Honestly, I wish there wasn't an ocean between us! I bet we would have some good argu-... erm, discussions.
I'm sure it's better for my health this way. But I'd still like to meet you after all these years. Wow, I sound profound and nostalgic. And I thought we had rules about quoting Ondaatje ... oh, never mind.
The flaw my approach is that any tale needs more than one character. As the cast grows, my focus becomes fractured and I find I am often caught by my slavish bond to my character. They determine the next steps, the twists and turns, at a rate they choose.
This is not a flaw. What you describe is merely a protaganist point of view. Other than static exposition and abundant cliches (aside from butchering grammar) there are no flaws in crafting fiction. Don't hold yourself to such a SERIOUS standard. At least not in the first manuscript. What you describe is every Charles Bukowski novel I've ever encountered. He ended up famous, posthumously (after drinking himself to death) because his long obscure work was real, gritty, and has merit. The style of
Legacy, from what I have read, also has merit.
At that point, realising that I have been hijacked by imaginary characters and in sheer desperation, I ruthlessly kill them off - usually employing deus ex machina to achieve my ends.
Killing them off is actually quite daring but, yeah, deus ex machina is probably not. It didn't work for Shakespeare in
Measure for Measure or Papa Hem in
To Have or Have Not. Endings are tough which is why none of mine have meaning. In the Modernist school of literature, many endings are left unresolved and "open" or, I just go out of my way to make them sad. Or horror movie-like where the antagonist gets one last stab (whether it's the character or their machinations) that usually does in the protagonist as well. I hate endings. It's why I haven't finished writing a book in 25 years. Ask me why some time, if you must.
That's the problem with Martin, he pays no attention to the rules on what any of his characters will do next. He breaks all the rules.
There be no rules in the noble craft of fiction, mate. He's only doing what Ezra Pound told him. When he cut off Boromir's ... er ... Ned's dome (again, the Sean Bean curse) I said good show. That took major stoneage and yet it was just as necessary for that guy to die as it was for Gandalf to die. Again, ask me why sometime, if you must.
Growing attached to any of his characters is a worthless cause wrought only with pain and self mutilation.
Indeed. But Martin is about the "powerful play going on and the characters contributing a verse" (Dead Poet Society reference but you all knew that right? RIGHT????). It's the opposite model of what Elora espouses. Getting cozy with your character is, frankly, a girl thing to do. More about relationships and all that jazz whereas guys are about the action. Now whether this blatantly (and possible offensive) stereotype holds true or not with writing in general is open for debate (ding ding ... I've just rung the bell) though it seems to fit Martin's pattern even though all his characters are developed so richly that a reader can fall deep for them.
Whacking characters is part of life, folks. No one wants a loved one to die in real life. We are attached to them. Their death "breaks our rules" but is every bit as real as life itself. Again, major stoneage on Martin's part to risk alienating a reader but he's gambling that his action in the plot is enough to keep the powerful play going - and us buying his sequels. So far he's been right and it appears to be successful given the cat has a show on HBO.
So, um, serious writing stuff.... Nope, I still haven't done anything.
How about NON SERIOUS stuff? I'm giving you a week to write a limerick or a haiku and present it here. Or a paragraph piece of light prose before the guild enforcers at Parm's thread come and cite me from stealing their thunder by encouraging poetry here. If not, I'm doubling down on the squiddage you threw at me here AND in the real world. BECAUSE I KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! You've been warned.
I've done no real writing, but I have decided to scrap a couple chapters and a month's worth of work on one of my stories because it was throwing off the feel I was going for in the story. The problem is, I actually LIKED the work, it just wasn't right for that particular story. *grumble, grumble, pout, grumble*
NO! Don't
EVER do that. I once scrapped 70,000 words for the same reason. A near-Novel. And by scrapped I mean delete off all the drives and throw away the paper copies scrapped. Jack Kerouac advises to "accept loss forever." He may be right about that. But Baron Prometheus (a.k.a. Will the formerly Simple Poet) advises "don't lose it in the first place." You never know what you can mine from that writing at some point. Put it on a thumb drive and "keep it secret, keep it safe".
Tolkien's writing is great. I would say this messageboard and others like it are a testament to that.
Now you've gone and done it. Throws two armfuls of squids at Will.
Sir, my noodle is soaked. In what, you shall find out for yourself...for I am a Wilding!
Tolkien's writing style is great, eh? Do tell me why?
There. I've given y'all much to ponder. I expect a flurry of response. Or at least a squid a la mode. Raw and wrigggggggling.
