ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on September 06, 2011, 05:54:30 PM
-
http://aliettedb.livejournal.com/392989.html
I thought this was worth bringing to people's attentions here; it's about a tendency for certain US-culture-specific takes on what stories are worth telling to slip into being considered as universals, and pointing out directions where there are also stories worth telling that those takes can cause to be overlooked; as a person born and brought up in Ireland and now Canadian by choice, I found myself in sympathy with much of it. Lots of interesting stuff in comments, too, though some of the tangents go Touchy.
-
You're going to have a hard time selling the lack of need for a Hero's Journey.
If she ever takes the time to expand on the paragraphs "I don't want stories in" and "Also, I am tired of", I would appreciate the link. Thank you.
-
You're going to have a hard time selling the lack of need for a Hero's Journey.
There's plenty of excellent fantasy out there that doesn't do anything like that; there was a great panel on it this past Readercon. (Ian McDonald's Desolation Road, Daniel Abraham's Long Price Quartet, and Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell are the first three examples to come to mind; the last of which at least was a major international bestseller and publishing phenomenon.)
-
I repeat my case by analogy: If you were to point out that Foucault's Pendulum exists, you have not made a case for lack of need of a DaVinci Code.
-
I repeat my case by analogy: If you were to point out that Foucault's Pendulum exists, you have not made a case for lack of need of a DaVinci Code.
I think the existence of Foucault's Pendulum is pretty conclusive proof that a) the DaVinci Code is not the only way to approach that particular subgenre b) it's not the only approach that can be sold to a publisher and c) it's not the only approach that can do reasonably well in terms of sales.
I'm not arguing lack of need for a DaVinci Code, so much as, if you want to do Templars and secret histories, DaVinci Code is not the only option worth pursuing.
-
I'm not arguing lack of need for a DaVinci Code, so much as, if you want to do Templars and secret histories, DaVinci Code is not the only option worth pursuing.
What would be a suitable argument for a priori preferment of non-HJ approaches, in your opinion?
Preferably "suitable" includes "avoids the reefs of elitism".
I do not believe FP would have done reasonably well in terms of sales if it hadn't been for TNOTR's coattails.
-
Interesting article, bearing in mind that many (most?) of the tropes invoked are not American/Hollywood in origin. Superheroes, for instance, have their roots in characters such as Heracles and Beowulf, and the Hero's Journey dates from the earliest recorded stories.
As for the writer's wish for more passive protagonists who are content simply to let things happen to them and not take charge of their own stories, this can be done really well (American Gods comes to mind) or horribly (Twilight?) but in any case it's apt to be a tough sell in today's climate, where conflict, conflict, conflict is the rule.
-
What would be a suitable argument for a priori preferment of non-HJ approaches, in your opinion?
That the Hero's Journey has been done to death, and that there is an audience for innovative stuff ?
That as a writer one learns more from trying new stuff than from recycling familiar story-shapes, and that learning stuff is a good thing for a writer ?
That if you do write a Hero's Journey, it's going to be kind of hard to stand out from the large numbers of other Hero's Journeys on the shelves ?
Preferably "suitable" includes "avoids the reefs of elitism".
I'm not willing to work on a basis that denies the existence of quality altogether.
I do not believe FP would have done reasonably well in terms of sales if it hadn't been for TNOTR's coattails.
Perhaps, but NotR's central characters are not exactly following a Hero's Journey model either. Nor indeed doing many of the other things the post I linked to objects to.
-
Speaking as an American living in Los Angeles, I have to ask: People place that much importance on Hollywood movies? Really??
In all seriousness, these are flimsy diversions meant as entertainment with a major emphasis on entertaining. There is little effort made for accuracy, seriousness, or much else that the author appears to be looking for.
I did appreciate most of this paragraph (though I still have issues with the end of it):
"And before you ask, yes, I know those are tropes, and I know that not *all* US books/movies/series follow them, just like not all French books feature, say, bumbling bosses or people going on strike–and that not all groups or minorities in the US agree with those tropes. I’m just commenting on something that, for good or evil, the US has managed to export abroad (thank you, Hollywood) and therefore is the perception of US storytelling from my window, and the window of a great deal many people in the world".
But I think that the author should have kept it much more in mind for the rest of the article than they did. Some U.S. companies export, some of them prove successful, but it doesn't make those successes representative of anything more than monetary gains for the one, or few, companies doing each of those incidences of exporting. Also, if ten, twenty or thirty million Americans watch a movie then that means that hundreds of millions of Americans don't. And there's no guarantee that those who did watch whatever movie is in question enjoyed it, agreed with it, or took it at all seriously.
Let's take a look at the argument from the reverse. Many other countries manage to effectively export little culturally here, would the author really argue that American audiences should base their perceptions on those few messages that get through in our popular culture? We hear that the Irish like green, potatoes and Leprechauns. That Italians like or put up with leather, pasta and gangsters. Should the US population really accept that that is all that there is to those countries and then judge their populations on it? How would denizens of those nations appreciate posts like the following, based on the cultural messages that get through? I would say they wouldn't, but that seems to be the argument that the author is applying to the US. Here's an example,
"Dear Irish, it seems that you like the color green too much. There are many other colors and your fixation on green strikes us as unhealthy. Have you thought of giving others colors a chance"?
Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens of the U.S.A.
The above just seems nonsensical.
Further, it's hard to take seriously anyone who would make assumptions about US racism from movies. The US is a big place and what goes on in one State, in some key ways, often has little bearing on another. England and Italy are both European, but could observers rightfully claim that they are essentially synonymous and representative of each other?
Ultimately, Hollywood movies are mostly trivial entertainments with little basis in reality. For example, Los Angeles County and it's surrounding area, which contains Hollywood, has large concentrations of many ex-patriate groups, such as Armenians, Persians, Koreans, and Vietnamese. How often do you see that mentioned in Hollywood movies, especially in movies dealing with "race"? Those movies tend to focus on "blacks" and "whites" but don't even include the large numbers of "blacks" who moved in their lifetimes from Africa or the Caribbean, or "whites" who came from Australia, Canada, England, etc. Much less the many, many, many groups from all over Central & South America, Europe, Asia, etc. Obviously people have the right to view the US as they like, but imo the greater fault here lies with those who take these movies much more seriously than they deserve.
-
I also have to disagree with the assessment of the Long Price Quartet as excellent. Obviously such assignations are ultimately only a personal determination, but ime there is something approximating a 50/50 split between those who are impressed by it and those who are not.
I only ever read the first book, but while I would agree that the prose was indeed lovely, imo that is not always a good thing. I prefer to immerse myself in the tale being told, and oftentimes find that if the writing is too noticeable then it can be too much of a distraction from the other elements of the story for my tastes.
Otherwise, there isn't much about the book that would give me reason to recommend it. The plot, at it's most basic, was intriguing and I found the same with a few details of the culture as well. But all in all, I found the characters quite insubstantial and shallow in terms of their development and the story itself to be bare bones and not terribly interesting. More than anything, it reminded me of a Young Adult book that was written well. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but for me that is a far cry from "excellence". It was a book that I really wanted to like, but unfortunately for me that wasn't the case.
-
Many other countries manage to effectively export little culturally here, would the author really argue that American audiences should base their perceptions on those few messages that get through in our popular culture?
I think the argument would be that the failure of those messages to get through is part of the problem.
-
I also have to disagree with the assessment of the Long Price Quartet as excellent. Obviously such assignations are ultimately only a personal determination, but ime there is something approximating a 50/50 split between those who are impressed by it and those who are not.
I only ever read the first book
I would argue, in that specific case, that the cumulative build through the series is more important than in many series. Though I would also disagree with you on the quality of the characterisation, so some of this may well be down to taste.
-
I'm not willing to work on a basis that denies the existence of quality altogether.
If we use a subjective interpretation of quality it can easily be phrased as "A pre-existing metric by which something could be liked by others". Which can rework your statement here into "My work pleaseth me not, if it pleaseth only me." (And yes, there is a jokey implication in there about book series too). Do you intend this meaning?
For an objective interpretation of quality, we strictly need a showing of quality no one likes.
-
As a big fan of foreign stories, movies and myth, I can't resist commenting on this one.
Most of what is complained about I would not describe as an AMERICAN trope.
I’m tired of plots that value individualism and egotism above all else
The pejorative term hurts this point, but I would agree rugged individualism is a very American feature.
to be active and not take anything that life deals at them lying down
Odysseus disagreed with this. Ranma disagrees. There are countless examples that predate America of this.
Eh, I can't list them all. Heroes of destiny, meet Water Margin and King Arthur. Violence as a resolution instead of seeking a peaceful resolution meet Beowulf. 'in which women exist only to be sidelined or as surrogate men' Seriously? A thousand thousand stories that predate America have this. Which is valid, after all, the author of the blog makes the point we can't accept American concepts of equality is as the only correct answer.
I would agree super heroes re in many ways uniquely American, based on the old vigilante concept of the American wild west. But they are not universally American.
'Plots featuring America as the centre of the world, where aliens land near LA–and decisions are made in NYC for the entire world.'
I would agree on this. Just like plots that feature London as the center of the world tend to be British tropes, and plots that feature Hong Kong or Beijing as the center are Chinese. Writers tend to center their stories on where they are from. Greek writers put Greece at the center of the world, etc.
It's a fun rant, but I can't take it seriously as anything more than a rant. The spread of American culture is real enough, the culture of a superpower being popular outside thgat nation has been true throughout history. And right now with the ease of communication that influence occurs much faster and is more easily noticed.
-
I've always thought of rugged individualism as a character flaw, myself. We shall see how well the influence of this on my fiction affects its chances of selling.
-
I think the argument would be that the failure of those messages to get through is part of the problem.
I'm not sure that I could safely say that based on the author's text. But if the author, or anyone else, were to make that claim then I would certainly agree.
And I think that it's a problem that goes both ways. If the only U.S. culture that is reaching you is THE BIG HIT SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER then it's definitely a "part of the problem". But the problem isn't that that is all that the U.S. culture is creating. It's a problem that that's what is being most effectively sold and marketed by U.S. corporations and then is being bought by other nations' media buyers and being consumed in sufficient quantities to perpetuate the cycle.
For example, I'm more familiar with U.S. television then I am with movies. I know that the CSI brands sell, and then rate, quite well in a number of different markets. When shows like those are some of the bigger successes, then it helps to keep them being made in the U.S. and seems to show the media buyers in those markets that those are the sorts of properties that the buyers should continue to look for. For a long time Baywatch was far more popular in many other countries than it was in the U.S. and so imo those non-U.S. consumers should certainly share some responsibility for that particular "contribution" to the world culture. I'm absolutely not disputing that the U.S. content producers, sellers and some portion of the American people play a part in that which the author was complaining of. But I do believe that there is more to the equation than they discussed. In the same way, I can't believe that every Canadian should be responsible for Justin Bieber. ;)
-
I would argue, in that specific case, that the cumulative build through the series is more important than in many series.
I really am reluctant to give this series any more of my time. But, in order to go the extra kilometer to ensure that I am giving it a fair chance, I purchased "A Betrayal in Winter" today. I have quite a lot of books waiting to be read, but I will try to read it when I can, and reevaluate my impressions if necessary.
Though I would also disagree with you on the quality of the characterisation, so some of this may well be down to taste.
Could be. It is my belief that there are a number of factors that people use, sometimes consciously and sometimes not, in order to arrive at their final estimations of "good", "bad", "excellent", "a failure", etc. I believe that without quite a bit of context and insight into each person's thought processes, those evaluations are nearly (or even completely) worthless. I have seen seemingly intelligent people who prefer brevity in terms of characterization and seemingly intelligent people who prefer that characterization be written in as much depth as possible. The fantasy author Robin Hobb is a good example of the latter preference, someone whose writing very much appeals to a portion of the audience, though at the same time there are readers who are very much put off by her style, sometimes with a passion. I don't know if you are familiar with her work, but it struck me as a good example to contrast with Abraham's.
-
I'm not willing to work on a basis that denies the existence of quality altogether.
Imo, "quality" is one of those terms like "attractive". It often means different things to different people. Sometimes dramatically so. I think that it exists, but it can take a lot of effort for two people to understand each other well enough to employ it in a useful way.