is acceptable in a short story? a novella? a novel? or in a series?

3. How do you as a writer try and keep things consistent?

[Anareth]

There are degrees of consistency.

I'll use my own 'real fic' as an example. If I say in book one, in passing, that Alan grew up on State Street, and the issue doesn't come up until five books later and it becomes Central Avenue, that's a minor goof. I *should* fix it, but the world won't end if I don't. If, however, it's somewhat important in book one that he can't use his powers on anything not in his direct line of sight, and then in book three he torches something three blocks away and behind a building, and I don't come up with a DAMN good reason for why he can do that all of a sudden, I just made a big authorial boo-boo.

In a short story: there is no acceptable degree of inconsistency. In a short, you have no room for errors of any kind. That's why it's, frankly, a lot harder to write than a novel. You have to do everything a novel does with more punch and fewer words.

A novella: Ditto. You are still not dealing with enough space.

A novel: Still important. Tiny discrepancies can slide through, but I would say it's too much even if you forget someone is left-handed.

In a series: See example above.

As a writer: I keep track. I pay attention to what I've written. If I'm not sure about something, I go back and check. I try not to set too many things in stone (if it makes it to the final draft, that is stone.) But if something radically alters continuity, it's not important. It's bad writing, and I need to go back and change it, not be lazy and hope no one notices.

If a plot element is important, it won't screw up your continuity.

[Ghyle]

It depends, as said, what the context is.

One area that I'd like to address is inconsistency in speech. If your character says one thing, then another, that's not a bif problem. We tend to do likewise ourselves, saying one thing to one person, another to another, and contradicting ourselves.

We can also exploit this, and have unreliable characters, and the suchlike. We can gain, or lose, trust in a character in this way, and it can help build up their nature (or tear it down). It can also lead to tensions, and reactions, especially if you have lies found out.

Think, for example, of a murder mystery where everybody lies for some reason, or tells half-truths. What would be the effect on the narrative and the reader's sympathies?

[Anareth]

It depends, as said, what the context is.

One area that I'd like to address is inconsistency in speech. If your character says one thing, then another, that's not a bif problem. We tend to do likewise ourselves, saying one thing to one person, another to another, and contradicting ourselves.

We can also exploit this, and have unreliable characters, and the suchlike. We can gain, or lose, trust in a character in this way, and it can help build up their nature (or tear it down). It can also lead to tensions, and reactions, especially if you have lies found out.


That's not really inconsistency. That's characterization. If your character says something and does another, you need to address that in some way, especially if it's important to the plot. A chick-litty way of doing that would be to have the (generally first person or 3rd limited) narrator notice they've done something they said they wouldn't, lied inadvertently, and feel guilty, or blow it off, or whatever. Why the character says one thing and does another is part of what makes them who they are.

Now, if you have them say something, then do something else because you thought of something better plot-wise and want to change it, your obligation is to go back and rewrite. That's not characterization then, it's authorial laziness.

[Ghyle]

You can have inconsistency in characterisation, though. This is clear when you have them say one thing and do another, or say one thing to another and break that with another.

With the earlier example of a character having powers that work only in line of sight, then if the only evidence is speech, there is no epistemological inconsistency, but only incosistent fact and statement; thus saying later that the character is dissembling, unaware, etc. is easier than going back and fiddling with facts.

[Ryuu]

As Anareth said, inconsistency in speech can be used as part of that character's nature, but not inconsistency in so-called "facts" that are in the narrative, since those are necessary for establishing the scene and events of your story.

Today, having a computer lets us have an efficient means to organize & locate previous text in our collected stories--it makes such mistakes less forgivable than, for say, an author that had kept his notes (& wrote his books) prior to the advent of cheap personal home computers.

In the example of suddenly gaining new powers or new means of delivering them, you have to give some explanation--

Take Smallville for example:

We all know that Clark Kent will eventually become Superman, who has the powers of super strength and speed, super hearing and telescopic sight, heat and X-ray vision, and flight, as well as vulnerabilities to Kryptonite, Kryptonian metals, and magic.

Yet, for each season of the show, those powers have to be gradually revealed and discovered, as well as a logical (at least within the story context) means by which those powers are triggered. It had been established that for the first three seasons, Clark cannot fly. However, in the second episode of the series, it did show that he does have the power to levitate and therefore the ability to fly (abet only subconsciously). We also learn that in a subsequent episode, he has a fear of heights. This is probably the reason why he can't fly. Evidently, there's something which will happen that will trigger the need for him to force him to overcome his anxiety and consciously learn how to fly.

That's an example of good consistency. The character's ability changes over time, yet, the story gives the reason for that change. However, if, instead, the character was never meant to change like that, then this would be an example of poor consistency.

It really just depends on what you want your character to develop into and where and how that development occurs, and then it is incumbent upon you on properly and logically presenting those changes.

[Anareth]

You can have inconsistency in characterisation, though. This is clear when you have them say one thing and do another, or say one thing to another and break that with another.

With the earlier example of a character having powers that work only in line of sight, then if the only evidence is speech, there is no epistemological inconsistency, but only incosistent fact and statement; thus saying later that the character is dissembling, unaware, etc. is easier than going back and fiddling with facts.

You CAN, but you never SHOULD. In the example given, I *MUST* explain why what works now isn't consistent with what worked or was said to work before (in my example I implied but never stated it's a fact, not just people talking, though if the person talking were the source of knowledge for both the characters and the readers it's the equivalent of action and requires the same amount of explaination.) I should NEVER write something that goes against previously stated facts without acknowledging that I'm doing so and providing a logical explaination in-story why I can change it. If I can't do that, the idea has to go and I have to come up with something that works. Otherwise it's lazy, sloppy writing.

[Ghyle]

If we're talking about a character saying one thing and doing another, then we should never say never. Such a thing is like demanding that characters never lie, for example, or should never be inconsistent, both of which go against real life.

We should demand that our characters become ideals and paragons of virtue, as that then negates any attempt at realism that the fiction possesses, and, as such, is worse than having inconsistencies of speech and action.

[Shalyn]

If we're talking about a character saying one thing and doing another, then we should never say never. Such a thing is like demanding that characters never lie, for example, or should never be inconsistent, both of which go against real life.

We should demand that our characters become ideals and paragons of virtue, as that then negates any attempt at realism that the fiction possesses, and, as such, is worse than having inconsistencies of speech and action.

Right, but what Anareth is trying to say is that you, as the writer, need to come up with a reasonable and valid explanation.

Changing your character's...erm, well, characterization without any type of in context explanation is something that can drive the reader to not read that writer any longer. Or at least nitpick more.

Case in point: Anne's changing Lytol's Larth from green to brown. In DF, she had not looked to the future, and had not thought the color schemes through. And that has been a cause for nitpickiness ever since I've been on the board. But that flaw can be overlooked.

The one that is a very grating flaw, one that feels to me like nails on a chalkboard, is the fact that in DQ and TWD, Robinton is extremely surprised and gratified to have a few dragons talk to him. Yet in MHOP, he trots through the book talking to dragons left and right, as if he were HAD.

*That* was pure lazy sloppiness. Or sloppy laziness....

[Anareth]

Exactly. No one is saying characters are flawless paragons of virtue. They could be changing their minds about slaughtering a village. The point is, when they say one thing and do another, especially if it's plot-critical, there MUST be a reason. Charcters don't get the liberty of being totally random the way real people are. (Unless you're writing pretentious modern lit, in which case pretty much every logical reason goes out the window in the name of "art". Not to mention everything that makes for good storytelling. See "The Reader's Manifesto".)

Particularly in fantasy and SF, where the readership tends to be extremely detail-oriented, you have to think things through with exceptional care. As Ryuu points out, we have computers. We can keep track far more easily than in the old days of typewriters or handwritten MSs. If you contradict yourself, with no acknowledgement in text that you'd doing so, you readers WILL notice, and you had better have a better answer when your fans ask (and they WILL ask) besides, "Well, people in real life change their minds all the time, too," especially if it's something major. And that doesn't work at all when it's an inconsistency of skills, not of speech.

We all make mistakes in our writing (and they will all be spotted by zealous readers, I guarantee it--ask any author with a book or two out) but that's not an excuse for flat-out laziness about preventing them. Even "I like it better this way" (which is I suspect the reason behind the absurd MHOP inconsistencies like the one Shalyn cited--so being talked to by dragons numerous times over years of his life was so blase an experience Robinton totally forgot about it by the time of DQ and TWD?) isn't a good excuse. Especially not in this genre.

[Ghyle]

I agree with the two examples given.

Changing a dragon's colour is a physical thing and not characterisation.

The fact that the 'later' Robinton seems blase about it, when he is 'younger' than the later, or should that be earlier, (older?)... what I mean is that in writing the character there should be an explanation that can account for the difference, but that does not mean that there shouldn't be an inconsistency to start with. I'm not going to speculate into how the two can be reconciled, nor should I. Besides, Anne isn't a paragon of continuity between books, and Masterharper is a flawed example of her work for a number of reasons.

As you note, an inconsistency of skills. I'd put it that we can have one where the skills, and physical aspects can be inconsistent with speech. Doing so is one way of building a character. Example: having a character say of vehicle skills "Oh, I can't drive well" may be inconsistent with those skills as revealed, but it may also be indicative of a degree of modesty in the event of praise from another, or in front of another. But it's another thing to demonstrate the inconsistency when speech is not involved.

Having said that, it is a flaw to have every nuance of characters' relationship spelled out, as it leaves hardly anything for the reader to interpret. We are not all babes deserving to be spoonfed, and treating as if we were is an insult to the readership of all spec fic.

[Anareth]

As you note, an inconsistency of skills. I'd put it that we can have one where the skills, and physical aspects can be inconsistent with speech. Doing so is one way of building a character. Example: having a character say of vehicle skills "Oh, I can't drive well" may be inconsistent with those skills as revealed, but it may also be indicative of a degree of modesty in the event of praise from another, or in front of another. But it's another thing to demonstrate the inconsistency when speech is not involved.

Having said that, it is a flaw to have every nuance of characters' relationship spelled out, as it leaves hardly anything for the reader to interpret. We are not all babes deserving to be spoonfed, and treating as if we were is an insult to the readership of all spec fic.

Okay...don't take this the wrong way, but are you being deliberately obtuse? Because no one mentioned spelling out everything. I get the impression you must not write prose fiction very often, or you're deliberately not understanding what people are saying. You don't seem to understand that acknowledging an inconsistency in-story does not mean taking a Jane Austen-style direct address spelling everything out in an aside to the reader. It means making it clear that you are not being sloppy by writing it in such a way a reader doesn't go "Hey, but back in chapter two..."

The driving example: as long as somewhere it's acknowledged (my preference would be from the POV of another character) that it must have been false modesty, or they're a quick study, or they're lucky. If you simply have them state, "Oh, I'm a bad driver," and then without any explaination at all they're winning the Indy 500, it's at the least bizarre. If it's told from their POV, it's easiest to explain with the narrative character thinking that they're understating or, later when the driving skills appear, that they're a quick study. From another POV, the narrative character can speculate, though depending on circumstances might not have a definitive answer to what was the lie, but in either case they're authorial indications, WITHOUT spelling something out or 'spoonfeeding.'

You seem to be mistaking consistency in writing for rote narratives where all details are explained. That isn't it at all. It is or should be a simple matter of paying attention and not leaving differences a reader can't resolve. That's not nuance. That's disrespect for the audience--by not bothering to follow the text you wrote down you're saying you don't care enough about your reader to check back, and are also assuming they're too stupid to notice.

[McClance]

Consistency is very important to me. No matter how long the story or series is.

At least when it comes to...

- Spelling a character's name (like Jon for a while; then John all of a sudden)
- Changing a character's entire name (Jon March for a while; then, Steve March or Jon Wilson) without any explanation.
- Locations (Jon goes to Museum in Funny City; then, later, Jon comes back to the museum in Happy City)


But, like someone else has said, when it comes characters saying one thing and believing another, or a character recalling an experience inaccurately, that's okay. That really happens in life.

Oh, and when it comes to killing characters, the dead character really ought to stay dead. If the writer kills Jon, Jon should not reappear suddenly, alive and well for another day of work the next chapter as if nothing had happened.

[Ghyle]

I understand that you would like there to be some indicator of the inconsistency. So that if the character lies, we should know that, but not necesarily so.

Take the following idea. Two characters report the same event, but accounts differ. We, the writer, knows one is lying, but we need not tell the readers which. What we can do is establish their charcter through other situations, and allow the readers to extrapolate from there on the likely veracity of those characters. We don't know if what was said was a lie, but reading the character overall allows us to come to a conclusion on the likelihood of a lie.

The same4 goes for hearsay: having characters repeat information they don't witness, and not telling us. It happens in life all the time, and we don't get upset about it; should we in our reading?

[Ryuu]

Take the following idea. Two characters report the same event, but accounts differ. We, the writer, knows one is lying, but we need not tell the readers which. What we can do is establish their character through other situations, and allow the readers to extrapolate from there on the likely veracity of those characters. We don't know if what was said was a lie, but reading the character overall allows us to come to a conclusion on the likelihood of a lie.

The same4 goes for hearsay: having characters repeat information they don't witness, and not telling us. It happens in life all the time, and we don't get upset about it; should we in our reading?But the inconsistencies that Anareth & I pointed out are very different from your examples--the "Narrative"--which isn't supposed to be character driven, even in those "first-person" storytellings. The "narrative" is supposed to be factual with respect to the reader.

Even in your examples, if you're presenting hearsay or witness accounts as "narrative", such as saving typesetting of excessive quotation marks & the like--as sometimes are done in detective novels, for instance--there is still a clear indicator as to this portion represents the "testimony" of this witness, that portion as "testimony" of that witness--these can conflict because, as you said, these are basically character statements--but they are not true factual narratives.

But where it comes to "third-person omniscient perspective" which is what most novels are written as, or even the "first person perspective". The "first person perspective" character might be able to lie through his teeth to all the other characters in the story, but he/she must never lie to the reader.--these are considered to be "factual" with respect to the readers--this portion of the narrative must NEVER be inconsistent. Any changes to recorded events, observations, or character nature ALL must have some logical explanation, even if it's a mystery to the "first person perspective" report--there would be a mention of that change. for example:
I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I ran to the Healercrafthall as soon as Sebell finished telling me. How could Jarod still be alive? I saw him go over the cliff! After I woke from my injuries, I tried to look for him, but the chasm was too dark to see the bottom, and then Ryuu showed up, and he forced me to return to the Harperhall.

"F'nor!" I cried when I saw him. "Is it true? Is Jarod really alive?"

"Barely," F'nor responded. "He's pretty chewed up. I found him at the Igen river swamp."

"I don't understand!" I said. "How can he have lived through that fall? He fell down a steep cliff thousands of lengths from the river! I thought for sure he'd be smashed by those rocks at the bottom!"

"I don't know about that," F'nor replied. "He didn't say anything about that. He was delirious when I found him. But he did say something about, 'when you're in the claws of a dragon, don't struggle.'"

"What could that mean?" I asked, astonished.

"I don't know," F'nor said, shaking his head. "But it does look like he had been savaged by a dragon."

I stood there as F'nor went to his brown, stunned by what he told me. Ryuu had been there. Could his dragon have snatched Jarod up before he reached the bottom? Was that what Jarod had meant? Finally, I went into the crafthall, carrying Jarod's heavy walking cane, hoping the man would live long enough for me to apologize for causing him so much injury, and maybe having caused his death, and to thank him for saving my life.here's a perfect example: a factual observation, inconsistent event, and then an explanation (of a sort) & even in "first-person perspective". If Jarod survives Oldive's attention, the narative person might learn just what happened between the time Jarod was seen falling off the cliff and F'nor's finding him--if Jarod dies, then maybe the mystery dies with him...?
(now, don't you think it's clever how I keep the identity of the narrator hidden?:evil: ) *we really need a :fishing: smilie here*:D

[Anareth]

Even in your examples, if you're presenting hearsay or witness accounts as "narative", such as saving typesetting of excessive quotation marks & the like--as sometimes are done in detective novels, for instance--there is still a clear indicator as to this portion represents the "testimony" of this witness, that portion as "testimony" of that witness--these can conflict because, as you said, these are basically character statements--but they are not true factual naratives.

But where it comes to "third-person omniscient perspective" which is what most novels are written as, or even the "first person perspective". The "first person perspective" character might be able to lie through his teeth to all the other characters in the story, but he/she must never lie to the reader.--these are considered to be "factual" with respect to the readers--this portion of the narative must NEVER be inconsistant. Any changes to recorded events, observations, or character nature ALL must have some logical explanation, even if it's a mystery to the "first person perspective" report--there would be a mention of that change.

THANK you, Ryuu, for getting my point across. You cannot lie to your reader. They will know, they will be annoyed, and they will quit reading you and more imporantly quit paying for your work. You need at the very least to give the reader enough evidence to know, for example, which of the two inconsistent narratives is likely to be the truth. In the example of a detective story, you get the added onus of needing to give your readers the same evidence your detective character gets. You can no longer get away with Conan Doyle and Christie's worst authorial sin, which is concealing evidence from the reader but giving it to the detective, who can then produce a "miracle" solution, denying the reader a chance to figure the mystery out themselves. (Note that modern Sherlock Holmes authors have dumped this in favor of letting the much more sophisticated audience in on the investigation. And the film "Murder by Death" skewers this, along with other early- and mid-century detective cliches, things like 'evidence' presented in the Big Get Together Where the Detective Reveals All, my big pet peeve, as, particularly in Christie, the evidence is absolutely circumstantial and all the guilty party has to do is not confess right there and any barrister or lawyer could easily get them acquitted.)

Readers hate being tricked, they hate being lied to about POV characters (it is VERY hard to write a first-person mystery from the perspective of the killer without letting on they are the killer, though there is a movie, a much easier medium for this, which does so very effectively) and they don't like being left hanging. They want to find out if what they've figured out about things is basically right, even if some inconsequential parts are left up to the immagination. (The sex lives of second-tier characters are generally inconsequential. Whether or not the narrator's sister really committed suicide or not as he's spent the entire book investigating is pretty major and they'd like some resolution.)

[Ghyle]

You're both talking about reliability in narrators. Must we have, that is, characters who do not lie, are not deluded, or otherwise incapable of the utmost verity towards the readers? I still say no.

It works, and it can work well, when handled well. Take Lolita, for example: Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and, as a result, reading the indications that he is such is a delight to the astute.

Of course, then, there should be indicators that not all is not rotten in Denmark, as it were, but such should be handled carefully, with subtlety and skill.

[Ryuu]

You're both talking about reliability in narrators. Must we have, that is, characters who do not lie, are not deluded, or otherwise incapable of the utmost verity towards the readers?:blink: ..... I was going to respond to your post, but I just saw that the new smilies have been powered up:dazed: .....

.... anyhow, back to topic, if you note, you'll also see that we have mentioned characters who are permitted to lie all that they want.

I still say no.

It works, and it can work well, when handled well. Take Lolita, for example: Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and, as a result, reading the indications that he is such is a delight to the astute.

Of course, then, there should be indicators that not all is not rotten in Denmark, as it were, but such should be handled carefully, with subtlety and skill.Well, it is true that there are writers who have not only balked the standard formula, but have shot up the entire rules book--a few authors might even have the talent and skill to be successful at doing so, & whose numbers could perhaps collectively actually fit them all inside a small janitor's closet--with room to spare--the caveat being with no doubt very strong emphasis on the last 10 words of your post:D

matters of taste might factor in to some of that, as well....

.....back :ot: rest assured, Grey Bear, I shall endeavor to use the ": PMD :" QUITE SPARINGLY :crazy:

[Anareth]

Well, it is true that there are writers who have not only balked the standard formula, but have shot up the entire rules book--a few authors might even have the tallent and skill to be successful at doing so, & whose numbers could perhaps collectively actually fit them all inside a small janitor's closet--with room to spare--the caveat being with no doubt very strong emphasis on the last 10 words of your post

Not to mention you still seem to not be getting that there's a difference between an unreliable NARRATOR and an unreliable AUTHOR. Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, but we *know* that as readers because Nabakov isn't an unreliable writer. There's never any doubt for the reader that we are not supposed to be unreservedly cheering this creep on, or that his perspective may be skewed. Characters do not have be perfect, but the information they give to the reader has to be honest. The narrator character can make a mistake, but the reader is going to need to find that out eventually. Even when a book is entirely in the first person, an AUTHOR does not lie to his readers, even if a NARRATOR does.

[Ryuu]

Not to mention you still seem to not be getting that there's a difference between an unreliable NARRATOR and an unreliable AUTHOR. Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, but we *know* that as readers because Nabakov isn't an unreliable writer.Perhaps.

But then, I've never read anything by Humbert Humbert. But I have heard of Lolita. Anyone that's ever been in a bookstore with an adult section in the last twenty years or so, much less worked in one, could not NOT heard of Lolita. Well over 50% of the titles has "Lolita" in them:roll: although, I never did see the "original" in stock.

since you're the better expert on it than I, Anareth, then I'll let you explain:D

[Ghyle]

Characters do not have be perfect, but the information they give to the reader has to be honest.

Let us, if we will, focus for the moment upon this.

If there is an unreliable narrator, then the information given to the reader is inherently dishonest. It is through details that we can begin to question the narrator, of course, but this does not mean that the narrator is neccesarily having to be honest, just that, if I may, the lies are getting tangled together.

As for the difference between an unreliable narrator and an unreliable authoor, isn't the difference properly between un unreliable narrator and an unreliable text?

[Anareth]

Let us, if we will, focus for the moment upon this.

If there is an unreliable narrator, then the information given to the reader is inherently dishonest. It is through details that we can begin to question the narrator, of course, but this does not mean that the narrator is neccesarily having to be honest, just that, if I may, the lies are getting tangled together.

As for the difference between an unreliable narrator and an unreliable authoor, isn't the difference properly between un unreliable narrator and an unreliable text?

The second part is bandying semantics. The author creates everything, text and narrator. They can create an unreliable narrator, but they shouldn't be creating a story that's inherently unreliable. (Unless that's completely the point, and there you must be very careful because, again, readers like to be surprised but they do NOT like to be tricked. If they are lead to expect one thing and you deliver another, there had better be in-text justification that makes sense on rereading when the reader knows what to look for. Dropping stuff in because, "Ha! I'm so clever, bet you didn't see THAT coming!" just pisses readers off and makes them not want to read you, and having people want to read you is the reason to write. Or at the very least the reason to publish.)

And the narrator is not the sole source of information. Reading a novel is not the equivalent of having a conversation in real life, where all we have is the other person. Tone, text, vocabulary, what we can see from a detached perspective that the narrative character can't (even if they 'see' it in the sense of describing it), our previous experience with books in the same genre or by the same author or in the same series, all provide information to the reader that may or may not line up perfectly with what the narrator is telling us. We are not relying only on what the narrator character tells us, even if it's the first person, because the author choses the manner in which the information is presented. They can create the impression that the narrator is trustworthy, that they are untrustworthy, that they're biased or not, as they please. But they should NOT be keeping their reader in the dark about which it is. There should be enough that a reader can get the drift at least, without having to strain TOO hard. Even if they have to go back and reread and say, "Ah-ha, now I understand what that really meant," those textual hints should be in there. Otherwise you're not telling a story, you're engaging in a con game with readers as the victims.

[T'ley]

There are degrees of consistency.

I'll use my own 'real fic' as an example. If I say in book one, in passing, that Alan grew up on State Street, and the issue doesn't come up until five books later and it becomes Central Avenue, that's a minor goof. I *should* fix it, but the world won't end if I don't. If, however, it's somewhat important in book one that he can't use his powers on anything not in his direct line of sight, and then in book three he torches something three blocks away and behind a building, and I don't come up with a DAMN good reason for why he can do that all of a sudden, I just made a big authorial boo-boo.

In a short story: there is no acceptable degree of inconsistency. In a short, you have no room for errors of any kind. That's why it's, frankly, a lot harder to write than a novel. You have to do everything a novel does with more punch and fewer words.

A novella: Ditto. You are still not dealing with enough space.

A novel: Still important. Tiny discrepancies can slide through, but I would say it's too much even if you forget someone is left-handed.

In a series: See example above.

As a writer: I keep track. I pay attention to what I've written. If I'm not sure about something, I go back and check. I try not to set too many things in stone (if it makes it to the final draft, that is stone.) But if something radically alters continuity, it's not important. It's bad writing, and I need to go back and change it, not be lazy and hope no one notices.

If a plot element is important, it won't screw up your continuity.

I aggree with this. Aim for perfection; readers expect it.

[T'ley]

Anareth, have you posted it? Will you post it? It sounds interesting!!!! Do we get to read it?

[Ghyle]

Ideally, there should be a reader that can read everything exactly the way we want them to, but unfortunately.... I guess the question must be achieving a balance, then, and demanding exactly what we want from the readers available. I also suppose that here I am demanding a correspondingly greater knowledge from readers as well, with knowledge equivalent or greater than my own, and the ability to read more subtlely than not.

I agree that, ideally, there should be those clues, and that the ideal reader shouldn't strain to hard at getting them, but the question remains: how hard is too hard?

The second part is bandying semantics. The author creates everything, text and narrator.

I refuse to go back to the author as the final arbiter of the text. As far as I'm concerned, the author serves primarily as amenuensis for it, and that the text as it is is the final arbiter of any approaches towards it. This is not semantics, but a crucial aspect of my philosophy of the text, one which determines in part my critical, aesthetic, and creative approach to any work.

I am worth less than the words I write, in other words, and I exist, in essence, as this and other texts, not as a fleshly human behind them.

[Anareth]

You're not demanding knowledge, you're demanding mind-reading. That or you think readers want everything to be choose-your-own-adventure. The reader filters text, they don't create it. They may disagree with something because of their worldview, but that doesn't mean the author is wrong and they are right. The author is the owner and can do more or less what they like, but they have an obligation to the reader to be consistent in what they do. The author creates the world, the reader just plays in it at most. And the majority of readers don't even do that--they simply read, are entertained, and forget. But particularly in the SF/F genre, you are writing for the smaller but more potentially devoted group who play, and they are the ones who expect consistency. And many of them would stringently disagree with you about who makes the final call--it's the author's responsibility to create the book, and if they make a mistake, these readers will call them on it.

And the idea of an inanimate object, text, deciding anything, is absurd. The text is nothing but what the author types. Nothing in it exists without the author. The author can go through and make any changes they feel like making, and can aim for whatever meaning they choose. For the average genre fiction author, that's not anything deep or profound, just a good story that readers will enjoy. Glaring internal inconsistencies reduce that enjoyment, in some cases driving readers away. And since the reader, to someone who makes their living writing, which is the case with the vast majority of genre authors today, is the CONSUMER, the smart writer does their best to make sure the reader does not want to walk away. The inability of an author to remember from one book to the next, or worse, one chapter to the next, what characters have done, said, been, or even whether they're alive or dead, makes a lot of readers not want to bother. In a saturated market, the author can't afford that unless they are one of the extreme few who sell because of their name, not the quality. And that reputation only holds for so long.

To be honest, Ghyle, you sound like you're talking about capital-L Literature, and the mentality of the academics who read it. Which has its place, but it is, by and large, not a profitable one, not a widespread one, and has very little to do with what the majority of people here write, which is genre or mainstream fiction. Authors of the later category are in a business, not an art. We write to entertain and make as much of a living as we can. Kevin Anderson (I may not like his writing but I have to give him credit for persistence) might have gone a bit over the top when he referred to writing for a franchise as 'flipping burgers', and he certainly insulted the fans who were buttering his bread by saying it, but he was right in the sense that writers, especially in genre and franchise work, are professionals out to make money. I have several friends who do this (I don't make a living at it, but I try), who do it quite successfully, including one who has a Hugo and a Nebulla (yes, the same awards Anne has only much more recent), all of whom would be glad to back me up. You are writing for the consumer, and you have to turn out a product that will satisfy them. You don't have to be mistake-free, but you do have to avoid continuity errors as much as you possibly can because that DOES annoy the reader. You cannot assume the reader is mind-reading, is making up the story as they go, or that they want to be left with no idea what is true and what is not. Even in his profoundly confusing yet addictive "A Song of Ice And Fire", George RR Martin gives the readers hints and evidence about what is true, or whether there even IS truth, in a situation, and he rarely leaves you hanging too long within a book about what is really happening. He gives you plenty of realism (just being one of the 'good guys' is not going to keep you alive in this seris) but he doesn't do it with the arbitrariness of real life. Randomness, realism at the expense of drama, and complete witholding of evidence important to the plot are devices that Literature authors do in the name of Art and Realism, but they do not as a rule belong in SF/F, Mystery, Horror, or the even more coventionalized Romance genre. You are writing for the audience the reads your genre, and ESPECIALLY in SF/F, they are detail freaks. You must know your market, and the SF/F market is increasingly picky about what it will accept as good.

T'ley--if you mean the story from which I'm citing examples, sorry, it's profic, and I don't post it on-line because that can play havoc with ownership rights. It's a novel in rewrite right now, but if/when it sells I will be certain to let the NKT know. (Given I've never sold anything longer than a short story, if/when it sells you will probably hear me screaming from where you are. ;) )

[Ghyle]

You're not demanding knowledge, you're demanding mind-reading.
By no means. Reading is not a passive process, and I am trying to emphasise this fact.

The reader filters text, they don't create it.
Exactly. In my model, the reader is the locus for interpretation, where the context created by the text is turned into meaning. That is, the text needs the reader for its meaning, otherwise it is just a text.

The author is the owner and can do more or less what they like, but they have an obligation to the reader to be consistent in what they do.

The author is the creator, and as such has recognised moral rights to the work, but that author is no more the owner of our reading of that work than it is of the filmed versions of that work. They have no obligation to be consistent; but it helps, it is a courtesy not a necessity.

It is like saying that all science fiction other than counterfactuals must be set in the future, that it is an obligation; which, clearly from Verne and Crichton, it is not.

it's the author's responsibility to create the book, and if they make a mistake, these readers will call them on it.

The author's job is to create the text, the publisher to make and distribute the book, the reader to read it. Don't forget the input of editors and printers into the equation.

And the idea of an inanimate object, text, deciding anything, is absurd.

By no means. When I pick up a book, it could be about anything. It is when I read that the limitless choices collapse through the text's contextuality into a limited, more defined reading. So when I read a Dick I am not reading Hemingway (though some may differ). It decides the way that a road decides the directions we travel, or an escalator the direction: we have to choice to get on or not, but we should not demand it goes elsewhere other than it does.


The text is nothing but what the author types.

Don't forget editors and printers.

If the author is final arbiter of the text, that is, the author decides all to do with the text, then the smart writer that does not want the reader to walk away is abdicating responsibility for the text.

There are places for responsible writers that write to please the public, and there are places for those who write the best they can achieve before thinking about their public. Which, though, will last? To paraphrase Villon, where are the Kings of yesteryear?

The inability of an author to remember from one book to the next, or worse, one chapter to the next, what characters have done, said, been, or even whether they're alive or dead, makes a lot of readers not want to bother.

We actually agree on some things, though. Lapses in physical detail, such as place, description, eye colours, and events--where not reported--should be avoided, yes, and I have agreed with you on this. Where we seem to differ is the degree to which a character can prove inconsistent through statements, which is where my emphasis on the applicability, not the desirability, may be the cause of so much of our anguish.

To be honest, Ghyle, you sound like you're talking about capital-L Literature, and the mentality of the academics who read it. Which has its place, but it is, by and large, not a profitable one, not a widespread one, and has very little to do with what the majority of people here write, which is genre or mainstream fiction.

I read it. I write it. I write about it. I am concerned in seeing it as less of a ghetto, and as a mode that can transform our vision of the worlds. I am as much involved in genre literature, and mainstream literature, as you. But my main choice is poetry, which doesn't sell as well, and I hold certain values higher than that need to make sales.

This doesn't mean that I should abandon theory, which I haven't. As a scholar and critic I need that, to anchor my response to texts as I read them. It results in me looking at a Bear book as a thing in itself, and not another product, that I react to the book, and not to the author. It's important.

I understand your professional ethic when it comes to your fiction, and I salute and respect it. I would like similar consideration for my emphasis upon writing the best I can do, and for considering my audience as equals and as intelligent.

if/when it sells you will probably hear me screaming from where you are. ;) )

I would love to be there when you do start screaming. You deserve every success at what you do.

[McClance]

Here is an example of a "bad" inconsistancy, sort of what I was trying bring out in my first post on this thread:

In Chapter 19 of All the Weyrs of Pern, N'ton, who's suppose to be riding bronze Lioth, is found riding bronze Monarth, who is T'gellan's bronze. And everyone--including Ruth--goes about like this is just normal. Now, I'm sure Anne really met Lioth, so I wasn't really all that confused.

But it's inconsistancies like that that aren't good.

[Ryuu]

The author's job is to create the text, the publisher to make and distribute the book, the reader to read it. Don't forget the input of editors and printers into the equation.It's still the author's responsibility--if an editor or printer inserts a gaffe into the writing, it still falls upon the author to get them to make corrections (even if the editor or printer might not even bother to listen)

It decides the way that a road decides the directions we travel, or an escalator the direction: we have to choice to get on or not, but we should not demand it goes elsewhere other than it does.I like your road analogy, but I have to ask...say what?!?...Sorry, Ghyle, but a road (or a book) don't decide ****! It's YOU, in your role as the reader or the traveler, which decides where you're going to go! A road is plotted out by a planner (equivalent to your author in this analogy), laid down by surveyors and engineers (equivalent to your editor & printer), and any bumps, unexpected swerves & the like are your equivalent to the typos and other errors--but all and all, a road, like a book, only directs your path. But only YOU get to choose to take it or not, which direction you want to go, change your route, or even go off-road if you've got the gumption and the four-wheel drive. And if the accumulation of errors in the road are so severe, you the traveler will either choose to take another road, turn around, or even try off road without that four-wheel drive!

If the author is final arbiter of the text, that is, the author decides all to do with the text, then the smart writer that does not want the reader to walk away is abdicating responsibility for the text.Just how is it that the reader has ANY responsibility for the text (except in the event of classified documents--which is a completely different beast)??? The author is solely responsible, even if he/she has to delegate the authority to modify the text to an editor & printer, responsibility CANNOT be delegated to anyone.

And the reader has NO responsibility to the text whatsoever...the reader is not REQUIRED to read it at all. In the event of classified documents, the reader's only responsibility is to ensure unauthorized disclosure is prevented--beyond that--nothing! In addition, in the event of classified documents, the AUTHOR is responsible for clearing marking the documents as such, not the reader, and not even the editor or printer--trust me, on this I can fully vouch!

But to answer your point, the smart writer will make his/her work as attractive as possible to the reader. The writer can only entice the reader to consume the work by a proper selection of spelling, grammar, subject matter, characterization, scenery, and consistency. Trust me, this does not limit the author as you you might think, or as any theory might insist--within this formula, there's a HUGE and WIDE range of options, like a paint pallet with an infinite amount of colors available to the author.

The only restraints suffered by the author is what the author chooses for him/herself, including those that are done by commission--the author is ultimately the final chooser on the text.

[Ghyle]

It's still the author's responsibility--if an editor or printer inserts a gaffe into the writing, it still falls upon the author to get them to make corrections (even if the editor or printer might not even bother to listen)

Editors and printers, can, have, and do, alter the text, often without an author knowing. Such has happened to Jack Vance that there's the Vance Integral Edition, listing the author's preferred text, after more than half a century of writing. In the publishing process, the author is not the final arbiter of the text in all cases; I'm also a published author.

I like your road analogy, but I have to ask...say what?!?...Sorry, Ghyle, but a road (or a book) don't decide ****!

Not if you demand that it has a will and the ability to actively decide. But following a road means we go on a certain path in space, no other, just as reading a book means we follow the path it follows in its rhetoric, narrative, what have you.

But only YOU get to choose to take it or not, which direction you want to go, change your route, or even go off-road if you've got the gumption and the four-wheel drive.

Within limits. If you're in a city, you cannot literally drive through buildings to take an alternate route, and you cannot literally drive through trees or the sides of mountains. Yes, you can choose to take it, by picking up the book, the direction, and so forth, but you are still constrained by the text. Any reading of The Hobbit that treates it like Pern is ridiculous, for example.

Just how is it that the reader has ANY responsibility for the text (execpt in the event of classified documents--which is a completely different beast)???

I didn't say the reader takes responsibility, I said the writer abdicates responsibility. Two different things.

The writer can abdicate to market pressures, editors, perceived morals, perceived reader demands, and the like. Case in point: Great Expectations.

And the reader has NO responsibility to the text whatsoever...the reader is not REQUIRED to read it at all.

If the reader is to read the text, the read must read it in such a fashion as to not distort the context of the meaning of the text. We should not complain, then, that Animal Farm is not a love story, or that The Origin of the Species has minimal characterisation. There's are examples where a reader can be irresponsible, and demand something of a text that is not there.

[Anareth]

The text, like the road, may only lead one way, but the text or the road has no responsibility. The road was laid out by the engineer, who was usually told where it was going. The text was written by the author, who decides what it says.

Authors do get galley prints. Typos, omissions, and inverts are the author's responsibility to catch--think of how many books typesetters and copy editors see. I've reviewed galleys for friends, and mistakes happen, but that's why you check them. The only MAJOR mistake I can think of recently that an author really missed was the American printing of 'Goblet of Fire', and Jo Rowling doesn't always see the US galleys. (For trivia buffs--in the first print run, in the chapter "Priori Incantatem" James and Lily come out of Voldemort's want in the wrong order. The error was spotted and corrected in subsequent printings.) Having two publishers on two different continents, though, is not a common situation.

And cases like Dickens and, more famously, Conan Doyle and the ressurrection of Sherlock Holmes are rare, but they also make my point that this is a business, not an art. Ultimately they bowed to market pressure, especially in Conan Doyle's case (his attempt at 'serious literature' was of course an abject failure.) The readers determined the text only in the sense the authors realized they'd be more profitable giving the public what they want. In Dickens' case, maybe it didn't make a better story, but he was not in a position to go for 'realism' over 'royalties'. In Conan Doyle's case it simply forced him to accept where his real talents and bread and butter were.

[Shalyn]

Within limits. If you're in a city, you cannot literally drive through buildings to take an alternate route, and you cannot literally drive through trees or the sides of mountains. Yes, you can choose to take it, by picking up the book, the direction, and so forth, but you are still constrained by the text.

But the driver has the choice to get out of the car and walk on the sidewalks, or go through the buildings. Or in the woods. There's always a choice. As there is a choice in reading - you can choose to put the book down. Which is what will happen if a writer purposely misleads the reader.

(BTW - Ryuu - I loved your road analogy. Very good.)

[leahiniowa]

Oh boy, here I am with 12 hours of sleep over 4 days and I'm entering this thread a bit late in the game.

I'm going to post a few different times to respond to various comments.

OK, before I start discussing inconsistent narrators, Ryuu, could you please edit your first post and change all the "naration" typos to "narration"? Once I get into my nit picking mode even a left out "r" gets on my nerves a bit.

And I also want to preface any comments that I make with the fact that I am OCD about consistency for my own writing and that which I edit. I am generous about other people's writing, especially when it involves a series of books which have evolved over decades, but you can be sure the little computer in leah's head is ticking off all the mistakes. I'm always doing math to see how old people are when things happen, etc.

Unrealiable narrators. You gotta love them when they're well done. My favorite is Nelly Dean from Wuthering Heights. What a hypocritical self righteous B*tch.

[leahiniowa]

Lolita was written by Nabokov. I think Vladimir Nabokov, but I am practically (G-d forbid) brain dead from exhaustion and too tired to go look it up.

Humbert Humbert is the perv narrator, who likes little girls.

You can tell he's a loser almost immediately from his smarmy narration.

But heart shaped sunglasses are cool.

[leahiniowa]

"The "first person perspective" character might be able to lie through his teeth to all the other characters in the story, but he/she must never lie to the reader.--"

BTW, Nelly Dean, as mentioned above, is speaking to the real narrator, but - and this is really cool - the narrator has just moved to the country b/c HE HAS HAD A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN!

And Ryuu, what did you do to Jarod really?

[leahiniowa]

"You can no longer get away with Conan Doyle and Christie's worst authorial sin, which is concealing evidence from the reader but giving it to the detective, who can then produce a "miracle" solution, denying the reader a chance to figure the mystery out themselves."

This doesn't bother me about C. Doyle, b/c what I find fascinating is that the stories use a masculine type of thinking to come to a conclusion that a woman would have immediately understood intuitively - using the same clues but not having to meditate upon them using the power of deduction.

[leahiniowa]

"To be honest, Ghyle, you sound like you're talking about capital-L Literature, and the mentality of the academics who read it. Which has its place, but it is, by and large, not a profitable one, not a widespread one, and has very little to do with what the majority of people here write, which is genre or mainstream fiction. Authors of the later category are in a business, not an art. We write to entertain and make as much of a living as we can."

Actually, Anareth, I disagree. There are a FEW writers who can create a world which is so fascinating I will set aside my expectations for fiction as craft and art, but in general I expect better.

And it doesn't have to be "Literature." Have you read Bag of Bones by Stephen King? Or Hannibal by Thomas Harris? If you have, and can't see the artistry in them, let me know, and I'll try to summarize.

Bag of Bones should be easy. In Hannibal - think Xian vs. pagan imagery. See if you can find the River Styx.

[leahiniowa]

"The writer can abdicate to market pressures, editors, perceived morals, perceived reader demands, and the like. Case in point: Great Expectations."

'Splain, Ghyle. I thought the standard ending of Great Expec. was the ending where Esme is unhappy and runs into Pip on a street corner or something (no, not hooking, in a carriage). I thought he DID write a "and they lived happily ever after" and considered using it to make his readers happy (anyway, Dickens was a storyteller who got paid by the word) but then changed his mind. Or is the sleep deprivation finally doing it to me?

[Ghyle]

The text, like the road, may only lead one way, but the text or the road has no responsibility. The road was laid out by the engineer, who was usually told where it was going. The text was written by the author, who decides what it says.

An analogy only works so far before the details make it entirely untenable. I'm surprised no-one's mentioned fire hydrants yet, and what role they play in a novel. :)

The author does not decide what the text says: that's part of the process of interpretation, where the reader determines what it says, to the reader. I have no power to make you read my words in any fashion, nor can I make you determine what they mean to you. All I can do is write, hope they mean something to me, and to you, and nothing more.

Authors do get galley prints. Typos, omissions, and inverts are the author's responsibility to catch

I'm not talking errors, either editorial or printer. I'm talking deliberate changes, which was common to many science fiction books, even to major authors, like Vance, et al., committed without author permission or consent. It's usually a result of over-zealous copy-editing.

And cases like Dickens and, more famously, Conan Doyle and the ressurrection of Sherlock Holmes are rare, but they also make my point that this is a business, not an art.

It is a business to those for whom it is a business, and an art for those to whom it is an art. You cannot apply the same, mercantile, standards to every text, and every publication. Nor can you to every writer.

This does not mean that writers must abdicate a professional outlook. I know that I will never be a commecial success, yet I continue to write, and continue to try and get published. Why? Because publication gives a better chance at preservation, and more pleasure to more people. Does this mean I'm an amateur? By no means: although I have ideals, live them and act them out, I still maintain a professional outlook commensurate with my worldview, type of activity, and position.

Simply: I don't want profit, I want publication.

Your model, naturally, fails to account for academic journals which, though professional, fail to uphold to the ideals of a business--making profit.

[Ghyle]

'Splain, Ghyle. I thought the standard ending of Great Expec. was the ending where Esme is unhappy and runs into Pip on a street corner or something (no, not hooking, in a carriage). I thought he DID write a "and they lived happily ever after" and considered using it to make his readers happy (anyway, Dickens was a storyteller who got paid by the word) but then changed his mind. Or is the sleep deprivation finally doing it to me?

The standard ending is where Pip runs into Estella in the ruins of Satis House, and there's the chance of happy ever after. The original version--changed at a friend's insistence that it wasn't a happy ending, not at readers' demands--had him reject that possibility.

It may be the sleep deprivation. Close your eyes and think happy thoughts....

I'll tiptoe away now....:shhh:

[Ryuu]

Well, Leah, if you’re going to be picky, you should do a good job at it:D you missed consitsancy, neccessary, charcter, suposed, delerious, tallent, endevor, equivelant, surveyers, cumulation, execpt, resposibility, a double you, forumla, commision--I had to fix ALL my posts now that you got me started…but at least I’m consistent with my inconsistancies;) although, some of that came from my fingers typing at different speeds from each other:blush:

Now you see why I hate English?

And Ryuu, what did you do to Jarod really?you’ll see in like…Part 30 or thereabouts :D

The author does not decide what the text says: that's part of the process of interpretation, where the reader determines what it says, to the reader. I have no power to make you read my words in any fashion, nor can I make you determine what they mean to you. All I can do is write, hope they mean something to me, and to you, and nothing more.for the sake of my sanity, I'm off the PC bandwagon for this post....I'm not trying to make gender-specific generalizations--it's just easier to type "him" or "her" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun (since such a thing doesn't properly exist for referencing humans in English)

True, an author might not have the words to properly express himself, but if the author writes narration stating:

George shot Manning in the chest from across the room

but that the detective wrote in his notes that the wound was pointblank into the head, and every reference the detective makes was that the injury was to the head--the narration makes no further mention of this fact and you only get info from the perspective of the detective from this moment on....

The reader might interpret it to have been an error in the author's writing, bad editing, typeset, whatever, and she comes to believe Manning was shot in the head, then...what..?

Perhaps here is an example of an inconsistent author--unless the author makes a point at somewhere that either the detective bungled his job--Let's introduce one more detail:

During the booking at the police station, the detective argues George should get the death penalty for the execution-style shooting of Manning. George panics and confesses that yes, he did shoot Manning, but the room was dark, he thought he saw a gun in Manning's hand, and since Manning came in a window, George thought Manning was a burglar.

Now the reader's going: "But wait! The guy was shot in the HEAD!"

As a result, either the reader feels cheated, or when she goes back over the story, finds the narrative stating otherwise--this would be a case that, as you pointed out, characterization might lie to the audience, but as Anareth and I said, narration should never lie--both what you and we have said are valid points about consistency and are confirmed by this example. But without the supporting elements to the "facts" (the initial statement how George shot Manning, and then his confession) the reader really would be cheated by bad writing. If, after finding this fact, she still insists that the wound was to the head, it’s the reader’s error--not the author’s--the meaning the author intended, even if it conflicts with the reader's interpretation, is the correct one.

I'm not talking errors, either editorial or printer. I'm talking deliberate changes, which was common to many science fiction books, even to major authors, like Vance, et al., committed without author permission or consent. It's usually a result of over-zealous copy-editing.It would still have behoove Vance to have got his agent to rip into the editor or whoever ****ed it up...I can't say it would've done any good, given that SciFi authors weren't highly considered back when Vance was writing. SciFi at that time mostly appeared in Pulp mags (even Asimov suffered, and eventually he created his own Pulp mag) so hack editors abounded.

Or, let's return to the above example: During publication, the editor does change the narration to now state George shot Manning pointblank in the head...(assume the reader from the above example was the editor, and changes it because her interpretation insists the author was wrong)…certainly, the author has a obligation to get his agent to scream at the publication house about what idiots they’ve got working there, since it was the intent of the author that a subtle clue be the core of the story.

It is a business to those for whom it is a business, and an art for those to whom it is an art. You cannot apply the same, mercantile, standards to every text, and every publication. Nor can you to every writer.

This does not mean that writers must abdicate a professional outlook. I know that I will never be a commercial success, yet I continue to write, and continue to try and get published. Why? Because publication gives a better chance at preservation, and more pleasure to more people. Does this mean I'm an amateur? By no means: although I have ideals, live them and act them out, I still maintain a professional outlook commensurate with my worldview, type of activity, and position.

Simply: I don't want profit, I want publication.

Your model, naturally, fails to account for academic journals which, though professional, fail to uphold to the ideals of a business--making profit.
Our models were based on genre-fiction, be they Sci-Fi, Westerns, Romance, what-have-you. Journals, news articles, science text books, and the like have their own standards that have to be followed--characterizations are virtually non-existent in such media--but the simple fact is: you still can't LIE to the reader, especially in those publications. (Well, news journalists sometimes do, but they eventually get caught--recent scandals can attest to that)

[Anareth]

Exactly, Ryuu. (When have we EVER agreed on so much?) Peer-review journals are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, though I disagree there's no profit motive, except for the rare amateur/hobbyist who tries for one--the majority of people writing for them are in 'publish or perish' professions where the profit isn't necessarily money but prestige and/or requirements for keeping one's job. (Many of whom like to use poor undergraduates as their slave labor in producing said papers, but never mind the long story of the praying mantids and the biology professor.) One reason I dropped out of academia--I see no point in bothering with publications only a tiny minority of highly specialised fellow academics will read. But in those cases as Ryuu says there is even LESS chance to lie and even fewer areas open to interpretation.

The problem with Conan Doyle's method is you don't see how Holmes's mind works. Conan Doyle deliberately hides clues from "Dr Watson" and by extension the reader, who even if they ARE as smart as Holmes (or as full of dubiously accurate trivia, anyway) they don't get to take a crack at solving the mystery--they get the explanation handed to them at the end. (And I disagree there's such a thing as a woman's way of thinking versus a man's--not to mention if it is as intuitive as you describe it's even more useless for crime solving than Christie's completely circumstantial cases because it can't lead to conclusive proof, either, and therefore ultimately the conviction of the guilty. But that's another post.)

The only King I've read is some of "On Writing" and the only Harris the last five chapters of Hannibal to see if what I'd heard about Hannibal and Clarice were true. (It was. Shivers. Yet good shivers.) No real interest in reading either any further. To give you some idea, I just finished reading Robin Paige's "Death at Bishop's Keep" and am now slogging, and I do mean slogging, though Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose." (He took three pages to describe a door. This door had damn well better be important later.) Next up I am forcing myself to read "Stranger in a Strange Land." I feel obliged to read all three of the Grandest of the Grand Masters and haven't managed Heinlein yet. The only Asimov I like are nonfiction and short stories. I have never managed to finish "Foundation." I have never finished ANYTHING by Clarke that wasn't non-fiction.

As Ryuu says, we are by and large talking from the perspective of genre fiction. The vast, overwhelming majority of it isn't art. Even some that gets hailed as artistic isn't viewed by the authors as such. There is, I suppose, a certain poetry to Martin (if one likes bloody poetry) but it's more importantly a cracking good yarn.

And I just fail to see the point of writing without intent to sell. Why I quit poetry. I write excellent poetry, if I do say so myself (and David Amram says so, so I feel confirmed in my opinion) but there's no real money in it. Someday, perhaps, if I have enough clout with some poor publisher I'll put the Holocaust stuff in a coffee-table book, but otherwise I don't see the point of investing the effort. That or I'll go back to school yet again, get an MFA, and teach English and force the poor school to print it.

I would rather an author put the effort into telling a good story than into trying to sound pretty or worse, avant-garde. (Again--firm follower of "The Reader's Manifesto" here.) I know lots of books that sounded pretty where I got bored sick. We are entertainers. If we aren't entertaining anyone except a few self-serving academics and the book critic at the New York Times, what's the point? Maybe it comes from being primarily a visual thinker, but I want the book to show me what's happening, not lecture me to death about it. (I can tell already Sgr. Eco and I are going to have issues here. I may give up and go back to his travels with a salmon instead if this book doesn't pick up soon.)

[leahiniowa]

You know, this is really scary. It's 11 pm and I STILL cannot sleep. I'm trying wine. Think it will work? Stay tuned for tomorrow folks . . .

First, Anareth, how old are you? for some reason I thought you were in the 17-19 yr old range. If you abandoned academia at THAT age, well, let's just say that patience is a virtue. I personally abandoned it at 29.

I mentioned Harris and King to make a point, which is that you can make art AND sell. Whether you like it or not is moot, IMO. But I strongly suggest you read the two books I mentioned, FROM THE BEGINNING. From what I know of you I think you would enjoy them and finally I would have someone to discuss them with me in an intelligent fashion.

Ryuu, did you write Eats, Shoots and Leaves? I loved your snippet of fiction, and if I'd had more sleep not only would I have noticed all those other typos but I would have put it in the Pearls thread.

[Kath]

Peer-review journals are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, though I disagree there's no profit motive, except for the rare amateur/hobbyist who tries for one--the majority of people writing for them are in 'publish or perish' professions where the profit isn't necessarily money but prestige and/or requirements for keeping one's job. (Many of whom like to use poor undergraduates as their slave labor in producing said papers, but never mind the long story of the praying mantids and the biology professor.) One reason I dropped out of academia--I see no point in bothering with publications only a tiny minority of highly specialised fellow academics will read. But in those cases as Ryuu says there is even LESS chance to lie and even fewer areas open to interpretation.

Oh dear god. I'm one of those lucky few who's still subject to the publish-or-perish academic world (Most recent paper submitted to MNRAS yesterday, yay!). Great fun, isn't it? But the great advantage of a peer reviewed paper is that we get the chance to idiot-proof it for all those inconsistencies. A colleague of mine refereed a dreadful paper yesterday though, littered with some awful sentences along the lines of "This [WHAT?] implies [HOW?] a relationship going as \rho^-3 [WHY? AND YOU HAVN'T EVEN DEFINED RHO ANYWHERE YET!]". There were 62 pages of it, but we had a lot of laughs. The main problem with these kind of publications is that people don't always learn from their mistakes, get their inexperienced students to write huge sections (which is great for the student, so long as it gets checked at sme point!), or heaven forbid, write the whole thing piecemeal by commitee.

[Ryuu]

You know, this is really scary. It's 11 pm and I STILL cannot sleep. I'm trying wine. Think it will work? Stay tuned for tomorrow folks . . . no...what's REALLY scary is what Anareth said:

Exactly, Ryuu. (When have we EVER agreed on so much?)yeah :erm: spooky, ain't it?

Next up I am forcing myself to read "Stranger in a Strange Land." I feel obliged to read all three of the Grandest of the Grand Masters and haven't managed Heinlein yet. The only Asimov I like are nonfiction and short stories. I have never managed to finish "Foundation." I have never finished ANYTHING by Clarke that wasn't non-fiction.didn't you just get through saying something about us agreeing so much? :eek:

*Ryuu flies off screaming into the night*

As Ryuu says, we are by and large talking from the perspective of genre fiction. The vast, overwhelming majority of it isn't art. Even some that gets hailed as artistic isn't viewed by the authors as such. There is, I suppose, a certain poetry to Martin (if one likes bloody poetry) but it's more importantly a cracking good yarn.I've always given a little to the benefit of the doubt on the artistic value of work, even if I personally don't think the **** is any good. And true, there's a lot of "Formula" creeping into the markets, but I still think an author with any talent can provide fresh stories.

And I just fail to see the point of writing without intent to sell.Other than perhaps FanFiction, which is at least a means by which an author can develop and polish his skills, this is an excellent point. No matter how innovative and creative an author is, if he doesn't appeal to a large portion of the population, then he's not going to sell much--at least not until after he dies--and this fact alone is much the reason why "Formula" exists.

Ryuu, did you write Eats, Shoots and Leaves? I loved your snippet of fiction, and if I'd had more sleep not only would I have noticed all those other typos but I would have put it in the Pearls thread."Eats, Shoots and Leaves"--I've no idea what that is. The example I wrote just popped out of my head. But if that story is anything like it, let me know where I can find it. I think I'd like trying a poke at it.

[Anareth]

I'm 27, Leah. I already have a Master's degree. Back in school again learning to do something practical instead. (As many a chef's parent has told the budding chef, "People will always have to eat." Now I just have to resist the urge to get into writing tomes about food history, though I suppose if I aimed for the popular market instead I wouldn't have to sound so stuffy.) Should've switched to geology--could have been making big money working for an oil company by now. But noooo, I had to stay in the anthro department. Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Honestly? I've never had any interest in King, and the whole Silence of the Lambs thing just never grabbed me. When it comes to stuff I don't feel (like Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov) I HAVE to read, it has to be very, very character-driven with fairly snappy writing or I check out. (Eco's a chore, but I'm hoping that the ending will somehow make more sense than the movie.) Description in any great detail makes me zone out (yes, I can't stand Tolkien. It's like reading a AAA Triptych. I'll take Lewis any day.)

Ryuu....EEEK! I don't think it's quite a sign of the end times if we agree on something, but it's probably up there. "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" is a grammer book whose title comes from a misplaced comma on a zoo label (the cover has a panda with a gun.)

Kath--and you're in a scary academic division. I never made it past intro physics and intro calc. Astronomy has too many numbers for me!

[leahiniowa]

Anareth, we seem to have a lot in common.

I dropped out of the PhD program at NYU in English when I was about 29, if my sleep deprived memory serves me correctly.

Now I am maundering through the nursing program at my local juco with the ultimate intent of becoming a midwife. And I'm only almost 47.

Of course there were many years of child rearing and editing in between.

Do you read Louise Erdrich or Amy Tan?

[Ghyle]

So much to catch up on... I shan't bother!

In regards to selling my poems to markets, I don't write for the markets so much as select poems which might make them happy. I write for myself, but I take the professional view of marketing and sales.

I write for pleasure, market for profit.

As for academic qualifications, since the topic's come up, I'm still a mature-age undergrad, but I plan on eventually getting a doctorate. I plan on studying Christopher Brennan.

As for the Eco, the door isn't important per se: it's what's on the door that matters. I've read the book, and know what's coming up....:)

Anyway, it seems this discussion is petering out. Before it does, thank you to everyone, especially you, Anareth, for an enjoyable discussion. We're both serious about our work, despite our disagreements, and I respect that in you. I would be honoured if you would consider showing me your poetry some time. I may be able to help get some published, and, if any of it is speculative, I'd be more than willing to look it over for Calenture, my journal.

[Shalyn]

SNORK!!!

Oh man, Anareth, I read and loved Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke when I was in my 20's...wait, that was the 80's, I was busy partying then...uh, no, OK. Got it.

Read Asimov and Clarke in my late teens-early 20's, loved them. Novels and short stories alike. Heinlein I've been reading since I discovered him, and I still love him, especially his Future History books, of which Stranger in a Strange Land is one. I even bought the extended version. There was just something about his writing that appealed to me.

And yes, I read King, though I have no interest in Harris. Hate Christie. Not all that enthralled with Doyle. But hey. I read for enjoyment. And if a book doesn't grab me in the first chapter, I put it down because...I don't have that kind of time. Life is too short.

So, no, I'm not an academic reader, I am just a...I don't know...couch potato reader. And yes, I do feel some books are more worthy of the name "Art" than others. After I move this weekend, I'll dig out Bag of Bones and read it, Leah, since it comes so highly recommended. ;)

And yes, Ryuu, I also agree with your statement that a book can be Formula but still be fresh and well-written.

[leahiniowa]

When I was in the MA English/Creative Writing program at NYU, I took 2 semesters with Russell Banks (excellent writing workshop moderator, btw). He once said, "The ONLY reason anyone should write is because YOU CANNOT STOP."

And it's true. The guys gone through at least 4 wives, and I see in my own life, when I'm writing an article, my family suffers terribly. I write in venues like this one, b/c I can't stop, but I'm waiting for a time when they're older to do any long-range writing.

[Anareth]

I worked for the state for two years after finishing before realizing "I'm underpaid, overworked, this job sucks with no prospects for advancement, and there are far too many people in the non-profit sector in relation to the number of jobs. Screw it."

I just get so bored with plot-driven and 'idea' stories. I want characters, clever dialogue, and action that keeps moving. That or cute referential plots with real people (I'm a fan of Victorian-set mysteries for much that reason.) Eco is unfortunately the ultimate version there. I get the impression that, deep down, he's really more interested in writing a history book but there's not quite the market for it. Like Shalyn said, I read for fun. The more authorial an author gets, the less fun they are to read. (It's hard to explain further without referencing the Reader's Manifesto, which basically rips apart all current Serious Authors to reveal them as the pretentious self-serving hacks they are, all about style, no substance or sense.)

I suppose I write for pleasure. More simply I write because it's easy, as far as the things I could be doing go. I don't think it's actually FUN, I guess, but it is easy. Tedious at times, but easy. If I can sell it, even better--I like getting paid for things wtihout having to work very hard or be bored while doing them.

[leahiniowa]

If you like good dialogue, try Nevada Barr (except for Blood Lure, I have a feeling that book was written just to keep up with her contract). She's fabulous w/banter.

We've got The Name of the Rose, but Doc read it and said it was too Christian for him to get into easily (and he LIKED the DaVinci Codes, also a book I have - historical fiction - about Pope Joan). So I didn't bother trying.

We're not tunnel visioned about fiction at all, so I assume it was just too "hard core" for us to appreciate. Doc and I don't agree 100% on fiction (the only McCaffrey he likes are the Freedom Series), but in general I'll go by his opinion.

Actually, he has more patience for Dan Brown than I do. I couldn't get into the Illuminati one, it just reminded me too much of the DaVinci codes - besides the yoga girl was just too much like Wonder Woman for me. As a yoga practitioner, yes, a lot of what is written is true, especially the yogini's last line about sex, but it was just too easy for the plot.

Anareth, what are you in school for now?

[Shalyn]

Anareth, what are you in school for now?

I'll let her answer, but it seems her current class is "Appendage Slicing 101"

[Ghyle]

Slicing and dicing! Yay!:applause:

Anareth: have you read Ross Macdonald's Lew Archer books at all? That may interest you.

[Ryuu]

Ghyle,

I think you are going to like how "War of the Worlds" relates to our discussions reguarding unreliable characters--check it out!

I dare say it's a fantastic movie, too!

[Brenda]

I've decided to go and see it iff I have the chance, but to not even attempt to think of H.G. Wells while I'm there. Just pretend it's not called War of the Worlds. War of the Worlds takes place in the Steam Age.

The best banter I have ever read is in Patricia Wrede's books - particularly in the alternate-Victorian books (society rituals and a Royal College of Magic) Mairelon the Magician, Magician's Ward, and especially Sorcery and Cecelia with Caroline Stevermer.

[Anareth]

Culinary school. And that cut's healed up nicely, Shalyn. Glad I decided not to get stitches.

I would say that "The Name of the Rose" is fairly Christian, or at least it has a LOT to do with Catholic politics of the middle ages, but it's definitely not meant to evangelize. (The hero is an ex-Inquisitor who is a champion of rational thinking.) Given the attitudes portrayed are much outdated, it's mostly a matter of setting, and Eco I suspect being a historian at heart. Though it's not as vitriolically anti-Catholic as Brown, and the nonsense about Pope Joan that the folks who still hate Papists like to trot out at every oportunity. (There never was a "Pope Joan", folks, accept it and move on.) I also found "Da Vinci Code" rather trite and predictable as thrillers go, so I haven't bothered with any of his other books. I mean, if I can figure out all the major plot points but one (and that one's a cheat as there are no clues for) within a couple chapters, please.

[Ghyle]

Let me put it this way.

It's not the movie I don't want to see, it's Tom Cruise.

I don't see eye to eye with him about psychiatry. If it wasn't for psychiatry, I would be in a bigger mess than I am now, and I wouldn't be able to think straight at all.

Anareth: you also have to take into account Eco's professional interest in signs and symbols. That's why, in part, he devotes so much time over the church door, and over the rose of the title.

[Kath]

It's not the movie I don't want to see, it's Tom Cruise.

I don't see eye to eye with him about psychiatry. If it wasn't for psychiatry, I would be in a bigger mess than I am now, and I wouldn't be able to think straight at all.


He is getting a bit extreme about it all, isn't he?

Are you all aware of a certain fragment of SF history, which took place some time prior to the publication of Dianetics? It was a weekend fishing trip in the late 40's taken by LRon, Cambell and Garrett, during which, amongst other things, the best way of making oneself rich was discussed. Two of the authors decided that the best route was to either found a new religion, or start off a new type of psychiatry. The other author simply smiled and kept quiet.

[Ghyle]

I am very cynical about religion. Comes from having a father who was thrown out of the Salvation Army. I could say a few things about them.

[Anareth]

Kath--version I heard, it was one of the earliest WorldCons, and Heinlein was involved, and there was a bet involved, too, which Hubbard apparently won. In any case it seems Scientology is a religion founded on what's basically a joke. If it helps people on some level, which it allegedly has, I suppose that's one thing. But it has been reported to get very, very weird and have a lot of payment involved in your 'healing.'

[Kath]

Kath--version I heard, it was one of the earliest WorldCons, and Heinlein was involved, and there was a bet involved, too, which Hubbard apparently won.
There seem to be at least two versions of the story which seem reasonably credible, yours and mine. The version I heard most recently was from a very reliable source who'd had it related to her by Garrett himself - of course, she did point out that even that didn't guarantee its authenticity, as most people had also heard the Heinlein version as well. But it's certainly a long-standing piece of history, depsite the unreliable identity of the participants.

[Anareth]

Either way, it doesn't speak much for the deep spiritual foundation of scientology!