![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greygirlbeastDue to a formatting error discovered at the last minute, and requiring production of a second PDF, Sirenia Digest #39 only just went out to subscribers, about five minutes ago (though, by the time I finish this entry, it'll be more like 45 minutes ago). Again, my apologies on the lateness of this issue, and I thank everyone for their patience. Fortunately, this month I have no novel to edit, so the March issue should actually reach subscribers before March is over.
The "vacation" was going to begin today, but here it is 1:22 p.m. (CaST), and I've been working all morning, so I guess I'll aim for tomorrow, instead. I'll have worked eleven days without a day off, and will have had only two days off in the last eighteen. I think I've found a new level of exhaustion.
All of yesterday was spent on proofing and formatting #39, and that sort of work is almost as interesting to read about, or, for that matter, write about, as, say, oatmeal. So, instead of prattling over missing commas and smart quotes and the like, here are some thoughts I posted way back on this day in 2006. These thoughts, on readers who put the cart before the horse, and on the necessity of unresolved questions in sf, seem worth restating now that A is for Alien is out there:
On top of this, I've got some screed hammering about inside my crowded skull about readers who want writers to hold their hands through a story, readers who cannot tolerate mystery and wonder, but prefer exposition and "satisfaction." What the hell is all this satisfaction crap, anyway? "I did not find this story satisfying." So the hell what? It's not my job as an author to satisfy anyone but myself. That's why art and masturbation have so much in common. I know this is a sore spot with a lot of readers these days (thank you again, reader-response theory), and a lot of writers trip all over themselves trying to keep readers happy. I just can't do it. Even if I believed it was advisable or Right, I wouldn't know where to begin. Here's a good example:
Consider "Bradbury Weather," which I personally take to be my best sf story thus far. In it, Mars is populated by women and only a very small number of sterile men. The story is told in first person (a voice I've only recently become acquainted with). Now, I see someone complaining that they weren't "satisfied" by the story, and one reason is that the reader never learns precisely why there are no men on Mars. Now, thing is, odd though it may strike you that Mars doesn't need women after all, it's fairly irrelevant to the story. It's history, and not history that directly pertains to the story. Since I've chosen a first-person narrative for "Bradbury Weather," I've also chosen to create an epistolary narrative, sensu lato. I do understand that there are readers and writers who don't quite grasp that this is what all fpn's amount to, and therein, I think, lies part of our problem. A woman named Dorry has chosen, for reasons which we do not know, to write down an account of her search for her lover, who has become part of an alien cult. That there are no men on Mars (except the sterile few in the cult) is not something that pertains to the story she's telling. Therefore, it would be unnatural, intrusive, and entirely artificial for me to force her to cough up this bit of data for the satisfaction of my readers. I believe (and this seems obvious to me) that when one chooses to write a fpn one has chosen to give the whole story over to characterization. "Bradbury Weather" is the monologue of the central character, and to her, the absence of men is a day-to-day reality, as is parthenogenic human reproduction and a thousand other things which no doubt seem damn peculiar to the reader. But she's telling her story, the story about her search for Sailor Li, her story about the Fenrir cult, and the absence of men is not a part of the story. So, I can't tell it, and I can't make her tell it, because she wouldn't frelling do that. I don't do infodumps.
Isn't the general provenance of science fiction to elicit wonder and cause the readers to think and question? Aren't these things more important and desirable than tying up all the loose ends for imagination-challenged readers who have no apparent interest in coming away from a story with a sense of mystery and problems their minds can freely work at for some time to come?
I wish I could discuss these things without getting angry. No, that's a lie. I wish I didn't have to discuss these things at all.
I can't say I feel any differently three years later. If anything, these convictions have only strengthened.
Last night, we watched Robert De Niro's The Good Shepherd (2006), which I somehow missed in theaters. I found it quite good. Also, I have some photos from a walk in the snow yesterday, behind the cut:
I was resting in a snow bank, and someone didn't seem to understand that "Don't dare take a picture of me," meant she shouldn't dare take a picture of me. At least my face is hidden.
Hubero (right) and Sméagol (left) on the chaise in the middle parlor. Hubero says he'll sue if I post this, which leaves me little choice but to post it. Hubero has grown fond of sleeping on my wool coat.
The "vacation" was going to begin today, but here it is 1:22 p.m. (CaST), and I've been working all morning, so I guess I'll aim for tomorrow, instead. I'll have worked eleven days without a day off, and will have had only two days off in the last eighteen. I think I've found a new level of exhaustion.
All of yesterday was spent on proofing and formatting #39, and that sort of work is almost as interesting to read about, or, for that matter, write about, as, say, oatmeal. So, instead of prattling over missing commas and smart quotes and the like, here are some thoughts I posted way back on this day in 2006. These thoughts, on readers who put the cart before the horse, and on the necessity of unresolved questions in sf, seem worth restating now that A is for Alien is out there:
On top of this, I've got some screed hammering about inside my crowded skull about readers who want writers to hold their hands through a story, readers who cannot tolerate mystery and wonder, but prefer exposition and "satisfaction." What the hell is all this satisfaction crap, anyway? "I did not find this story satisfying." So the hell what? It's not my job as an author to satisfy anyone but myself. That's why art and masturbation have so much in common. I know this is a sore spot with a lot of readers these days (thank you again, reader-response theory), and a lot of writers trip all over themselves trying to keep readers happy. I just can't do it. Even if I believed it was advisable or Right, I wouldn't know where to begin. Here's a good example:
Consider "Bradbury Weather," which I personally take to be my best sf story thus far. In it, Mars is populated by women and only a very small number of sterile men. The story is told in first person (a voice I've only recently become acquainted with). Now, I see someone complaining that they weren't "satisfied" by the story, and one reason is that the reader never learns precisely why there are no men on Mars. Now, thing is, odd though it may strike you that Mars doesn't need women after all, it's fairly irrelevant to the story. It's history, and not history that directly pertains to the story. Since I've chosen a first-person narrative for "Bradbury Weather," I've also chosen to create an epistolary narrative, sensu lato. I do understand that there are readers and writers who don't quite grasp that this is what all fpn's amount to, and therein, I think, lies part of our problem. A woman named Dorry has chosen, for reasons which we do not know, to write down an account of her search for her lover, who has become part of an alien cult. That there are no men on Mars (except the sterile few in the cult) is not something that pertains to the story she's telling. Therefore, it would be unnatural, intrusive, and entirely artificial for me to force her to cough up this bit of data for the satisfaction of my readers. I believe (and this seems obvious to me) that when one chooses to write a fpn one has chosen to give the whole story over to characterization. "Bradbury Weather" is the monologue of the central character, and to her, the absence of men is a day-to-day reality, as is parthenogenic human reproduction and a thousand other things which no doubt seem damn peculiar to the reader. But she's telling her story, the story about her search for Sailor Li, her story about the Fenrir cult, and the absence of men is not a part of the story. So, I can't tell it, and I can't make her tell it, because she wouldn't frelling do that. I don't do infodumps.
Isn't the general provenance of science fiction to elicit wonder and cause the readers to think and question? Aren't these things more important and desirable than tying up all the loose ends for imagination-challenged readers who have no apparent interest in coming away from a story with a sense of mystery and problems their minds can freely work at for some time to come?
I wish I could discuss these things without getting angry. No, that's a lie. I wish I didn't have to discuss these things at all.
I can't say I feel any differently three years later. If anything, these convictions have only strengthened.
Last night, we watched Robert De Niro's The Good Shepherd (2006), which I somehow missed in theaters. I found it quite good. Also, I have some photos from a walk in the snow yesterday, behind the cut:
I was resting in a snow bank, and someone didn't seem to understand that "Don't dare take a picture of me," meant she shouldn't dare take a picture of me. At least my face is hidden.
Hubero (right) and Sméagol (left) on the chaise in the middle parlor. Hubero says he'll sue if I post this, which leaves me little choice but to post it. Hubero has grown fond of sleeping on my wool coat.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:06 pm (UTC)I love "The Bone's Prayer." I was also glad to see Dr. Solomon Monalisa resurface in "From Cabinet 34, Drawer 6." The photograph of you in the snow is suitably nonhuman-looking, at least on my screen.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:18 pm (UTC)I was also glad to see Dr. Solomon Monalisa resurface in "From Cabinet 34, Drawer 6."
Yeah, I always meant to write a third story about him.
The photograph of you in the snow is suitably nonhuman-looking, at least on my screen.
Then, I'm flattered.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 08:03 pm (UTC)Did he figure more prominently in the screenplay version of "Onion"?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 08:07 pm (UTC)Did he figure more prominently in the screenplay version of "Onion"?
He would have, yes.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:19 pm (UTC)i've been enjoying your Tori mood as of late...
Me, too. She knows a certain way to mix sexuality and anger, and I've needed it lately.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:28 pm (UTC)b) I love the colors of those houses.
c) "Bradbury Weather" is awesome. For me, I love stories that present a world different from my own and don't entirely explain why. I feel like it gives me leave to dream up explanations or imaginary circumstances. I find it perplexing and weird to think that there's a whole rampaging group of (somewhat) literate people stomping around demanding explanations. Shouldn't a good sci-fi/speculative fiction piece leave you yearning? I thought that was the point. (It's why I was disappointed in Peter Hamilton's deux ex machina ending to his Reality Dysfunction series. It felt like he realized he had eighty billion plotlines and no time to wrap them up.)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:37 pm (UTC)a) Aww, kitties.
Not a usual sight around here, though they do get along.
Moments later, Smeagol got up and shot Hubero a disgusted look. Smeagol is not a snuggly cat.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:40 pm (UTC)Smeagol is not a snuggly cat.
Hates it, Precious.
reader satisfaction
Date: 2009-03-03 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 07:25 pm (UTC)While I agree with you about the subjectivity of first person narratives, and likewise the number of readers and writers who misunderstand it, I'm not surprised that some readers go "huh?" about the absence of men on Mars. Mystery and immanence should be part of science fiction, and they loom larger for some authors than others, but whole swathes of SF deal in mind-numbing detail with explanations of the mechanics of technology and/or miracles. For readers used to this--many of whom have never thought about the implications of first person narration--your choice to leave this major difference between future Martian society and present-day Earth is probably not even understood as a valid choice. For many, the question is not whether to infodump, but how or when. I see this as less of a challenge in fantasy or horror, where mechanical explanations of mystery aren't quite as ingrained
Put another way, some of us are happy to appreciate the robot's curves, but others want--and have been taught by experience to expect--to see the schematics.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 07:46 pm (UTC)Put another way, some of us are happy to appreciate the robot's curves, but others want--and have been taught by experience to expect--to see the schematics.
Then I shall think of myself, in this instance, as a programmer, replacing faulty programming. The prevalence of this mindset does not bestow upon it some sort of validity.
Glad you liked the book!
On replacing faulty programming:
Date: 2009-03-03 07:51 pm (UTC)"I have come to believe that the point at which writing ceases to be art (whether it be good art or bad) is that point at which the writer ceases to be God - the god or gods of his or her fictional universe. If another voice is allowed to significantly interfere, to change the course or interject, then a certain necessary purity is given up, and whatever remains is another sort of enterprise, non-artistic, perhaps validly commercial or political, but non-artistic. And all authors who wish to make a living from their work (all artists, for that matter), run the risk of losing the essential artistic integrity of their endeavors to the doubtful best intentions of an industry (first), and the book-buying public (second)."
Re: On replacing faulty programming:
Date: 2009-03-03 08:02 pm (UTC)Okay. That's funny. I just sat here trying to remember who the hell said that...
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 08:53 pm (UTC)In writing, and in life, I say; go with your instincts, go with what pleases you. To hell with what people may be expecting or wanting from you or your work. Your art should be fun for you, should feed your soul and yay if other people like it and want to pay you for it... but attempting to make your art please others, except on rare and special occasion, sounds just awful to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 09:02 pm (UTC)Why oh why did Lucas feel the need to explain the force?
Or make the last three films?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 09:00 pm (UTC)It looks like a damned fine coat. Nice scarf too.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 09:44 pm (UTC)That would seem to make sense, but I'm always amazed at how many people either can't, or don't want ,to think for themselves.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 05:35 pm (UTC)