McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Killing Characters
jeno:
^I agree with everything Beefstew said. :D
Snowleopard:
--- Quote from: MarySue on May 06, 2011, 05:42:37 PM ---aka Red Shirts?
--- End quote ---
LOL - Aka RED SHIRTS you got that right Mary Sue.
OZ:
--- Quote ---If this is directed to me, I am confused, thus: I don't think I could have given you an impression that you weren't clear? You quote a response I made to Wordmaker?
--- End quote ---
Only the first line was directed at you. The rest was was not directed at anyone in particular.
--- Quote ---The customer is always right... only which one?
--- End quote ---
Whoever buys the book. I am not trying to establish right or wrong as far as character death or things that make me become disconnected from a story are concerned. I am only stating my personal likes and dislikes. If unlikable (to me) characters caused books not to sell or be enjoyed, Michael Crichton and John Grisham would not have sold millions of books. ( I don't mean this as an insult to either author or their works. Again these are just my personal likes and dislikes.) If dismal and depressing endings weren't enjoyed by many, many readers Dennis Lehane would not be having so many of his books made into movies, many of the horror stories would not sell, and there would be little or no market for 'true crime'.
I do feel however that many critics have become enamored with gloom, doom, and death and think it is more valid or better written than stories with less pain. This I strongly reject. Each has its merits but the superiority of one over the other is only a matter of personal preference.
Wordmaker:
I think it's some kind of human condition. For whatever reason, society generally expects that sad endings are more high brow than happy ones. You can even trace this back to Shakespeare, where aside from his histories, he wrote two kinds of plays. The happy-ending comedies, and the far more serious and highly-regarded tragedies, with their sad endings. This has been a common format for theatre even going back to ancient Greece.
Glorificus:
--- Quote from: Wordmaker on May 07, 2011, 08:40:17 AM ---I think it's some kind of human condition. For whatever reason, society generally expects that sad endings are more high brow than happy ones. You can even trace this back to Shakespeare, where aside from his histories, he wrote two kinds of plays. The happy-ending comedies, and the far more serious and highly-regarded tragedies, with their sad endings. This has been a common format for theatre even going back to ancient Greece.
--- End quote ---
This makes a good point - sad, meandering films by Swedish directors or Woody Allen are considered sophisticated and important while films more easily accessible (comedies, etc.) are considered light weight. Iirc, this switch occurred in the Oscars around 1977 when Saturday Night Fever received only one nomination - not that SNF is high art, but before then the Oscars went to popular movies, not movies very few had heard of. It's somewhat of a cultural shift, and I am sure cultural anthropologists have done many studies on it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version