Prose vs Plot

[Sfinx]

I think it would help this discussion if we could refrain from using adjectives such as 'presumptuous', 'accusatory', 'moronic' or 'puffing' - just like it would help if the ones on the receiving end of said adjectives would refrain from taking it personally.

Appreciate what is being said, and if your opinion differs, state your own. Or ask a question.

Cheers,

Sfinx.

 

[thirstyVan]

I think it would help this discussion if we could refrain from using adjectives such as 'presumptuous', 'accusatory', 'moronic' or 'puffing' - just like it would help if the ones on the receiving end of said adjectives would refrain from taking it personally.

Appreciate what is being said, and if your opinion differs, state your own. Or ask a question.

Cheers,

Sfinx.

IMO, cake is delishus. Do you find cake delishus?

 

[thirstyVan]

I have been following this thread pretty closely (I get bored) and it's gotten pretty out of hand (I don't help).

But I'd like to make a suggestion. If there are people who are interested in really breaking down some of these books whose merits or lack thereof are so hotly contested on this forum, why don't we start a new (and improved) Critical Book of the Month thread?

Why? Well, for example, I believe Roland (i think) mentioned earlier in this thread that he dislikes R.A. Salvatore's work. I read The Dark Elf Trilogy and didn't care for it, but that was years ago. I can't remember much in the way of details, certainly not enough to really carry on a true critical discussion of it.

So I am thinking that we (those that wish to participate) could take a book each month and go through it with a highlighter, or notepad or what have you. That would give us the opportunity to (hopefully) do some really in-depth analysis and maybe spark some real discussion outside of the usual liked/disliked/ characters good/bad, etc. conversation.

Anybody interested?

EDIT: And as to why I think it should be separate from the established BOTM thread, the point of the thread would be to focus on controversial "classics" (that's loosely defined), and to examine them with more critical analysis than is usually found in the BOTM thread (and that includes my own contributions).

If that wasn't clear enough.

 

[Roland 85]

I like that idea. Not sure if I have the time to read the books topics would focus on (yeah, even once a month, I know, but Grad school is demanding...), but I would definitely participate in such a topic whenever I could.

 

[KatG]

Look, Roland, my dear, Trip scolded me for not being sufficiently intellectual in my posts for his tastes and asked me to do an elaborate analysis of three authors you brought up, with specific instructions no less. I said no, I'm not doing that. I said that because I didn't have time and I didn't want to. I don't know why you have a problem with that, but you're going to have to let it go because my answer remains the same.

As for the moderator stuff, when you have several members talking about how disappointing the other members' posts are for discussion, how lacking in depth and intellectual understanding they are and how inferior they are to your own viewpoint, it does actually intimidate some members from attempting to talk in these threads when they have every right to do so, and it is also pushing the rules concerning personal attacks. I don't care if you call me a shallow escapist, but if the three of you keep on and on about it, then yes, I have to get all moderatey about it, and you know how it pushes some members' buttons.

So back on thread topic please, because your asking me to keep elaborating and my keep saying no will make an even more boring conversation. In fact, it has.

 

[Trip]

I'd written something else here, but I decided enough is enough. Yes, Kat, you are of course absolutely right. Now with your help I see how annoying I was the entire time and how I insulted you. I'm very sorry

 

[Roland 85]

Look, Roland, my dear, Trip scolded me for not being sufficiently intellectual in my posts for his tastes and asked me to do an elaborate analysis of three authors you brought up, with specific instructions no less. I said no, I'm not doing that. I said that because I didn't have time and I didn't want to. I don't know why you have a problem with that, but you're going to have to let it go because my answer remains the same.

As for the moderator stuff, when you have several members talking about how disappointing the other members' posts are for discussion, how lacking in depth and intellectual understanding they are and how inferior they are to your own viewpoint, it does actually intimidate some members from attempting to talk in these threads when they have every right to do so, and it is also pushing the rules concerning personal attacks. I don't care if you call me a shallow escapist, but if the three of you keep on and on about it, then yes, I have to get all moderatey about it, and you know how it pushes some members' buttons.

So back on thread topic please, because your asking me to keep elaborating and my keep saying no will make an even more boring conversation. In fact, it has.

No, he didn't do that. In fact, as evidenced by the quotes from his own posts, he took great pains to virtually self-abase himself every other sentence, for the very purpose of not doing what you keep insisting he's doing. And no, those members haven't done that either. It's sad if that's what you see. The text is there, in their (our) posts, easy to read and easier to interpret. Sadly, it's obviously even easier to misinterpret. Also, you might notice you (and of course 3rdI, but he's a regular in that aspect) are the only one(s) to have found those hidden meanings in the topic, as other members were happily answering Trip's posts with not even a shade of being insulted by his ugly superiority.


Anyway, I said what I had to say on the topic - prose rocks!

 

[saintjon]

No I see it too. I was gonna say the kind of writing you guys are harping on about is literary opera. The world has moved on.

Edit: Actually that isn't really what I think. It's hard to explain. I have a hard time describing what is going on here without being wildly insulting though so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Roland 85]

Uh? Sorry, didn't get that at all. What kind of writing are we "harping" about? How is it "literary opera"? What does that mean? And the world has... uh... moved on? Yeah, I feel really stupid now.

 

[KatG]

Alright, since we very clearly want to keep derailing this thread, and since I am once again being accused of abusing my moderator authority because I tried to get you back on thread topic, I'll derail briefly and for the last time:

that's what I meant when I said fantasy readers tend to treat fantasy as escapism. I can't count the times I've had to deal with[/I] or read about "Who's gonna win in a single combat?"-type of questions. Also, treating characters as your best friends, or your annoying little brat-sister, or in any way like people you can meet on the street IS a form of escapism. To me. It's a much healthier form of escapism than running around with a cape and a magic stick, or spending eight hours a day writing fan-fiction with you as the protagonist and Cersei as your step-MILF (or Tyrion as your sly little love-gnome), but it's still a form of escapism. And yes, sure I've done it. Sure I still do. But I keep it to myself and don't let this into my aesthetic impression of a book.

Anyone who is in a costume or writing fan fiction is performing a sicker form of escapism than what you deem to be "healthier" forms of escapism. But that's not an insult or criticism towards those fantasy fans who do write fan fiction or dress up in costumes as performance art and competition. It's just a sicker form of escapism, why would saying that upset someone who does it? You yourself sometimes engage in the "healthier" forms of escapism, but you keep it to yourself and don't involve it in your giving your aesthetic impression of a book, unlike those other folks, who should keep it to themselves but don't. But really, you aren't insulting them by telling them that they are annoying to flaunt their escapism when you keep yours quiet when talking about literature.

(That last one is a sort of emotional/intellectual response (not necessarily coherent) that, in order to effect, you need to go beyond personal likes/dislikes for character, plot and setting.)

Now you are instructing us all in how we need to critique things. We need to go beyond our personal likes/dislikes. But hey, it's not like you're telling anyone what to do. You're just telling them how you think they should talk to you if they don't want you to see them as shallow healthy escapists.

Reading the text as a blueprint can be liberating, but it curtails exactly the force of that aesthetic impression. "Who are you to point out the lack of homoerotic tension between Eddard and Jaime?! It's there! Screw you! Who are you to talk about Brienne and the interesting deconstructionationism or whatever of female fighting characters ? She's an ugly boring b**ch!"

More instruction on what is exactly wrong with other discussants of SFF, with how you find their critiques written in such a manner shallow, a form of escapism not sufficient to assess the aesthetic qualities of a book. But again, they shouldn't feel bad. You're just pointing out how they are doing it wrong.

Valid opinions all.

But you said earlier (see above) that you feel those sorts of opinions should be kept to oneself. Valid, but you shouldn't speak them in a discussion. But that's not discouraging posters from actually speaking their valid opinions in a discussion. After all you said they were valid. Shallow, escapist, but the healthy sort of escapism. And they shouldn't speak them, but in the silence of their own minds, they can be valid. Not on the forums.

Still, I just feel that this kind of snipping away of potential meaning impoverishes greatly both reading and discussions about stuff we read. Not to mention I'm strongly opposed to the inattentiveness to language that the blueprint approach engenders - not only to language in literature, but to language in general.

More lecturing about how other people should talk about books but don't. Regret that they aren't very good at it. But that's not insulting them at all, to tell them that they are impoverishing the discussion of literature in the world.

And in *that* respect, concerning your examples - I wouldn't call Salvatore's language bardic. I wouldn't deign to call him even a workhouse writer. In that example I gave earlier in the thread there is an obvious grammatical error in the first paragraph of his book. I mean, I wouldn't compromise so much as to turn a blind eye to that. (It's a regular feature of his books.) Some would. Some would just skip/skim the text, gleaning the main landmarks of the story along the way.

And here we get to me. You were confused about my use of the word bardic, which is why I did clarify it in my next post. You wouldn't compromise and turn a blind eye to Salvatore's use of grammar, but some would, like say me, who did not object to Salvatore's grammar in talking about his book.

Also, I would certainly *like it* (I don't *want* anything from you or anyone else, I like to think I'm not that presumptuous )

this is my favorite part because of what follows

if instead of saying "Feist has tried some really interesting things" or "Salvatore can do comic and he can do dark", or "I think these and these books by Brooks are really well-written", you would give an example of the interesting things Feist has done, or Salvatore's skills with different tones or some arguments why you think Brooks' prose is good in this or that particular instance.

Having explained what a shallow, if healthy escapist assessment of fantasy novels is above, the kind that impoverishes the dialogue about novels, you point out that my post, responding to Roland's brief post of "I hate their prose," is guilty of that shallow, healthy escapist assessment that impoverishes the dialogue about literature. And you really wish I would make more of an effort, and not be a shallow healthy escapist in talking about the books and provide more examples than I did in my post, which did contain examples, but apparently only shallow healthy escapist ones, which is at least better than me wearing a cape. But you're not insulting me. Saying that someone failed not to impoverish the dialogue about novels with her post is not insulting them.

I'm not saying you should write a 10-page essay on any of these subjects,

okay, I'm wrong, this part is actually my favorite part

I would just like it if you gave us

but that's not a request at all, just a gentle critique that I didn't do very well in my post, even though you are asking me to give you something

a taste of your direct readerly impressions, unfiltered through generalizations such as "well-written" or "an interesting, fun character";

You are critiquing my post as being too shallow, generalized, the healthy escapism that impoverishes the dialogue of literature, and you would like me to try to do better

imagine being in a creative writing class and you're scribbling notes in the margins of a fellow-writer's text.

to help me do better and not write shallow escapist assessments of books, you are giving me helpful instruction of what you would like to see from me. But really, I shouldn't feel bad that I'm inferior when it comes to these posts. If I just stop clinging to my shallow escapism and act like I'm in a writing class and you're my prof or writing buddy, I'll get much better!

And, more generally speaking, I really don't think something like the above is more difficult to do than just talking about "cool/sucky characters" or "boring/interesting plots". If someting in particular has made a particular impression on you, it shouldn't be difficult to express it articulately and with excitement.

If you and the other people would just stop being shallow escapists and elaborate properly, then the dialogue of literature would not be impoverished. Really, you can try harder people! It is not unreasonable for me to tell you that your posts suck and you should work on them. That's not an insult. Or a request.

So to recap, you defined what shallow but healthy escapism is. You said that people should keep this shallow but healthy escapism to themselves because it impoverishes the discussion of literature if they use it. (How could this possibly intimidate a shy member from trying to enter into the discussion? I'm being an unreasonable extremist even to suggest it.) Instead, they should elaborate with detailed specifics and quotes, like you do. You then told me that my post did not elaborate (and was therefore shallow healthy escapism,) and asked me to elaborate, with quotes, so that I would get better at posting.

My response was that I was not going to elaborate, thanks, but I would clarify the one point about what I meant by bardic, which I did. And then Roland threw a hissy fit because he apparently agreed with you that I was being a shallow escapist in response to his own it sucks post about the three authors, and that I should comply with your request. Whereupon I replied that I still was not going to elaborate, and could he, you and Owlcroft get back on the topic of the thread (my job as moderator,) and that the three of you should stop telling other members (not me, because I don't care,) that their posts were poor and escapist, etc., because that is coming close to personal insults, (my job as moderator,) and that the three of you needed to get off the subject that other members should try to post only in certain ways if they want to participate and be taken seriously by you all, because that can intimidate other members, which it can, (my job as moderator.)

Look, I don't care if you say that my posts suck and could be better and I'm a shallow escapist if I don't. But I do, as a moderator, have to take into account other members too and I do have to steer the discussion back on topic when it goes off. And you did ask me to elaborate Trip and you did say my post was shallow escapism, with a very detailed definition of what you considered that to be. I did not put words in your mouth.

So if any of you have further problems with this, you can PM me and we continue that particular discussion without derailing the thread further. But this thread is about whether people feel prose or plot is more important to them or think that both or neither is important, so further discussion should be about that topic, and not about why I won't elaborate on my post for Trip, okay?

 

[Roland 85]

Lol, I am throwing hissy fits and I am STILL insisting you are a shallow escapist. I might be right...

Anyway, I'm not gonna reply any more either, so don't worry about me.

 

[KatG]

It was a mild hissy fit.

 

[CarlAlves]

For me, plot comes before prose, but being a writer, I pay more attention these days to the craft, and it's harder to read stories that aren't well written, or that have glaring writing mistakes.
Carl Alves

 

[CodanOfCanada]

For the O.P. the example doesn't seem very appropriate. I never found anything endearing about Hobb's prose. It always seemed to me that she was a very simplistic writer, and the problem was that her plot was severely lacking as well. GRRM is actually one of the best for both, his writing is succinct, but that is part of it's beauty. You want your writing to represent what is happening in the story. Gazing upon a great forest is meant to illicit feelings of awe, where as a brutal bloody battle will often be written in an abrasive style.

I can enjoy a book with little plot (often heroic fantasy and S&S) as long as the prose is top notch and really immerses me in the world. Where as a story with good plot but weak prose I can make my way through, and even enjoy it to a certain degree, but it always feels like something is missing.

 

[owlcroft]

John Barth put it well.

Popping in here once a day is rather like the metaphor in Barth's novel The Floating Opera. Just a couple of offhand thoughts:

"Robin Hobb" writes that way because that's the way Ms. Ogden carefully chooses to write books under that pen name. As Megan Lindholm, she is somewhat other--try The Wizard of the Pigeons if you think her "Hobb" persona's style mundane.

Sidebar: in touching up the Wikipedia article on Ms. Ogden, I ran across this wonderful sentence: After marrying at eighteen she subsequently moved to Kodiak, an island off the coast of Alaska. Now either that is a fingernail on the blackboard for you, or this whole discussion of prose values is maningless to you. The missing comma after "eighteen" is only venial, but that "subsequently" following a phrase beginning with "after"--well, you got it or you didn't.​

The other thought is about what constitutes "escapism". Some attention to Professor Tolkien's insightful remarks on that topic (in his lecture, later an essay, "On Fairy Stories") might repay examination. Though the following is the most-often cited direct quotation--

"I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which 'Escape' is now so often used. Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls?"

--it is worth examining the whole from which it is extracted.

It looks to me as if such observations say a deal more about the person making them than about the literature of the fantastic. China Mieville--an ardent socialist--wants to eat his cake and have it, too: So no, I think it's absurd to say that fantasy in general is inherently escapist. A lot of genre fantasy after Tolkien is escapist, but that's nothing to do with the form of the literature itself. Or, in only slightly other words, "his fantasy is escapist because it's not socialist, but my fantasy is not escapist because it advocates socialist ideas." OK.

I suspect that few works are "escapist" by virtue of some special indwelling quality (Mary Sues and Gary Stus excepted), but rather function as "escapism", or not, depending on the sensibilities and inclinations of their readers. If Mieville feels that because his fantasy has oppressed minorities preyed on by evil capitalists it's not escapist, while because the moral issues Tolkien examines are not presented in a flag-waving revolutionary up-the-masses screed Tolkien's are escapist, he is entitled to his opinion, but not to others' credence. Many will feel both writers generate "escapist" works, merely by virtue of their genre; some others will feel that neither does. Ya pays yer money an' ya takes yer chances.

 

[KatG]

Alright, I'm going to derail again ever so slightly, because I told Trip I would do so, and otherwise, thank you for edging back to the thread topic.

Trip and I have spoken by PM, and he feels that I misunderstood comments to be directed at me that were not meant to be. I think we disagree still about what some of his words mean, but I have always understood that he was speaking with no malicious intent, that indeed no one was, and I apologize if I seemed to be or if I misinterpreted things in Trip's initial post.

That being said, separate from my direct responses to Trip and Roland's posts, as a moderator, I do have to steer the conversation back on topic in threads, and it is an issue that we've been asked to watch out for that less assured members may be intimidated from participating in discussions if other members are critiquing posting styles instead of concentrating on the literature and thread topics. In the future, I will bring up the PM designation much earlier to better limit derailment. (I learn as I go like anyone else.)

And in relation to this, if any one does want to talk further about this issue, they can PM me or one of the other staff. Now returning you to Owlcroft's post about Hobb, Mieville, etc., about what is important to you, plot or prose.

 

[molybdenum]

I'm not going to specify whether I'm in the plot or prose camp, because I think if the book is missing one of those two aspects, you're talking about a marginal book at best, which really isn't worth this space. (However, run-on sentences are a good use of space )

To answer the OP's question about what's most important in a book as far as the writing goes, I think the most important thing is that the writing style supports and does not undermine the story as a whole. Great prose is prose that matches with the story. If you want to write a sensational book, than the writing needs to be sensational, otherwise you've failed. (And by sensational I mean appealing to the senses, not a fancy way to say "good".)

Writing can derail a book in a couple ways. First, a book can be overwritten, in that a book that is supposed to be story based gets so cluttered with the writing that is difficult to keep track of what exactly is happening (Toll the Hounds). Another way is that the writing is clunky (or unconventional) enough that it distracts you from the story being told (Brent Weeks). These are for your typical plot-based stories. You can also have those sensational stories, which are purposely overwritten to appeal to the senses (Ray Bradbury, to a lesser extent GG Kay).

Personally, my favorite type are the stories where the writing sets the atmosphere, but you don't notice the writing until you realize how deep into the book it's gotten you. I think the best example of this for me is Midnight Tides, where the emotion of the story was so well conveyed to me through the writing.

So I guess my conclusion is I want the writing to be good, and put me into the story, but I don't want it to be presumptuous and attempt to take the spotlight away from the events of the book.

 

[owlcroft]

More analogy.

Someone once remarked that if you go to the theater and, part-way through the production, feel inclined to remark to your companion to the effect that "Wow, the lighting designer has treally done a super job here," you're necessarily dead wrong, because the very fact that you noticed it mid-production means that it failed, because the idea is not to wow you but to as completely as possible enhance your feeling of watching a bit of reality through a transparent fourth wall.

The problem with prose in fiction is that different readers have different levels of susceptibility. Prose that to one is transparent may be to another virtually opaque, or at best translucent.

Consider--

"One day the King turned to the women that danced and said to them: 'Dance no more,' and those that bore the wine in jewelled cups he sent away. The palace of King Ebalon was emptied of sound of song and there rose the voices of heralds crying in the streets to find the prophets of the land."

While there is no problem with divining the meaning, for readers to whom the King James Bible is literally a closed book (and who have a tin ear), such a style may seem distracting or even annoying. Or something like this--

It was not any common thing for any petty king to avoid the annual Visitation of and set meeting with his overlord and high king; it was not common, no. It was, however, not unknown. It was, however, unknown for such a reason, videlicet, that the petty king's carelessness had allowed a dragon to steal the treasury. But, although no dragon had ever before stolen a treasury, still, a treasury had been stolen before. The High King of East Brythonia could not, certainly, excuse such conduct: on the part of the dragon, it constituted malfeasance, and on the part of the petty king of the Alves, it constituted misfeasance.

--will seem weird to someone lacking a native sense of humor. Or there's this--

There were a few grunts of Uh!" of surprise, not . . . it seemed . . . of surprise that the maps were there as that he should ask how they came to be there. One who spoke better Latin than the others took it upon himself to answer. "You made them, Master Wizard, for us. Not so? It will be that we have bought, and so . . . and so we have brought." The still-silent Greek or Syrian, or be he whatever he was (he was or had been, surely, a slave: that was the substance . . . and the essence . . . of his condition), carefully removed the maps from the cylindrical case of cow's leather; set them on a table. The man was as one who makes motions behind a sheet at a shadow-play, whilst the dialogue is pronounced by others. On the side.

--which might distress someone not willing to "go with the flow" of the author's distinctive style.

The point here is that no one of the stories whence those quotations spring would be the same story if told in different prose. The presentation of a tale involves not merely the cataloguing of who did what to whom, or even of how this one or that one felt or reacted; it also involves the overall tone of the telling--I almost said "mood", but it's not "mood", though it's sort of related. The prose must suit the tale as a glove must fit the hand. It is perhaps not impossible to tell a great tale in, um, prosaic prose, but it's awfully difficult. It would be like trying to do a noir private-eye film with "Lady of Spain" on the accordian for background music.