Tales retold and made to fly

[flyingskull]

Ezra 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, 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.

Comments

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

You know, I was just thinking, "my goodness, it's been much too long since I had a word with friend Jane. This must be rectified without delay!" =]

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... ^_^;; )

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

I fail for not answering this before: ascribe it to busy-ness and a lack of knowing what to say and the fact the original is kicking my ass until I weep for my mother. Of course I read it and was very pleased with myself in consequence!

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!