![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Books read, late February
Mar. 1st, 2008 01:05 pm( mostly Bujold and Sayers )
Recently![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
susan_palwick wrote a journal entry advocating what gets called the first rule of fiction writing, which is, roughly paraphrased, to figure out the worst thing that can happen to your character and then do it. Lois McMaster Bujold is often cited as a practitioner of this fine art, and extremely talented people like Susan Palwick advocate it. And frankly I think it's nonsense. There are dozens of worse things that could happen to characters at any turn. I can come up with more thoroughly horrific scenarios for Miles Vorkosigan to live through without breaking a sweat. But the thing is: they're not more interesting.
I think the first rule is to figure out the most interesting thing that can happen to your character and then do it even if it's really awful. Which is not at all the same thing. Miles is more interesting having married Ekaterin than he'd have been if she'd died when her life was threatened in Komarr; more interesting than if she'd panicked at the last minute and run away to Beta Colony to change her name and never see him again; more interesting than if he'd done something well-intentioned she could misunderstand and have a restraining order slapped on him (if, in fact, there is such a thing on Barrayar, rather than just Cousin Vorguido breaking your kneecaps). And if I believed that Miles had gotten Ekaterin -- and Nikki -- and the babies -- just to make it all that much more terrible when they were all taken away from him forever -- I would flee that series and never come back. But I don't. Because it's not about the angst quota. It's about interesting human reactions and interactions. I think even the people who advocate doing your worst every time know that deep down, or they've have written very different books indeed.
Edited to add: Susan Palwick, who has no lj with which to comment but who gives permission to reproduce the comment here, writes, "Actually, your paraphrase was a little too broad. I don't advocate doing the WORST thing; I only say that characters need to be in some sort of pain (an inevitable byproduct of conflict, which drives plot). In other words, over-protecting characters is as detrimental to fiction as over-torturing them." Here's the original entry, which I should have linked in the first place. And here's another entry that clarifies her thoughts on the subject.
I think that characters who are over-protected are far less likely to see print than characters who are over-tortured, but maybe that means I'm reading the wrong books.
Recently
susan_palwick wrote a journal entry advocating what gets called the first rule of fiction writing, which is, roughly paraphrased, to figure out the worst thing that can happen to your character and then do it. Lois McMaster Bujold is often cited as a practitioner of this fine art, and extremely talented people like Susan Palwick advocate it. And frankly I think it's nonsense. There are dozens of worse things that could happen to characters at any turn. I can come up with more thoroughly horrific scenarios for Miles Vorkosigan to live through without breaking a sweat. But the thing is: they're not more interesting.I think the first rule is to figure out the most interesting thing that can happen to your character and then do it even if it's really awful. Which is not at all the same thing. Miles is more interesting having married Ekaterin than he'd have been if she'd died when her life was threatened in Komarr; more interesting than if she'd panicked at the last minute and run away to Beta Colony to change her name and never see him again; more interesting than if he'd done something well-intentioned she could misunderstand and have a restraining order slapped on him (if, in fact, there is such a thing on Barrayar, rather than just Cousin Vorguido breaking your kneecaps). And if I believed that Miles had gotten Ekaterin -- and Nikki -- and the babies -- just to make it all that much more terrible when they were all taken away from him forever -- I would flee that series and never come back. But I don't. Because it's not about the angst quota. It's about interesting human reactions and interactions. I think even the people who advocate doing your worst every time know that deep down, or they've have written very different books indeed.
Edited to add: Susan Palwick, who has no lj with which to comment but who gives permission to reproduce the comment here, writes, "Actually, your paraphrase was a little too broad. I don't advocate doing the WORST thing; I only say that characters need to be in some sort of pain (an inevitable byproduct of conflict, which drives plot). In other words, over-protecting characters is as detrimental to fiction as over-torturing them." Here's the original entry, which I should have linked in the first place. And here's another entry that clarifies her thoughts on the subject.
I think that characters who are over-protected are far less likely to see print than characters who are over-tortured, but maybe that means I'm reading the wrong books.
