Tales retold and made to fly
Sep. 24th, 2006 03:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullEzra Pound (I think it was him... hope so... anyway) said that every story has already been written: the purpose of a good writer is to write it anew. Or similar. Anyway this could very well be fanfic's banner, well-written fanfic, of course, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mistful's fanfic in particular.
I'm thinking of IYHARM, yes, and wasn't that a GREAT re-telling? Actually it was, I wasn't being ironic or anything, it was a superb retelling, I love it. But I'm also thinking of QOM, because to me the retelling of the characters is the retelling of the story.
It seems to me that, no matter what is said about plot, worldbuilding and style - all basic things in writing, it's lovely when they coesist but it can be nice with just two or one of them - the driving force behind storytelling as an art form is characters. When a writer can make her/his characters people, then plot, worldbuilding and style have to follow. I said storytelling as an art form, because the world is peopled by scribblers, some of whom make lots of money, but I'm talking about the GOOD writers here.
All stories are plot-driven by definition: they are, after all, stories. But the good - and excellent - writers write people who, exactly because they are who they are and evolve according to their selves, can't help getting there, wherever it is that the plot needs them to go. Somistful writes stories about real people who, because they are human, hence complicated and damaged in a myriad of ways, can't help but go where she wants them to go. I'm not presuming to know her particular writing technique, but that's not important to the reader, or even the careful critic.
Reading her stories through time I know without a shadow of doubt that she's growing by leaps and bounds as a writer and that her characters are more and more becoming people, until here, with QOM, there's not a single 'character' talking, acting and walking through her plot. These are real people at the core, so much that – even though her premises are wildly IC – the original characters are but pale shadows of hers.
This is how it should be! we cry, and not because the plot is enthralling – and it is – or thrilling – and it is – or tight and perfectly paced – and, boy, is it! – but because these are people and we want to know what happens to them; we want to know if they will resolve their several conflicts, if they will be able to grow and evolve, if they will perchance kill one another. This is true mastery of the art of writing, this is the core of what literature is all about. And, as if this were not enough – and it IS, but we're greedy, we readers – her multilayered and intense prose scintillates with wit, irony and benevolence. Oh, and coruscates with quotations and allusions of the subtle and unsubtle variety.
And worldbuilding invariably follows. Only in that particular world, with those particular mores, those particular variation of reality and physics and stuff can those particular people make the particular choices that will take them where they are supposed to go.mistful is using someone else's wordlbuilding, but she mends it with implication, allusion and an occasional shock of start reality. She is, in fact, writing it anew.
She creates a maze of mirrors and reflections of mirrors that sucks us in. We see Draco through Harry's eyes - of course, tight third POV - but, at the same time we see Harry seeing himself reflected in Draco's eyes. We could maybe be kept at a distance by this device, but we aren't, we're in, deep and foundering, just as our little freak and his beloved enemy are: we're looking for ourselves in them, they're looking for themselves in others' eyes... maybe our eyes, the readers' eyes.
This works for every single character, too, not just the protagonists. Look at Narcissa, single-minded loving mother with a core of ruthlessness that should perhaps be chilling - she disregards everyone's safety to ensure her son's - but that's how Harry sees her, or better, needs to see her until... until we see her die through Snape's eyes as heard through Harry's ears. See? By reflecting reflections into reflections - both meaning of reflection apply here - we can solve the puzzle, or go as near to solving other people as we're going to get in real life.
Gaiman - of whom more later - said that sometimes what we don't get explained in a book is more fascinating that what we get explained (let's taken as read that this is periphrasis based on memory). We'll never completely know another - maybe not even ourselves - but all the little mysteries fascinate. I personally like Narcissa in canon, but I'm utterly fascinated by this complex and intelligent heroine. She isn't going to sacrifice herself in a cliché bout of dying for her child, but she does because she really has no other choice than silence. She knows she's dead anyway. She tries, because she wants to live, but at the very end she becomes Antigone, so much bigger than life in silent contempt of her executioners.
Look at Snape caught in ungentle tenderness; at Ginny (whom I cordially detested... okay I still do in canon) caught at the edge between childhood and young maturity; at Hermione who's afraid of coming out of her head, so to speak, and confront her shaky ethics, but who tries so hard to matter; at Ron finally growing up; at Lupin hiding behind a passive aggressive not-snarl... look at them all. The kernel of all they are is in canon, yes, but it's nothing more than a hopeful latency, given meaning by the eagerness and imagination of readers. Inmistful's stories - particularly QOM - the eagerness and imagination of readers is better employed to probe the little mysteries of self and life.
Coming back to Gaiman - yeps, been re-reading Sandman obsessively of late. Needed to ponder on basic things like life, death and personal mythology - I think he said.... ah-HA! Found the correct quote. Here it goes:
I learned that writing could, in and of itself, be beautiful. (He's talking about Delany's Einstein Intersection. If you haven't read it, DO) I learned that sometimes what you do not understand, what remains beyond your grasp in a book, is as magical as what you can take from it. I learned that we have the right, or the obligation, to tell old stories in our own ways, because they are our stories, and they must be told.
He could have said that about QOM, really. There's a quality of writing in there that resonates deep within me, just as Gaiman's writing does. There's a calm fearlessness about farce and tragedy, there's risk taking, but nothing frantic about it. It's true storytelling and I'm celebrating it with this piddly new icon stolen blatantly from The Last Hero by Pterry (ill by Paul Kidby) only this time we'll remember the singer as well as the song.
Thank you Maya.
mistful's fanfic in particular.I'm thinking of IYHARM, yes, and wasn't that a GREAT re-telling? Actually it was, I wasn't being ironic or anything, it was a superb retelling, I love it. But I'm also thinking of QOM, because to me the retelling of the characters is the retelling of the story.
It seems to me that, no matter what is said about plot, worldbuilding and style - all basic things in writing, it's lovely when they coesist but it can be nice with just two or one of them - the driving force behind storytelling as an art form is characters. When a writer can make her/his characters people, then plot, worldbuilding and style have to follow. I said storytelling as an art form, because the world is peopled by scribblers, some of whom make lots of money, but I'm talking about the GOOD writers here.
All stories are plot-driven by definition: they are, after all, stories. But the good - and excellent - writers write people who, exactly because they are who they are and evolve according to their selves, can't help getting there, wherever it is that the plot needs them to go. So
mistful writes stories about real people who, because they are human, hence complicated and damaged in a myriad of ways, can't help but go where she wants them to go. I'm not presuming to know her particular writing technique, but that's not important to the reader, or even the careful critic.Reading her stories through time I know without a shadow of doubt that she's growing by leaps and bounds as a writer and that her characters are more and more becoming people, until here, with QOM, there's not a single 'character' talking, acting and walking through her plot. These are real people at the core, so much that – even though her premises are wildly IC – the original characters are but pale shadows of hers.
This is how it should be! we cry, and not because the plot is enthralling – and it is – or thrilling – and it is – or tight and perfectly paced – and, boy, is it! – but because these are people and we want to know what happens to them; we want to know if they will resolve their several conflicts, if they will be able to grow and evolve, if they will perchance kill one another. This is true mastery of the art of writing, this is the core of what literature is all about. And, as if this were not enough – and it IS, but we're greedy, we readers – her multilayered and intense prose scintillates with wit, irony and benevolence. Oh, and coruscates with quotations and allusions of the subtle and unsubtle variety.
And worldbuilding invariably follows. Only in that particular world, with those particular mores, those particular variation of reality and physics and stuff can those particular people make the particular choices that will take them where they are supposed to go.
mistful is using someone else's wordlbuilding, but she mends it with implication, allusion and an occasional shock of start reality. She is, in fact, writing it anew.She creates a maze of mirrors and reflections of mirrors that sucks us in. We see Draco through Harry's eyes - of course, tight third POV - but, at the same time we see Harry seeing himself reflected in Draco's eyes. We could maybe be kept at a distance by this device, but we aren't, we're in, deep and foundering, just as our little freak and his beloved enemy are: we're looking for ourselves in them, they're looking for themselves in others' eyes... maybe our eyes, the readers' eyes.
This works for every single character, too, not just the protagonists. Look at Narcissa, single-minded loving mother with a core of ruthlessness that should perhaps be chilling - she disregards everyone's safety to ensure her son's - but that's how Harry sees her, or better, needs to see her until... until we see her die through Snape's eyes as heard through Harry's ears. See? By reflecting reflections into reflections - both meaning of reflection apply here - we can solve the puzzle, or go as near to solving other people as we're going to get in real life.
Gaiman - of whom more later - said that sometimes what we don't get explained in a book is more fascinating that what we get explained (let's taken as read that this is periphrasis based on memory). We'll never completely know another - maybe not even ourselves - but all the little mysteries fascinate. I personally like Narcissa in canon, but I'm utterly fascinated by this complex and intelligent heroine. She isn't going to sacrifice herself in a cliché bout of dying for her child, but she does because she really has no other choice than silence. She knows she's dead anyway. She tries, because she wants to live, but at the very end she becomes Antigone, so much bigger than life in silent contempt of her executioners.
Look at Snape caught in ungentle tenderness; at Ginny (whom I cordially detested... okay I still do in canon) caught at the edge between childhood and young maturity; at Hermione who's afraid of coming out of her head, so to speak, and confront her shaky ethics, but who tries so hard to matter; at Ron finally growing up; at Lupin hiding behind a passive aggressive not-snarl... look at them all. The kernel of all they are is in canon, yes, but it's nothing more than a hopeful latency, given meaning by the eagerness and imagination of readers. In
mistful's stories - particularly QOM - the eagerness and imagination of readers is better employed to probe the little mysteries of self and life.Coming back to Gaiman - yeps, been re-reading Sandman obsessively of late. Needed to ponder on basic things like life, death and personal mythology - I think he said.... ah-HA! Found the correct quote. Here it goes:
I learned that writing could, in and of itself, be beautiful. (He's talking about Delany's Einstein Intersection. If you haven't read it, DO) I learned that sometimes what you do not understand, what remains beyond your grasp in a book, is as magical as what you can take from it. I learned that we have the right, or the obligation, to tell old stories in our own ways, because they are our stories, and they must be told.
He could have said that about QOM, really. There's a quality of writing in there that resonates deep within me, just as Gaiman's writing does. There's a calm fearlessness about farce and tragedy, there's risk taking, but nothing frantic about it. It's true storytelling and I'm celebrating it with this piddly new icon stolen blatantly from The Last Hero by Pterry (ill by Paul Kidby) only this time we'll remember the singer as well as the song.
Thank you Maya.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-24 10:29 pm (UTC)And then, being me, I decided to email you tomorrow, because when I say "without delay," that's comparable to when repair men say "it'll be done by Thursday." ^_^;;
But there you are, so I don't have to disturb you. :D Howdy! (*HUGS*) :) How are things? May I hope that step three has been followed by four, five and so forth in due order? =] And that the post-celebration hangover wasn't too bad, of course... =]
I'm now working out! :D I'm weirdly proud of it. It's such an un-Daniel-like thing to do. Actually paying money for the privilige of being subjected to pushups and running laps twice a week? Most out of character. It's fun, though. Not feeling ashamed of what a couch potatoe I am is such a novel feeling for me. :D
And me and karate is getting along fine so far. "If you have to hit someone, you've failed," they say. So... the goal is not to have to do stuff? That's a good goal, from my lazy perspective! =]
Uhm, yes, I will in fact comment on the actual topic, too, honestly I will... ^_^;;
Hmm, characterisation as the very point of a story... You know, I'm in a complicated situation here. I agree with just about everything you say. My natural inclination, in fact, is to say that I prefer character-driven stories.
My natural inclination, it would seem, is not so clever, because people are constantly telling me that the stories I like are plot-driven and the stories I don't like character-driven. ^_^;
I think I know why, though. Too many authors who are proclaimed to be "character-driven" are all very good at working out quirks for their characters. Character A has attribute B because of past event C... and so forth. But this is just not enough for me to consider it as "good characterisation." To me, the defining question is: do all the characters have dignity?
To put it another way, it's not enough that the characters have feelings, or that those feelings are complex. The narrative must acknowledge their right to those feelings. The jealous husband setting out to kill his wife and her lover isn't a pretty sight, but to him, the pain and the humiliation makes any other sort of response impossible. That doesn't mean the reader can't pass judgement on him, but the author must not. He's her character, after all. He only does what she tells him to, and then she has the nerve to second-guess him?
To misqoute Pratchett, what can characters in a book hope for, other than that the author loves them? ;)
Too many "character-driven" writers create intricate characters, and then explain (within the text) to the slightest detail just why the villains are worthless pieces of shit. Whereas "plot-driven" writers feel less of a need to do so, because, well, they don't care that their villains are worthless pieces of shit. Of course they're worthless pieces of shit! They have to be, to further the plot! =]
This is, at least, my explanation to why I enjoy QoM as much as you do, even though the plot is mostly a vehicle for character development. Maya's character portrait's are intricate and realistic, and that's nice - but they're also non-judgemental, and that's crucial. :)
So in conclusion, I agree with everything you say, though for me, the important aspect of Maya's writing is something that, thank Heavens, isn't there. =] May I also say that Oscar Wilde would have been proud of you? That was a very artful and beautiful piece of criticism. :D
(hmm, Delany, Delany, I have heard that name before... ^_^;; )
HUGZ!
Date: 2006-09-25 04:03 pm (UTC)As for lit crit... yeah, you couldn't be more right, I forgot to point out the most important part about writers who write human beings: love. If a writer doesn't love her/his creatures - characters, children, whatever - if s/he judges them instead of understanding them, then they will never fly and be people. In my own muddled head it was implicit, but you made me realise it actually isn't for most readers.
I also should have pointed out that when I say
We make friends with some of the people in a story - if it's told well - and we start to predict their reactions, BUT, and this is a huge but, y'know, we'll never be in their minds and are content not to be.
To get this result an author must know, love and RESPECT every single character s/he creates, or re-creates as in fanfinc's case. What you said about characters needing to have dignity. I couldn't agree more, the right to be who they are and the dignity not to be spit upon by their maker.
To me a story is made up of people who do things, react to things and change with their changing of the reality around them: this translates into character/plot/worldbuilding/style, the four pillars of storytelling. The more I think about it, the more I realise that it's the interaction of those four things that make a story and that a story works when those four things BALANCE.
The list is not in any particular order of importance, by the way. Style aloows for all the subtexts, the layers and the unsaid things to work to build a reality that doesn't have to be described to the last detail, but that anchors the mysteries of people who are thrown together because of things that could only happen there and so on and so forth. Try each combination of elements interacting and you'll see it works every time.
Thanks for the compliment, which I clearly don't deserve. Oscar would have NEVER left out the most important aspect of storytelling. :-D
Oh, and less of the funny lines about one of my beloved authors...
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-09-27 09:02 am (UTC)Hehehe, doubtful, but thanks for the blessing. =]
I have to say, I'm almost starting to understand the whole "pain feels good" thing. Sweating and straining does feel sort of cleansing, somehow, like some of the unhealthy stuff I've eaten is being exorcised. =]
> Be proud of you, I am.
(*beams*) :D
> The karate thing reminds me of Pterry's attitude to magic: it works best
> when you don't do it. *G*
I think the principle is the same, yeah. Teach people how to do it, and in the process they'll hopefully learn the benefits of not doing it. Ignorant people are more inclined to improvise. =]
> In my own muddled head it was implicit, but you made me realise it
> actually isn't for most readers.
Ah. :) We're in complete agreement, then... but no, it isn't for most readers, apparently, or why would I so often have to hear about Robin freaking Hobb?
I doubt you're familiar with her - she's neither literate enough to be interesting on her own or popular enough to have superior fanfiction writers. =] But according to most people on westeros.org, she's Characterisation Incarnate. And I just can't see it. Her main hero is such a complete blank that I honestly can't even describe him, except to say that he feels sorry for himself a lot. He's born out of wedlock, and he feels sorry for himself about that. He's the King's assassin, forcing him to keep secrets from everyone, and he feels sorry for himself about that. He's got a form of magic that is regarded as "evil" and feels sorry for himself about that (the magic gives him the power to talk to animals, as it happens, and it's reviled in his world because it's supposed to be primitive and inhuman. But of course there's really nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of realising that there's nothing special about humans and animals are just as important and bla bla bla, Hobb's enviromentalist agenda is so overbearing that it makes even me groan, Greenpeace supporter that I am). Generally, he doesn't have character traits, he just has reasons to feel sorry for himself! :P
And hey, he's the peak of Hobb's characterisation skills! After all, he agrees with her on everything, so she has no problem writing him. She also has a number of secondary characters, though, and oh, man. They're as foul a bunch of charicatures and stereotypes as you'd ever see! They have incomrehensible beliefs and attitudes, because Hobb has grasped that not everyone can agree with her own self-evident truths, but she hasn't understood why someone would think differently. One of the villains even accuse one of the heroines of being very unreasonable for being angry with him over ordering her raped because, quote, "rape is something women have just made up, in order to make it seem that they can be deprived of something they have an infinite supply of." (*sighs*) Moderation, thy name sure ain't Hobb. Or even Ogden, which is "Robin Hobb"'s actual name.
I would take Rowling over this crap! Rowling, I say! And yet, Hobb is supposed to be the Characterisation Queen of Fantasy. (*sighs and shakes head*)
Hee. Sorry about the mini-rant. =]
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-09-27 09:02 am (UTC)> those four things that make a story and that a story works when those four
> things BALANCE.
That's probably true. All of them sort of create and are created by each other, after all. And I have no problem remembering stories where one of them got out of hand and consumed the other three. =]
Let's see... if characterisation dominates, you get stories that are really just psychological case studies - well-developed characters interact, but without much of a point to their interaction aside from showing how brilliant the author is. Ugh.
If plot dominates, we get something along the lines of James Bond. Entertaining enough, but ultimately sort of empty.
If theme (okay, you said style, but I'm guessing you mean theme - feel free to correct me. :) ) dominates, then we get the cram-my-opinions-down-your-throat kind of writing. Hello again, Robin Hobb. ^_^; Every character and event is there to make a point, and then probably to make it again and again, just to make sure that the reader understands that "POLLUTION IS BAD!!!!!" or whatever. =] Ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Worldbuilding... hmm, no, I don't think I've ever read anything where the setting seemed to be the entire point to the extent that it disturbed me...
> Oh, and less of the funny lines about one of my beloved authors...
Uhm, it wasn't meant as a funny line... ^_^;; Or at least, only one at my own expense, commenting on my forgetfulness and comparative illiteracy. :) I think you mentioned Delany before and I looked him up. Didn't he write Finnegan's Wake or some such?
Not that I know anything about Finnegan's Wake other than that it exists, mind. I'm such a barbarian. ^_^;; But, hey, trying. Reading Pride and Prejudice now, as opposed to just watching the series. :D (*holds up a paperback by way of evidence*) =]
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-09-30 02:24 pm (UTC)Back to lit crit. Actually when I say 'style' I mean form and technique, not theme. I don't think 'theme' is a pillar, y'know? I mean, every writer has something to write about, even a post like this has a theme, how could it not? Hidden or overt agendas are always lurking in the mind of homo sapiens, so I didn't really consider the thing. OTOH, style as in technique and control of vocabulary, grammar, syntax and rhythm is a pillar of storytelling.
URGHLE, am being way too teacherish, do please forgive me.
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-01 10:10 am (UTC)> fascinating book, a classic of Western lit and not everybody's favourite
> read. Pride and Prejudice is a LOT of people's favourite read.
Well, consider me suitably chastened... ^_^;;
Samuel Delany, huh? Okay, he goes on my list. :) Now I remember where you mentioned him before, it was about Lucas stealing ideas from him. I like him already. =]
Ah, like so, about style. The thing is, I'm aware of style in the same way I'm aware of air pressure. It's there, and it influences how I feel, and if it gets really extreme in some direction I even become aware of it, but most of the time, I don't think about it. Well, except for the dialogue. If the dialogue is clumsily, it sets my teeth on edge right away. But then, I read dialogue very carefully, and I'm kind of skim-ish with all the rest... which might be why my descriptions are as they are. =]
I disagree about theme, though. Each of the other three pillars define and are defined by one another - the characters are representatives of a world that they are also shaped by, and their actions and interaction with the world form the plot, and the needs of the plot determines what sort of characters and world you get... and so on. Well, theme is the interpretation of the events and personalities and mechanisms within the story, much like philosophy is the interpretation of the real world. And like the other pillars, it both defines and are defined by the others - the plot/characters/world is first chosen to express a theme, but as writing is not an exact science, once the story is written the way the plot/characters/world turned out may have changed the theme into something very different.
Style would seem to be the odd one out, because it's not part of the story - it's the story's delivery system. =] I wouldn't call it a pillar, though perhaps one should call it the foundation. :)
> URGHLE, am being way too teacherish, do please forgive me.
No worries. I need a teacher at times. =]
Seriously, I hope I haven't annoyed you in some way. I'm having a bad week, socially. Everything I do seem to rub people the wrong way. ^_^;
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-01 11:47 am (UTC)I love discussing literature with you, y'know? You always make me reconsider things. Alright, then, theme it is. BUT, in the spirit of friendly discussion, I propose we amend the pillars to five. *G* It's a myffic number, is five. Soooo much better than four. Because, y'know, it's good when one doesn't notice style: it generally means it's doing its work, but style defines the quality of storytelling. You can't write a post-modern sci-fi story in a high fantasy style. Style tells readers what kind of thing they're reading in the first few paragraphs. Style gives individuality to the voices in a dialogue, so much so that, theoretically, one shouldn't need constant reminders of who's speaking.
I mention dialogue because of what you say, which is true. Rythm and pacing are part of a good dialogue and that's a style thing. Descriptions... Y'know? I have a nagging doubt you read style as a 'conscious art' thing or something equally abstract. Personally I think long descriptions are dead boring and point to a lack of control, hence to a very poor style of writing. A good writer should evoke places and people: give the reader a few salient images and the reader will do the rest. Go on and on AND on about verdant hills and leaves on trees and clothes and every single hair on a body and my mind - for example - shuts down and refuses to get drawn in the story. POssibly falls alseep instead of shutting down, but you get my drift.
Re-reading our posts I think we are essentially in agreement while happily differing in details, as it should be. Ain't it great? Also cool and all kinds of positive things? It's like we essentially agree about Sandman, but, being two different people, we reacted differently to particular scenes. *G*
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-02 09:20 pm (UTC)Oh, likewise! :D I'm extremely flattered that you feel I'm someone you can discuss with as an equal, actually. :)
> BUT, in the spirit of friendly discussion, I propose we amend the pillars
> to five.
Hear, hear. One can have as many pillars as one wants. =]
> It's a myffic number, is five.
It's my favourite number, actually. I always felt that it was a nicely reliable and trusthworthy number. Multiply any other number, and you have no idea what you'll end up with (very sloppy, that. =]). Multiply the number five with an odd number, however, and the last digit will be five, and if you multiply it with an even number, the last digit will be zero. You know where you stand with the number five. =]
Mythic? Hmm... I know it's a significant number in some metaphysics, since it might stand for four earthly elements and the soul. Does it show up in myths, too?
Say, did you ever read The Illuminatus Trilogy? Now there's one of the few books I suffered my way through the first time and then reread with glee. Normally, I'm more faithful in my literary antipathy. =]
> Because, y'know, it's good when one doesn't notice style: it generally
> means it's doing its work, but style defines the quality of storytelling.
Hee. I guess I see what you mean. :) Certainly I notice it when someone is using the "wrong" style for a story (for the purpose of parody, usually).
I believe that the next new book I read, I'm going to try to pay attention to how the author says things, not just how he says them. Given that that's likely to be Blue Like Jazz, a gift from my otherwise nice but rabidly religious friend, I could probably use the distraction. =]
> I have a nagging doubt you read style as a 'conscious art' thing or
> something equally abstract.
Hmmm... it's possible that I on some level regard carefully crafted prose as "showing off," yes. Which isn't a good thing, because style does influence my enjoyment of a story, as I said... I must ponder.
(*grins*) Did I mention that you always make me reconsider things, too? :)
> A good writer should evoke places and people: give the reader a few
> salient images and the reader will do the rest.
Pratchett! :D And yeah, I notice that both in my own writing in what I read. The descriptions you enjoy the most are the ones that just sketch it out.
> POssibly falls alseep instead of shutting down, but you get my drift.
Consider the drift duly gotten. See, when I was a lot younger and dumber, I used to love the works of a certain gentleman named Robert Jordan... =]
> Ain't it great? Also cool and all kinds of positive things?
Yes, yes, yes! :D
Oh, since you're sceptical to genres, maybe this will interest you. See, I've read the most genre book in the universe. It's quite amazing, there is nothing in there that's not genre. No "one author's take on the genre." No "comment on the genre." It's just genre! ^_^;;
As such, while this is technically a review, there is not very much to review about this book. Instead, I talk a lot about the fantasy genre at its worst. You may find some things you agree with. :) (http://baeraad.livejournal.com/28662.html)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-02 09:22 pm (UTC)Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-08 10:57 pm (UTC)What's this shite, luv? Of course we're equals! We're both human beings who are not afraid to voice our opinions. What more 'equal' do you want? Hm?
Mythic? Hmm... I know it's a significant number in some metaphysics, since it might stand for four earthly elements and the soul. Does it show up in myths, too?
'Course it does. For the same reason you so brilliantly point out (i.e. the even/odd easy combination) and because the Egyptian Calendar Year was made up of 12 thirty days months and 5 FIVE in-between days which, of course, were holy as anything. 12 months plus 5 days makes 17 which, of course, is a bad-luck number in subsequent patriarchal christian/hebrew/islamic cultures. the other bad-luck number, 13, comes from a matriarchal calendar as well. The 13 twenty-eight days months of the Lunar Calendar (plus a Cardea or Hinge day). The best calendar ever, loses one second every five years. :p
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-09 04:38 pm (UTC)Well, when you put it that way... =] Still, I'm slightly in awe of just how well-read you are, of how many and, good lord, how advanced books you can make casual references to. Shakespeare is one thing, but someone who has read ancient Greek playwrites is surely in a division above mine. :)
I'm certainly not going to put down my own favourites (Have you read Martin yet? Read Martin! ;) Except, okay, if the budget is tight this month I agree that Pratchett comes first. :D). I will argue to the death that each of them has either skill or originality or both. But it can't be denied that all my favourites are modern authors, and what is more, they're all modern genre authors. I have a lingering feeling that my perspective is a little narrow.
I do try to learn, and to broaden my horizons. You've been very helpful with that. :) But I still have that nagging suspicion that I have no idea what I'm talking about sometimes. ^_^;
Not that I let that stop me, mind. If everyone waited until they had a clue before opening their mouths, the world would be a very silent place. ;)
'Course it does...
Hmm, interesting... 0_0 Where did they have the Lunar calender?
12 months plus 5 days makes 17 which, of course, is a bad-luck number in subsequent patriarchal christian/hebrew/islamic cultures.
Say, you know a lot about this stuff. Would you say that the Egyptian culture was also pretty patriarchal? I know they had goddesses and priestesses and such, but that doesn't have to mean very much. And I can't help it notice that the most famous story out of Egyptian mythology is about a woman going through a tremendous amount of work on behalf of a husband who couldn't find his backside using both hands. =] Heck, she even had to knock herself up, because he wasn't equal to the task - and still he's supposed to be the hero of the story.
That Osiris, he knew how to get the maximal credit from the minimal effort... =]
Seriously, the impression I'm getting is that the Egyptian men considered themselves to be much holier and more important than the women (though that might strike both ways, I guess; Christianity uses women as a symbol of grace and divinity, it just doesn't like them to actually do anything or decide anything). But that's a gut impression. Could you tell me what the informed opinion is?
the other bad-luck number, 13, comes from a matriarchal calendar as well.
I did hear somewhere that it used to be a lucky number before it became an unlucky number, yeah... I suppose that's along the lines of old gods = new demons, such as poor old Shaitan getting turned into Satan, huh? =]
Funnily enough, in the first setting I constructed, I decided that the people in it had a 13-month year with 28 days per month. It just seemed so much more logical. =]
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-14 12:58 am (UTC)I love myths - that's why I love Gaiman, y'know? - but I love ancient cultures best so yeah, I've read a bit about them. Ancient Egyptians changed froma a matriarchal society to a mixed one to a patriarchal society, true, but they never saw the need to change the calendar which wasn't the best around, but which they liked because of the five day Intercalar Festival thingie. That's where the Phoenix is born as well, y'know? Every fifty year they had to adjust teh calendar so they added a Day of the Phoenix the old calendar died and was reborn of its ashes. All very symbolic and myffic, y'know?
As for Egytptian men... well... it works both ways donnit? There's this spectacular Ancient Egytptian novel, and yeah, it's Fantasy, The Tale of Two Brothers which I'd highly recommend if I didn't know how hard it is to read nowadays. Possibly a translation has been published but I've no idea. Then there's lots of papyri (am NOT going to type papyruses! YACK) about life and death and everything, so we can know quite a bit about Ancient Egyptians. I repeat, mum's a librarian in the Bodleian (Oxford famed library) so I have access to lots of odd info.
Perfect calendar= 13 28 day months with an extra day to symbolise the Hinge the year turned around. "THE" famous 'a year and a day' of fairy tales. Lost less time than our current patriarchal hysterical calendar in a year. *g* It's way more logical than most calendar of ancient AND present times. It's, of course, a Lunar calendar, hence made by women o horror of horrors!
Am stewing on things and life and things and dead people, so won't be on much, but will be back as soon as stew is done. Mucho love.
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-16 09:54 pm (UTC)I did sort of guess you'd been born into a family of literate people. If your middle name is what your email says it is, it's a bit of a hint. =]
I guess I'm from a family of big readers too, though rather eclectic readers. Not that it took any prodding that I can remember to make me start devouring every book in sight as soon as I learned to read. Is there such a thing as reader genes? =]
So shutup as my friend Mick used to say.
I will commence shutting up immediately. =]
There's this spectacular Ancient Egytptian novel, and yeah, it's Fantasy, The Tale of Two Brothers which I'd highly recommend if I didn't know how hard it is to read nowadays.
As in, it's in ancient Egyptian? ^_^;; Or is it just that the translation is very old English?
(come to think of it, I've seen "very old English," and it might as well be ancient Egyptian for all that I could make out of it... ^_^;; Let's hope for a new translation, then. :D )
Anyway, I'll put it on my list. Beneath something of Delany. :)
Though right now, I'm in the mood for something Gothic, actually. Autumn has arrived in force, and it's done something to my temper. I want looming towers and ancient mansions and dread secrets and melodrama! :D
I considered Jane Eyre, but decided, based on the plot summary I found, that I'd read five pages and want to strangle the heroine. ^_^; I'll see if the message board crowd has any suggestions. And otherwise, I guess there's always Lovecraft. He's got dread secrets and melodrama all over, if I remember my high school reads of him properly... =]
Then there's lots of papyri (am NOT going to type papyruses! YACK) about life and death and everything, so we can know quite a bit about Ancient Egyptians.
I have a great big book on ancient Egypt, which I bought to do research for a novel I had planned (it crashed and burned, but I'm proud to announce that it wasn't for lack of worldbuilding. ;) ). I keep thinking I should read it all sometime, but there's so many other great big books lying on top of it. I'm much better at buying books than on reading them, as it turns out... =]
But that said, I have actually read a bunch of stuff on Egypt, though mostly I think I skimmed it looking for references to Set. There is one god in all the myths and religions of all the world that I feel I have something in common with... =]
"THE" famous 'a year and a day' of fairy tales.
Oh, so that's what that's all about.
Am stewing on things and life and things and dead people, so won't be on much, but will be back as soon as stew is done. Mucho love.
Uhm... good luck with that? Tell me how it turns out? ^_^; I'll be ready to welcome you back once you're done stewing. :)
Much love back. (*HUGS*) :)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-17 10:22 pm (UTC)Yep, am Jane Austen Something, my bro is Sean Yeats and my sister is Fleur Ronsard. Two poets and a novelist. *G*
Tale of Two Brothers is of course in ancient Egyptian, but I've read a fairly modern (I think on or about the 1960s) translation. Unfortunately that's not in print anymore. :(
Something gothic...
Are you going classical? In which case Frankenstein is your best bet, or anything by Poe. If you're going contemporary, may I suggest Reginald Hill's Dialogues of the Dead? I know it's labelled as a thriller, but it really ain't, it's gothic and how! Lovely characters, lovely worldbuilding, lovely style and a hell of a wow plot. Oh, and I wouldn't spit on the theme (hidden) as well. Or The Stranger House also by R. Hill which is actually more chilling just because it seems so much more innocuous and airy.
Stew is still bubbling, I feel I have to post something about my dead, but I also feel I shouldn't. You know how it is...
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-19 06:17 pm (UTC)I read Poe in high school and didn't like him much. I picked up some of his short stories anyway, and find I like him a lot more now. Either I've become a more advanced reader (one might hope) or else it's just because he is exactly what I'm in the mood for right now. Lots of insane, scholarly aristocrats and dark deeds and horrors from beyond the grave. :D I think his sense of humour just leaves me scratching my head, though.
I'll try the other two you mentioned too, I think. Clearly you know what I'm after here. :)
Stew is still bubbling, I feel I have to post something about my dead, but I also feel I shouldn't. You know how it is...
I'm not sure. If you mean you worry no one wants to hear your problems, let me assure you that I do. If you mean it's a matter of discretion and someone might not want you to tell anyone, let me assure you that I wouldn't dream of asking you to betray a confidence. If you mean it's something personal enough that you don't feel comfortable sharing, then I can respect that.
Not really having a clue of what the issue is, that's really all I can say... except hope you work it out. And (*HUGS you*). :)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-24 02:40 am (UTC)Nah, it's personal but not THAT personal, it's just...
Look it's hard to explain, I'd like to write about them, but at the same time I feel I shouldn't. Bit of a conflict, see? And DO read Reginald Hill. Get out of the Fantasy Cage and learn that spiffy chilly horror and sweeping major themes can come in ANY package. Y'know, I'm starting to think you're a bit of a genreist or a bookicist or something. :P
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-25 05:09 pm (UTC)Y'know, I'm starting to think you're a bit of a genreist or a bookicist or something. :P
I am no such thing! ^_^;; I'm just naturally inclined towards specialisation rather than branching out. =] I mean, as far as fantasy goes, I know the ropes. I know you don't touch Goodkind with a ten-foot pole if you value your sanity, I know that no matter how bad your budget at the moment, you make sure to get your hands on the latest Pratchett, and I know that if a blurb mentions a miss-matched group going on a journey to find a magical gadget, it's going to be derivative crap and I should stay away. =]
If I started reading something else, I'd be in unchartered territory. I could by all means chart it, eventually, but not before having to wade through extensive amounts of crap in order to learn where the good stuff was found. =]
But I will read Reginald Hill. Promise. ;)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-08 10:58 pm (UTC)Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-09 03:06 pm (UTC)I was threatened with a Hawaii shirt once, but what with the Devil looking after his own and all, the threatener was unable to find one. Whew. I was spared the dread touch of (*shudders*) colour. =]
Actually, I suppose I do own at least one shirt with a Golden Retriever on it, so possibly the rule is not quite so absolute as all that. But then, I understand you're a cat person, so maybe that's no real help... =]
Shirts
Date: 2006-10-14 12:46 am (UTC)Love dogs as well, but yea, am a cat person. Possibly am a werecat. Don't know for sure. You can't even begin to imagine what it means not being able to wash and wash for a werecat. 'orrible.
Anyway, loved your essay, if I didn't make that clear enough before. You've got a pellucid quality I can't resist. PURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Re: Shirts
Date: 2006-10-16 10:33 pm (UTC)I'm a bit partial to white myself, actually. I've been thinking of putting together a couple of all-white outfits as a change to my normal, all-black outfits. Just to freak out everyone who's gotten used to seeing me wear only those. I wonder if it'd take them a moment to realise it was me? =]
hello Vanity
We have a friend in common, it seems. Vanity is such a fun vice. And it requires no special equipment other than a mirror. :D
Really, I didn't use to be this way, I'm almost certain. ^_^;; I use to be all intellectual and "looks, pah, such nonsense." But give me a thinner face and longer (and cleaner) hair, and all of a sudden I'm Narcissus. Disturbing. But we're pretty much stuck with our faces for life, so we might as well appreciate them, I guess. =]
Possibly am a werecat.
Really? Very cool. :D I've read about that sort of thing, and it gave me that nice "the world is a very interesting place" feeling. :)
Hmm, you do have a number of cat-like traits. Hating to take orders, inclined to wander far and wide, graceful but with claws should claws be required... yeah, I can see it. :)
Personally, I seem to be... I don't know, human plus. Ten gallons of human in a five-gallon container. There was a time when I felt like some kind of space alien, but eventually I concluded that the reason why I didn't fit in was that most people weren't as human as me. Which really is their problem, when you think about it. ;)
Well, just possibly I feel a certain kinship with chimpanzees. Their entire way of being seems so comfortable. =]
Anyway, loved your essay, if I didn't make that clear enough before. You've got a pellucid quality I can't resist. PURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
(*BEAMS*) I'm glad to hear that, and you are most kind to say it. :D
no subject
Date: 2006-10-22 02:29 pm (UTC)Writing characters, I have finally come to believe, is a lot like doing research. (Um. I hardly do any research for fic, unless one counts reading the books. But you know what I mean!) I have a heap of research on scrap paper that I carry around with me. And I have a heap of thoughts on characterisation in my head. And yet you only put down certain things on the actual page, so three hours' research becomes two lines. And this makes one feel frustrated and like you want to copy and paste everything you know. But eventually and for some reason, you understand that it has to be that way: three hours research, two lines. But the right two lines.
Thank you for the kind words and the thought put into this!
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 02:22 am (UTC)Don't thank the poor critic, luv, jusssss keep writing! We DO love you, dontcha know? We all do.