McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Redefining Established Paranomal Beings
Son of an Ogre:
lol Goombas! Darn someone beat me to it ;)
Neurovore, Ghoulems...actually sounds pretty good. Sounds familiar, though. Oh yeah. Like Golem.
comprex:
"Is your Ghoul Description Language strongly typed?"
Kris_W:
TOO LONG - DON'T READ :P
Not only are you allowed to explain paranormal creatures for your readers, you are pretty much required to explain them.
This explanations belong in the exposition. It’s a tautology, the exposition is where things are explained. This is normally somewhere around the first third of the book (first sixth is better).
There’s a sliding scale for what readers will accept – The closer a fictional ‘fact’ is to the beginning of the book, the easier the reader will feel about accepting it. Introducing details too close to the point where the main character needs it feels like cheating. (Ok, ok, ok, I know. This is part of American fiction writing style, not everybody does this.)
Identify the Key Points that your readers must understand about the creature for the story to work. Make sure these things are repeated, preferably with examples that will stick in the reader’s mind.
But disguise the Key Points amid other pieces of information so that the reader does not obsess about the point. AND do not give the reader too many unneeded Creature Facts so that the reader does not obsess about the point. (And NO, writing is NOT easier without readers.)
Even if you are using an absolutely bog-standard creature that Everyone Knows – You still have to define it for the reader. You just have to make sure your definition is more entertaining. If you know you are diverting from popular notions about a phantasmal creature you must address that notion. Have some character ask about the misconception, and have some other character (As you know, Bob) give the facts as they apply to your story – Or some such literary trick.
A good Dresden example is the Black Court Vampire Attack in Chapter 17 of Blood Rites. That scene is almost completely exposition – and one of the funniest fight scenes I’ve ever read (…the timer popped out…)
Son of an Ogre:
--- Quote from: Kris_W on October 26, 2009, 09:05:47 PM ---There’s a sliding scale for what readers will accept – The closer a fictional ‘fact’ is to the beginning of the book, the easier the reader will feel about accepting it. Introducing details too close to the point where the main character needs it feels like cheating. (Ok, ok, ok, I know. This is part of American fiction writing style, not everybody does this.)
Identify the Key Points that your readers must understand about the creature for the story to work. Make sure these things are repeated, preferably with examples that will stick in the reader’s mind.
But disguise the Key Points amid other pieces of information so that the reader does not obsess about the point. AND do not give the reader too many unneeded Creature Facts so that the reader does not obsess about the point. (And NO, writing is NOT easier without readers.)
Even if you are using an absolutely bog-standard creature that Everyone Knows – You still have to define it for the reader. You just have to make sure your definition is more entertaining. If you know you are diverting from popular notions about a phantasmal creature you must address that notion. Have some character ask about the misconception, and have some other character (As you know, Bob) give the facts as they apply to your story – Or some such literary trick.
--- End quote ---
I completely understand what you're saying. In fact, I had planned on doing tricks, for example, similar to how Bob sometimes has to educate Harry. I like how that's done. My character knows a few things about ghouls already, but not everything. And I agree with you that certain points need explaining during the first part of the story.
Darwinist:
For the love of god, do not rename it. Part of the charm of stories like Jim Butchers is that he redefines the genre. Vampires that feed on emotions instead of blood. Ghouls that are supernatural hitmen. Werewolves that can change and control their ability. Think back to any books you've read before. It's the very lucky few authors who can write a genre piece that can somehow engage the reader without stumbling into unoriginal territory. It's the brave few who break this mold and invent something new that stick out in your mind.
True, if you rename it, you are still creating something original... but in the same token, you are also betraying the roots of that original idea in the process. And unless you can come up with a decent idea for this new creature, it will come off as forced or lame in the process. If you feel you are that strong of a writer, have at it. If not, stick with breaking the mold, not the name the moldmaker gave it. Because 9 chances out of 10, that name is going to come off as lame or forced. Butcher did it, imo, with Loup Garou. That stupid name still makes me cringe everytime I read it. But I can forgive one mistake, because he's done so many other wonderful things with his writing to make up for it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version