|
Post by Chris Wooding on Aug 31, 2007 12:45:37 GMT -5
Ellen Paige would make a good Moa, she was great in Hard Candy. I'm not sure if by omniscient narration you mean infodumping, since bazillions of books use omniscient narrators (ie one that is not first-person, but a disembodied voice that talks to the reader and tells them what the characters are doing, saying, thinking... third-person, basically). Some fix on a single character so the reader only knows what the character knows (many detective novels do this to preserve suspense), while some skip all over (like when you visit the lair of the bad guy to hear him cackle about his plot to destroy the world, but the hero isn't there to see it) but that was what I understood to be an omniscient narrator. Could be wrong, though, it's been forever since I was at University, and I didn't pay attention then... Infodumping is when the book grinds to a halt and the author explains to the reader about some aspect of the world, etc. Like they pass a standing stone and you get a big history of the stone and who built it and why, even if there's no reason for the character to know about it. It's talking directly to the reader instead of delivering the information through drama (ie if they actually met the people who built the stone, and they told the characters because they had stumbled on to a sacred site and were going to be executed for it.) It's bad writing, and I'll admit I've done it myself (especially in the first few chapters of Weavers, which has always annoyed me - I've learned to minimise it since then.) Problem is, the more complicated your background, the harder it is to weave it in dramatically without going into ridiculous plot contortions. And I always use complicated backgrounds. Sometimes it's just impractical to work out a whole set of scenes just for the sake of demonstrating some important aspect of a world's history when you can dispense with it in two paragraphs and get on with the plot. And there are certain authors who never explain anything, and as a result their worlds are incredibly confusing, which stops you (well, me anyway) from engaging with the story. But yes, some authors infodump a criminal amount, I've heard Robert Jordan is particularly bad but I never got more than a third of the way through the first book... If it helps, The Fade is first-person and virtually infodump-free, with one of the most complex backgrounds I've ever done, hence why it took me twice as long as Weavers and is only about two-thirds the length... it's a sonofapregnant dog to pull off. You guys will have to decide for yourselves if it works ;D Storm Thief as a movie would be easy enough to write; the character interplay would just be done with little visual things instead of dialogue. A glance between Rail and Moa, a hand outstretched to help poor little Vago, etc. And the special effects would be nuts EDIT: Hahaha, when I tried to write 'sonofab i t c h' the program changed it to 'sonofapregnant dog'. I think I prefer it, although female dogs who aren't pregnant might have issues...
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 31, 2007 12:54:15 GMT -5
Omnicient narration is when the narrator appears to know everything, even if the characters don't. Otherwise it's third-person narration (just came out of an A level in English Lit.). Sooo... I guess yours would be omnicient narration, because the narrative voice jumps from head to head, but Harry Potter is just third-person narration because even though it's in the thrid person, we only know as much as he knows. Except in a few random chapters.
I think infodumping in the amount you used in Weavers is fine, it's nice to have it out of the way, y'know? Especially when it's that complicated.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 31, 2007 15:45:24 GMT -5
Well one of the problems with omniscient narration is where you use it and how much. One example in the weavers was when in the middle of Kaiku’s grief, the way how the language worked was injected in the middle of Kaiku’s grief for her dead family. It seemed out of place and dragged me out of the novel a bit. In another thread some one did write that a good point of this type of narration can keep people from being overwhelmed by the novel (I think it was Shy who wrote it… sorry I cant remember). It’s just a matter of taste. But nothing excuses mary sues and dues ex machinas (the last type can be seen in the last Harry potter book)
Robert Jordan should be read by all fantasy writers and those who want to be writers. Purely as his books are great at demonstrating how not to write a fantasy novel. Lots of Tolkien clichés, info dumping, rampant dues ex machinas (that is what Rand is), Mary Sues and Marty Stues populating like rabbits on Viagra etc. It is awful writing. Elizabeth Haydon is another author who has committed great crimes against the fantasy genre.
From that description of the Fade Im now psyched to buy it. Its out in October isn’t it? Damn you Chris for making me really want it when its still ages away lol.
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 31, 2007 16:45:58 GMT -5
Ugh, the worst book I've ever read for mary sues was the last in Trudi Canavan's Black Magician trilogy. It was fine up to the middle of the last book, and then everything turned into a bad fanfic. I was so disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Wooding on Aug 31, 2007 17:32:14 GMT -5
Ta, Shy. I should probably have known that, given my job and all... Yeah, that's a particular non-favourite of mine Still gets on my nerves even now. Oh well, live and learn! I'm always trying to hone, try different styles and so on, otherwise each book ends up feeling the same. Sometimes it goes a bit wrong, sometimes it takes a while to learn. I always thought Skein and Ascendancy were technically far better written than Weavers, but that's cos I'd got my teeth into the style a bit by then...
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 31, 2007 17:57:22 GMT -5
Its great to see how you accept criticism and don t get overtly defensive like some authors *cough* Anne Rice *cough.* All can be forgiven though by writing an Asara spin off or Whist slash lmao Slighlty more serious though, I'm glad that you are willing to take risks in your work, most of the time it pays off Its much better than sticking to toliken cliches that some fantasy writers just won't let go off. Ive been quoted by one of my fav authors Woo me
|
|
Thunderous
Full Member
They Have Pulled Down Deep Heaven on Their Heads
Posts: 210
|
Post by Thunderous on Aug 31, 2007 20:30:15 GMT -5
Zomg, a mildly famous person is having an actual conversation about an idea I posted. *bows*
I don't really notice 'infodumping' as you put it unless it either drags on for a long time or is really out of place. But then, until recently I've been reading books for entertainment, not for writing style.
And I'm glad people agree with me about Ellen Page :] I just saw her in X-men III and was like, wow, that's Moa. ^^
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Sept 1, 2007 3:15:10 GMT -5
She was the third one to be Kitty Pryde, right? I liked her, she was cute and Moa-like (didn't like her over-much because Kitty has always been one of my least favourite X-Men). I'd vote for her as Moa, but I like using unknowns too. Sometimes you find someone really perfect out of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by zemira on Sept 1, 2007 9:11:23 GMT -5
Wow, I'm looking foward to the Fade too now! First-person is usually my preferred style, although it does depend on what I'm writing. Lately, on my current 2 stories, I'm using third-person narration (the other most common stle I use...mostly because I let my stories write their own plot, so at the beginning, I know how much the character knows), but in the other attempt at a novel (it's not going well >_<) I think I'll be using omniscent. It's hard to tell at this point, because I wrote a prologue in which the main character doesn't even appear. But it's hard to tell. >_<
But at the same time, both of these are based hugely on Chris's writing style. I'm not using his actual characters or places, or anything. I'm just kind of taking his tone in TBP and using it in my story. It's actually helping a lot, I'm pretty proud. But, I don't have his gift for descriptions, so whenever I describe something, it comes out badly. >_< I've never been good at descriptions, and most of my short stories are pretty bare because of it. \
Is it bad I (in most cases) liked the infodumping in TBP? I didn't notice it dragging me out of the story at all, and I really enjoyed the parts about the history of the gods (huge mythology fan) and the language. But then...this is the first official fantasy book I read, so I may be immune for right now. ^_^
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Sept 1, 2007 10:32:28 GMT -5
Shy how can you dislike kitty? there are so many more annoying x-men. Top of the list is Jean Grey, who is no longer a character but an uber powered goddess/plot device/dues ex mchina. Jubilee and Wolverine are also on my list of characters who's should just die. My fav x-man has to be Besty Braddock (Psylocke). yes I'm an x-man freak Omniscient narration is often used in the same places in a few authors books regurgitating the same sort of mythologies. World building through subtle layering through out the novel is a lot better than info dumps which may as well be great big ugly concrete blocks. Zemira a lot of times bare is good. Especially in short stories so long as you get to the point and people understand what you are saying. Writing primarily is about communication. I'd rather read a bare story (which doesn't necessarily mean its bad, a lot of good authors use simple styles) than a flowery purpley prose story. Besides circumlocution is bad. Directness is great.
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Sept 1, 2007 11:08:07 GMT -5
I did say 'one of' my least favourite. I always had a soft spot for Jubilee because I was practically raised on the old cartoon, and I liked Jean Grey when I was little 'cause i always wanted to be telekinetic, but I don't read the X-Men comics. I'm more of a DC girl.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Sept 1, 2007 11:16:35 GMT -5
DC bah. Marvel all the way Jubilee was basically a rip off on Kitty. In the comics Jean was the most helpess x-man, once every episode she would struggle to throwa table telekenitecally, moan like a bad porn star and get knocked unconious. Now I loved Rouge from the 90's cartoon. Now she had gumption
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Sept 1, 2007 14:16:06 GMT -5
DC yay!! Marvel works much better as films and cartoons than as a comic methinks. DC is totally the other way round; brilliant comics that make rubbish films.
I am tempted by the Marvel Civil War tpbs though, they look good. You know Marvel, are they as good as they look? I'm pretty curious about the story too, big ol' wars involving Iron Man? I was raised on Iron Man (also on X-Men and the Fantastic Four). I have huge affection for him.
|
|
Thunderous
Full Member
They Have Pulled Down Deep Heaven on Their Heads
Posts: 210
|
Post by Thunderous on Sept 1, 2007 14:47:15 GMT -5
The thing with Marvel is that it just kept growing. And growing. And growing. Like Star Wars. It's been stretched so thin you can see through it. The best series, bands, anything are the ones that know when to stop and go out cool.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Sept 1, 2007 15:33:51 GMT -5
DC yay!! Marvel works much better as films and cartoons than as a comic methinks. DC is totally the other way round; brilliant comics that make rubbish films. I am tempted by the Marvel Civil War tpbs though, they look good. You know Marvel, are they as good as they look? I'm pretty curious about the story too, big ol' wars involving Iron Man? I was raised on Iron Man (also on X-Men and the Fantastic Four). I have huge affection for him. Ive not bothered with civil war. I'm not wasting money on major storlines after the House of M crossovers for one reason. Retconning. Every major change marvel makes gets retconned and the status quo keeps getting maintained. So there really is no point in buying major stories since they will be quietly retconned out of existance *glares at Onslaught saga.* Thunderous I partial agree. Marvel is so vast that comics like the x-men have lost sight of there original mission statments and what they set out to do. Like the deal with northstar. x-men deals with discrimination. Marvel thinks that its being all liberal by putting a gay character on one of the teams. I'd rather there be a character who happens to be gay, rather than just a character who is there to be just gay i.e. show that gay people are *gasp* actual people. whats the point if the arent going to give him real relationships (marvel clapped there hands when they gave Northstar a crush on iceman. Yes an actual crush! It made me want to smack the patronizing right out of them) etc. There dealings with racism and sexisim can be very shoddy. Still, Emma Frost kind of redeams the x-men. She is so pregnant dogy its fantastic. The thing with DC is that none of the comic characters intrests me. Some of the movies are good, like Batman returns. *drools over michell phifer in a cat suit*
|
|