Quote:
Originally Posted by
SirArtemis
Maybe this is just my insecurities speaking, but when I read/listen to stuff like this and the use of these "official" writing terms, it makes me feel like crap; and this is of the two most recent episodes I listened to. I still don't know what a foil is. Every time you say it, I see aluminum foil. I don't know what an anti hero or anti villain is.
No reason for the insecurity. We use these terms because they're English class terms that are fixed tools across any story. We use the term "foil" and not "antagonist" because the antagonist is almost certainly a bad guy, and a foil could be very heroic. The anti-hero and anti-villain classifications are a little unclear to me, but I have my own, private definitions or understanding of them. I could be wrong!
Quote:
There's mention of story arcs and planning, but I don't have that. My characters are just people, living their lives, and on occasion their inherent abilities and skill sets are called upon to do something for some reason. It's not a grand trilogy to get together and destroy the ring to save the world. It's not some in depth project to Frankenstein a character to life with all the pieces that make a character "robust and compelling." I don't have any major antagonists typically as much as just the environment or Artemis himself.
There's nothing wrong with this; you write interesting work that is fun to read. All of our work here is more for our own sakes; if you don't want to set out on a long, overly ambitious story that requires planning and meticulously planned antagonists, more power to you. Some people like to go down those rabbit holes, which is a big part of the conversation, since it's tricky.
Quote:
This just leaves me thinking about all those times that I go to see a movie and criticisms fly everywhere about how this was too predictable, and this was cliche, and that was uninteresting, and I just find myself wondering if people are creating so much expectation in their minds of the "proper" way to do x, y, and z that they lose the ability to simply just enjoy something.
So there was a happy ending. Ok, does that make it bad? Is happy ending bad? The villain twirled his mustache. Ok. Is that bad? I remember my conversation with Karukaa bout a hook having to be in the first two sentences because some author once said so, right? Ok. How impatient are readers if they can't get through a chapter or two before making their decision?
Are we as writers using all these "tools" so to speak because they are expected? If I do this one thing correctly, is that going to make my writing a CGI Blockbuster? If I use bullet-time sequences and blood and gore for a movie, and find the equivalent thereof in writing, am I successful?
You can really enjoy a movie or book that has lots of flaws or problems. If a movie more effectively uses tools, it can generally make the work more effective and connect with more people. Let's consider a simple movie and then a complex one. Exhibit A is "Transformers" by Michael Bay, Exhibit B is "Pulp Fiction" by Tarantino. Both are movies I enjoyed a great deal. Both were WILDLY successful, and made tons of money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making "Transformers", as Michael Bay could buy and sell my entire net worth with a month's work on his end. With that said, the elaborate symbolism, use of creative camera work, character development, meaningful dialogue and use of plot devices made Pulp Fiction wildly successful. Since Pulp Fiction has so many unique, intricate elements that play together, it is widely considered a classic, and withstands the test of time.
Quote:
I generally think of books that we sometimes know as classics, or that we all read, and I think back on what made them good. I read the Sherlock Holmes collection, but some people don't like it because "no one would ever be able to actually do any of that. It's silly." Or the Catcher in the Rye, a classic, and yet who even liked that book? Just some punk idiot kid making bad choices for however many pages. You read Harry Potter or Twilight, and they were explosively popular, but how good was the writing with respect to these standards? What was so compelling about the first few chapters of the first Harry Potter book? Just some kid who had a shit family, and until he gets saved by Hagrid, you have no reason to care.
So what are we even doing here? Are we trying to be "writers" by the classical definition or to prove something? Or are we just trying to share stories? And if it's the latter, even if we want to improve our writing, is the measure of that always going to be "your hook was trash" or "I enjoyed that overall but found myself thinking x, y, and z?"
I -loved- Catcher in the Rye, because it pushed the envelope for the character and created Caulfield as a complex, deep character. Of course, I also -loved- Harry Potter, because those books are simple, elegantly written, easy to follow and also contain surprising depth. They may or may not be technical masterworks, but both connect with me in very different ways for very different reasons.
As for the reason you're here, I don't know. For me, I am never going to be a writer producing work, but enjoy the process of creating stories, and sharing those with other people that like to write. While I'm doing it, I appreciate any advice that can make me better. It's not ultimately that important because I'm never going to be publishing work, but do enjoy trying to get my work to connect with people.
For what it's worth, your rant was anything but needless; they're probably questions we all need to answer for ourselves. Thank you for listening!
