McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Redefining Established Paranomal Beings
Darwinist:
"the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance
I can certainly agree there. But you say it as if its a derogatory term. Sure, in most context it can be. However, in this specific instance, it is not. I do not read Werewolf books, I derive the meaning of the term based on the explanation that Butcher has provided. So there is no lack of knowledge or learning. It is a lack of a proper explanation and definition by the author - not the readers fault. Not to heap blame on Jim, but it is certainly not my own. Do you read medical journals? So if one was to start throwing out terms, and then loosely defining them within the manuscript of what the authors intention of that term was - would you be ignorant if you based your understanding off of the information given?
I think the funniest part in all of this is that you two are being ignorant for calling me ignorant, lol.
Good luck Ogre. From the average lay persons perspective, I know very little about Ghoul's myself... but originality is never a bad thing. The literary world needs more of it.
comprex:
--- Quote from: Darwinist on October 27, 2009, 02:25:48 PM ---I do not read Werewolf books, I derive the meaning of the term based on the explanation that Butcher has provided. So there is no lack of knowledge or learning. It is a lack of a proper explanation and definition by the author - not the readers fault.
--- End quote ---
Uh, what is Bob's little speech to Harry other than an explanation?
We are given -exactly- as much information on loup-garou as we are on hexenwulf as we are on lycanthrope.
Your assertion is that loup-garou is lame and forced for inadequate explanation? What information are we -lacking- for that one that we have for the other two?
--- Quote --- Not to heap blame on Jim, but it is certainly not my own. Do you read medical journals? So if one was to start throwing out terms, and then loosely defining them within the manuscript of what the authors intention of that term was - would you be ignorant if you based your understanding off of the information given?
--- End quote ---
You based your understanding of 'hexenwulf' and 'lycanthrope' on exactly the same amount and type of information, yet asserted that loup-garou was lame and forced.
Using your own argument, you are not Greek and JB is not Greek, so why is lycanthrope acceptable?
Using your own argument, you are not German and JB is not German, so why is 'hexenwulf' acceptable?
I am not calling you ignorant, I am calling you inconsistent within your own terms.
Kris_W:
--- Quote from: neurovore on October 27, 2009, 02:48:48 AM ---***Snip***
I'd be surprised to see the important bits show up before the last sixth.
--- End quote ---
That is why writing is hard work.
Gruud:
Since your thread has already been hijacked ... :D
--- Quote from: Kris_W on October 26, 2009, 09:05:47 PM ---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…)
--- End quote ---
Can anyone point to some good references on how to handle exposition? Perhaps in a vein similar to the JB guides that led me here?
I'm working on backstory type stuff right now that will eventually become expository, to be delivered in a variety of ways, but I could really use a good (and free :P) examination of the various accepted and/or conventional ways of handing these bits properly.
If done in large blocks, I'm afraid it comes off as way too textbooky, at least from me, and the last thing I want to do is to send the readers back to school ...
Back on topic, as long as the ghouls are reasonably recognizable as ghouls, then calling them ghouls should be just fine.
And keep in mind, they can look like ghouls or they can act like ghouls, without being the same ghouls that pop up in a Google search.
But if the have no ghoulish tendencies at all, then another name might be better.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Darwinist on October 27, 2009, 02:25:48 PM ---. But you say it as if its a derogatory term. Sure, in most context it can be. However, in this specific instance, it is not. I do not read Werewolf books, I derive the meaning of the term based on the explanation that Butcher has provided. So there is no lack of knowledge or learning. It is a lack of a proper explanation and definition by the author - not the readers fault.
--- End quote ---
There's enough information in there to tell you what a loup-garou is in the context of the story, Jim lets you know what you need to know. You don't need the French derivation to make sense of what's going on, so I don't see where your complaint is coming from . (Which is a different point from calling you a dumb parochial monoglot for not knowing any French.)
--- Quote ---Do you read medical journals? So if one was to start throwing out terms, and then loosely defining them within the manuscript of what the authors intention of that term was - would you be ignorant if you based your understanding off of the information given?
--- End quote ---
I do read medical journals, and it is kind of notable that some terms get defined precisely in the context of the paper, and others are established uses within the field, because a new journal article is not the same thing as a basic text of the field and it is reasonable to assume that people interested in one are already familiar with the other; critiquing a research article for not being an introductory text is missing the point.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version