Despite all appearances, this blog post is not a cleverly disguised advertisement for TVTropes. Even if it is one of the greatest websites on the Internet.
---
Personal preferences in writing and reading can be wildly different, occasionally even within the same person's head. Doublethink is often a reality.
For example, I'm not much of a romance buff. I don't like romcoms, rarely venture into the "romance" section of any bookstore or website and just generally don't care for it. However, I do love me a good love story. My shipping goggles are custom-made and quite nifty, with night-vision and everything.
It's quite a strange phenomenon. Thing is, I like my love stories/ship teasing in the midst of something else, as sort of a secondary element. Romantic plot tumors drive me up the wall. Less is more and showing is so, so important rather than telling.
For a minor example, I've been working my way through Gargoyles lately *minor spoiler alert* and seriously fell in love with the minor characters (three "minors" in one sentence there...) of Princess Katherine and the Magus. They have an interesting, downplayed dynamic. It's adorable and it makes my inner fangirl shamelessly go *squee*.
But it was such background information, more character motivations than overt plot. The Magus is obviously doing things because he cares about Katherine and they hang out a lot together, but it's all in favor of the bigger story. We see them together and it is sweet and we know something is there because of how he looks at her, but we don't need it to go into details because we see it.
And it even gets some more coverage in later episodes when *slightly more major spoiler alert* they are in Avalon and raising the gargoyles' eggs. But then, that beautifully subtle character development suddenly goes all dark and tragic on us when it turns out that the Magus never told Katherine how he felt and so she fell for another guy. And he stepped aside because he wanted his beloved to be happy and he had a slight inferiority complex. It gets its own little flashback/monologue and everything and yet... it isn't the focus of the story. It explains why he is doing what he is doing and it makes the end of the episode all the more bittersweet, but it isn't what the show, or even the episode, is about. We get it and there are beautiful little moments were it is explored and focused on, but the story moves on.
It's how I like my romance. And it's odd, because it's also subjective. I'm usually interested in the characters and if they fall in love, they fall in love. They drive the story so that's what the story becomes. But I like it to be limited. Usually. Stick to the story, let it proceed. Don't make everything come to a standstill because two characters are making googly-eyes at each other. It's why rabid shippers have shipping goggles: so we can take the little subtle moments and run with them, rather than have stuff smushed in our face. Then just give us our happy resolution in the end and we're good. (Yeah, cuz I like my happy romantic endings. I'm a sap like that. Every time I watch/read any version of "Romeo and Juliet", I honestly wonder if they're going to manage to stay alive long enough to get together. Even though I honestly can't stand the original play.)
Showing posts with label showing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label showing. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Subtlety...
Okay, writers who want "strong females"; if part of your female character's characterization is that she doesn't need a man to complete her, do not, repeat do not, state as much when describing said character.
For example:
That is not the way to do it, m'friends. It makes the character sound bitter.
Now, if the character is bitter, this works. But the thing is, if you are trying to make a female character who literally can stand on her own two feet as a person, you fail. By basing her personhood on the fact that she doesn't need a man, you have just made her characterization all about the man that she "doesn't need".
It depends on the character that you are trying to portray, but too often, this is used with the intent of creating a "strong female character". Then, nine times out of ten, this character then runs into a man who then does everything for her. But we are supposed to believe that this female character is strong, because we were told she doesn't need a man.
Instead, the way to handle a female character who "doesn't need a man" is just to have her functioning without a man. No need to draw attention to it. Just have it happen.
Needing or not needing a man to "complete" a character are not necessarily good or bad things. It all depends on how they are handled.The influence of a male character on the female character doesn't necessarily mean she is "weak" or "underdeveloped" and likewise, a lack of male influence on a female character doesn't necessarily mean she is "strong" or "independent".
Basically, it all comes down to treating the characters, both male and female, as people.
For example:
Maria hadn't had a boyfriend in three years. Too much of a hassle.
That is not the way to do it, m'friends. It makes the character sound bitter.
Now, if the character is bitter, this works. But the thing is, if you are trying to make a female character who literally can stand on her own two feet as a person, you fail. By basing her personhood on the fact that she doesn't need a man, you have just made her characterization all about the man that she "doesn't need".
It depends on the character that you are trying to portray, but too often, this is used with the intent of creating a "strong female character". Then, nine times out of ten, this character then runs into a man who then does everything for her. But we are supposed to believe that this female character is strong, because we were told she doesn't need a man.
Instead, the way to handle a female character who "doesn't need a man" is just to have her functioning without a man. No need to draw attention to it. Just have it happen.
Needing or not needing a man to "complete" a character are not necessarily good or bad things. It all depends on how they are handled.The influence of a male character on the female character doesn't necessarily mean she is "weak" or "underdeveloped" and likewise, a lack of male influence on a female character doesn't necessarily mean she is "strong" or "independent".
Basically, it all comes down to treating the characters, both male and female, as people.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Showing what's not there...
"Show, don't tell."
We're told it all the time. But what do you do when what you're trying to show is something that isn't there?
I mean, if your character is angry, you don't say:
But what if you have a character whose parents never tell him that they love him and that's important but you don't want to come out with:
or something along those lines. A problem with fiction is that very often things that aren't shown to occur are still assumed to have had occurred. You might never talk about Bob going to the bathroom, but everyone assumes that he has. The only way to make it clear that he hasn't is to say he hasn't.
But what if you don't want to specifically point out the lack of something because it would make it very obvious that's important. It almost becomes like the camera focusing on the cellphone after the heroine puts it done. Now, when she reaches for it when she is trapped in the elevator with the big bad, the audience isn't surprised. From the moment that camera focused on that phone, they have been expecting something to go wrong where she will need it and not have it. The suspense, the mystery, the surprise was ruined.
It's completely different from if she had just put the phone down in full view of the camera, but no special attention was called to it. Like we watch her come into her house with arms full of groceries and her phone between her shoulder and ear as she happily chats with someone. Then she drops a gallon of milk and swears and tells the person she'll have to call them back and as she bends down to drop a towel on the puddle, we see her hand sort of leave the phone on the counter. That's it.
Then later, when she sees that she doesn't have her phone, the audience is surprised. Sure, we didn't see her pick the phone back up, but we assumed she did. But then, if we watch the scene again, we see that she didn't.
But how do you deal with something like someone never saying something to someone else? I mean, sure, you can show it because there is nothing to show, but there is no reason for the audience to assume anything else.
For instance, I just recently read Shiver by Maggie Stiefvater, in which her heroine's parents are quite neglectful. Now, granted, it seems like in most YA books dealing with the supernatural, the parents are neglectful or just absent, but this actually dealt with it. For the first half of the book, you see the heroine being the grownup among her parents. They get along, but the daughter is the responsible one. "Like Bella," was my first thought.
I nearly put the book down then.
My brother had read it before me though and he wanted me to read it so I chugged on through. Then about halfway through, something not Bella-like happened. The heroine broke down because she was sick of it all. Her boyfriend had noticed that her parents didn't see what was important for her and he asked her about it. And she is angry about it. She cries about it. It is actually treated like the neglect it is, rather than just a convenient way to get rid of adults in the story. I mean, it still conveniently gets the adults out of the way, but at least the consequences are still handled.
However, until that break down happened, there wasn't really anything stated about the girl's issues with her parents. She would get a little annoyed with them sometimes, but we still sort of assumed (because of other similar books, I guess) that they were all still a loving family and she was okay with it. It made her seem a little silly and made the whole thing feel contrived. Then, when she broke down and we saw that it was actually impacting her, the whole not showing of things before suddenly became all the more powerful.
Gah, this is such a confusing subject. I'm rambling and I still can't seem to get at what I mean.
It's hard showing things that aren't happening, I guess.
We're told it all the time. But what do you do when what you're trying to show is something that isn't there?
I mean, if your character is angry, you don't say:
Bob was angry.That's telling. Show it instead.
"You son of a bitch!" Bob shouted.Easy enough, no?
But what if you have a character whose parents never tell him that they love him and that's important but you don't want to come out with:
"Did you know that you've never said that you loved me? Do you know how that makes me feel?"
or something along those lines. A problem with fiction is that very often things that aren't shown to occur are still assumed to have had occurred. You might never talk about Bob going to the bathroom, but everyone assumes that he has. The only way to make it clear that he hasn't is to say he hasn't.
But what if you don't want to specifically point out the lack of something because it would make it very obvious that's important. It almost becomes like the camera focusing on the cellphone after the heroine puts it done. Now, when she reaches for it when she is trapped in the elevator with the big bad, the audience isn't surprised. From the moment that camera focused on that phone, they have been expecting something to go wrong where she will need it and not have it. The suspense, the mystery, the surprise was ruined.
It's completely different from if she had just put the phone down in full view of the camera, but no special attention was called to it. Like we watch her come into her house with arms full of groceries and her phone between her shoulder and ear as she happily chats with someone. Then she drops a gallon of milk and swears and tells the person she'll have to call them back and as she bends down to drop a towel on the puddle, we see her hand sort of leave the phone on the counter. That's it.
Then later, when she sees that she doesn't have her phone, the audience is surprised. Sure, we didn't see her pick the phone back up, but we assumed she did. But then, if we watch the scene again, we see that she didn't.
But how do you deal with something like someone never saying something to someone else? I mean, sure, you can show it because there is nothing to show, but there is no reason for the audience to assume anything else.
For instance, I just recently read Shiver by Maggie Stiefvater, in which her heroine's parents are quite neglectful. Now, granted, it seems like in most YA books dealing with the supernatural, the parents are neglectful or just absent, but this actually dealt with it. For the first half of the book, you see the heroine being the grownup among her parents. They get along, but the daughter is the responsible one. "Like Bella," was my first thought.
I nearly put the book down then.
My brother had read it before me though and he wanted me to read it so I chugged on through. Then about halfway through, something not Bella-like happened. The heroine broke down because she was sick of it all. Her boyfriend had noticed that her parents didn't see what was important for her and he asked her about it. And she is angry about it. She cries about it. It is actually treated like the neglect it is, rather than just a convenient way to get rid of adults in the story. I mean, it still conveniently gets the adults out of the way, but at least the consequences are still handled.
However, until that break down happened, there wasn't really anything stated about the girl's issues with her parents. She would get a little annoyed with them sometimes, but we still sort of assumed (because of other similar books, I guess) that they were all still a loving family and she was okay with it. It made her seem a little silly and made the whole thing feel contrived. Then, when she broke down and we saw that it was actually impacting her, the whole not showing of things before suddenly became all the more powerful.
Gah, this is such a confusing subject. I'm rambling and I still can't seem to get at what I mean.
It's hard showing things that aren't happening, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)