Brief fic writing thoughts

[shapinglight]

Hmm. Seems I'm having thoughts about several of the fics on my To Do list. I know who comes next in my litte Being a Vampire Sucks series (meant to write it yesterday, but didn't have time), and this morning, I thought of a way to proceed with this Spike and Riley army story I vaguely had in my head, in that I worked out who Buffy was in the story, and who they were fighting against, so that's progress.

More within with slight spoilers for Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond series.



What I'm not getting anywhere with is the next part of my Spike/Giles season 7 story. I feel like the plot has become very convoluted and I'm tying myself in knots trying to work out what happens next- plus, whenever I sit down to think about the story, my brain goes into sleep mode. Obviously, I don't really want to think about it. :(

I should probably have changed the way I write it and taken a leaf out of my evil twin's other LJ's book, and written it in 1000 words chunks, made up as I go along. 1000 words works really well for me, I find, because it gives you enough room to include what you need to include, but teaches you to cut out what's not necessary - goodbye annoying exposition dumps.

Too late for that, I think. I'll just have to do it the hard way.

Writing is hard, isn't it? I so much admire anyone who can write in a way that makes it seem effortless. I just finished The Wee Free Men, and Terry Pratchett is a case in point. He writes so simply - the words just flow - and yet he manages to say so much. The same is true of another author I've always admired, Ursula K Le Guin. And yet both writers probably agonise over every sentence. Very impressive.

Should probably say here that, much though I admire complicated plots, I prefer for them to be comprehensible, which is why I occasionally get frustrated by two of my favourite writers (well, the first isn't so much a favourite any more, as I can see all the faults in her writing), CJ Cherryh and Dorothy Dunnett. My brain just isn't up to trying to work out what the bloody hell is going on after I've finished the book. It frustrates me no end to this day that I have to guess which of the children died and which survived at the end of Dunnett's A Pawn in Frankincense, or that there may be clues there in the text that make it crystal clear which it is and I was just too dense to see them.

So anyway, I don't want my Spike/Giles story to be like that. Don't want to telegraph stuff, but do want people to know what was actually happening.

Opinions, anyone? Do you like puzzling stuff out post-reading, or would you rather (within reason) that it was spelt out for you?

Please note: I'm not talking about stuff that is a matter of opinion, like did Buffy mean the ILY in Chosen, but the actual mechanics of the plot, though post-the Buffy comics, I'm sick to death of emotional ambiguity too.

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

I hate uncertainty. At the end of a story I want to know what happened and why. I also don't want it to have come as a surprise out of nowhere dumped at the end of the book - I want the plot reveals dribbled out over the course of several chapters while keeping back one or two mysteries until the very end. And even the most complete story should end with some indication of how life will continue afterwards.

If I'm left trying to puzzle stuff out long after I finished the book, that normally means I am annoyed with the author and consider her at fault (J. K. Rowling, I'm thinking of you). Oddly enough I am far more tolerant of TV shows that leave some things open to interpretation.

[shapinglight]

If I'm left trying to puzzle stuff out long after I finished the book, that normally means I am annoyed with the author and consider her at fault (J. K. Rowling, I'm thinking of you).

Whereas I would be more inclined to think it was my fault if I couldn't work it out. ;)

Astonished to hear you think Rowling falls into that category, though. I think she has the opposite fault - she spells everything out over and over and over....

She has other faults too, but I won't go into them. Suffice it to say, not an author I admire.

[ex_peasant441]

I seldom think anything is my fault ;)

Well I don't think she foreshadowed character traits very well. But it's not so much the plot that she failed to spell out as the world building of how the Potterverse works. I am still left thinking at random moments 'but the economic basis for this society makes no sense!' and 'the spatial laws of hiding buildings are inconsistent!'

I would probably be willing to give her more slack if she hadn't made such obscene amounts of money out of a fairly flawed product.

[shapinglight]

I would probably be willing to give her more slack if she hadn't made such obscene amounts of money out of a fairly flawed product.

Yes, it does grate a little, especially as the whole thing is so derivative and has been done much better by other people.

[kathyh]

I didn't know you were a Dunnett reader. In fairness to her I believe she wanted to make it clearer which child died but her editor told her not to. Knowing DD's writing though I'm pretty sure that her idea of clearer wouldn't have been mine *g*.

I believe (because I've been told not because I worked it out) that the conclusive clues are in the imagery used to describe the children and their corresponding mothers. Personally I think that what really matters is which child Lymond thinks died and that is crystal clear.

I do actually enjoy Dunnett's puzzles, even though they drive me mad, but generally I like things reasonably clear by the end of the book.

[shapinglight]

I didn't know you were a Dunnett reader

Oh yes, though I'm sorry to say I've never finished the Niccolo sequence - not because I don't want to but because the books are buried in a box somewhere and I can't get at them. I'd read the first two, but would have to re-read them before going on. And it's years since I read the Lymond books, for the same reason (buried in a box).

When I read the book, I was pretty sure it was Lymond and Oonagh's son who died, but the ambiguity did get on my nerves a bit, as did all the mystery surrounding the Dame de Doubtance, which I understand the Niccolo books delves into further.

[gillo]

The general consensus seems to be that Lymond killed his own son, because of the imagery - apricots and fruit are associated with Joleta and the child Philippa loves, while the sea, sand, shells are linked to Oonagh and the child in the souk. I believe DD confirmed this on one occasion.

That one doesn't particularly bother me, because the tragedy is all about the actual child and I don't feel it matters which is which. OTOH, it does annoy me when plot threads are just left dangling, though a staged scene in which one character explains everything just for the benefit of the reader is also irritating. And, yes, writing is hard.

[shapinglight]

The general consensus seems to be that Lymond killed his own son, because of the imagery - apricots and fruit are associated with Joleta and the child Philippa loves, while the sea, sand, shells are linked to Oonagh and the child in the souk. I believe DD confirmed this on one occasion.

Well, I did think at the time that it was Lymond's son who died, but I would never have worked it out from the imagery. My brain doesn't work that way (when it works at all).

[sparrow2000.livejournal.com]

I've always thought it was Lymond's son as well, although I admit that the first time I read the series I wasn't sure mainly because I was so upset that it had happened at all. I've actually been thinking of doing a reread and with your comments in mind it will be interesting to revisit just how ambiguous that section was.

BTW, if you ever get the urge to dig the Niccolo books out of that box, I'd recommend it. I remember getting the hardback to Gemini, the last book, hot off the press and taking in holiday with me and reading it obsessively for 3 days. I won't spoil you, but there's some stuff in that book that just made me gasp and wonder about just how DD's mind worked.

[shapinglight]

I would love to dig them out of the box, I really would. Trouble is, the box is pretty inaccessible and I couldn't do it without help.

I can just imagine the look on S's face if I ask him. :(

I do want to read them, though. I want to re-read Lymond too.

[lyr]

Personally, I like puzzles that keep me thinking after I read. It's a very active experience to read stories like that, which engages me even more than a good story generally would. It's a little like the kind of engagement I feel when writing fanfic, actually.

[shapinglight]

Ah well, that is because you are a clever person with an enquiring mind and I am just lazy. ;)

[kseenaa.livejournal.com]

I do actually like to have things spelt out for me. Not to the extremes, but you know... :-)

[shapinglight]

That's why I now get particularly frustrated with this writer, CJ Cherryh. A lot of guessing is involved in trying to work out what's going on in her books. Trouble is, as time passes, I'm not sure it's deliberate.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

Writing is hard. I've taken a break, as RL has too many things in it, and it's weirdly okay and stress reducing. For now.

I don't mind a bit of complication, though it's not a requirement. The more characters you've got, the more complex it is, at least if your cast is more than cardboard cutouts. You've got a ton of people in the Spike/Giles thing, and they're all interesting, so naturally it's tricky.

That said, I don't see the point in purposefully obscuring what's going on in your story. The element of surprise is all very well, but it's NOT the most important thing. For example, take Spike's soul quest. Is the story made better by not knowing what Spike is after? Is the punchline enough of a payoff? Conversely, does seeing the cracks building in Xander and Anya's relationship make his abandonment any less devastating?

It's true that some writer's "telegraph", but good ones like you are able to plant seeds that feel organic to the story as they go along. Letting those seeds drop without pointing at them and jumping up and down is usually all that is needed for most readers. Some will not pick up on everything. (Some will not pick up on anything, but never mind them.)

I don't actively seek puzzle-type books, though I do often enjoy brain-teaser movies. Visual hints that work well in that format are not available to the prose writer, however, so we must be fastidious with our words.

Carry on. It'll be great!

[shapinglight]

I've taken a break, as RL has too many things in it, and it's weirdly okay and stress reducing. For now.

I should probably do the same. I just have this nagging feeling I would never go back to it, and that's fine, except that I don't want to leave any WIPs.

You've got a ton of people in the Spike/Giles thing, and they're all interesting, so naturally it's tricky.

Yes, in fact that's one of the problems - finding something for them all to do.

For example, take Spike's soul quest. Is the story made better by not knowing what Spike is after? Is the punchline enough of a payoff?

Dear me, no. Making Spike's motives so obscure as to be opaque ruined the whole point, IMO. Yes, it's finding the happy medium between telegraphing and deliberate and unhelpful obfuscation that's the hard part. I really do need to sit down and plan the remainder of the story out properly. It's just I can't seem to find the time.