My internet server crashed and I timed out on my free internet this weekend and suffered major barrowdowns withdrawal. Thanks to the gods that my workplace allows internet use.
Kuruharan: Greetings and well met. :bows: You make an excellent point on 'fake depth'. And you had me chuckling heartily with your example. 'High and Mighty Order of the Yakkidy Yak, indeed! You pretty much said this, but I think one of the reasons it works for Tolkien is because the history and depth is
already there and he can call upon it as it serves the story. Therefore, a writer needs to do all the background writing, and be complete as possible about it in order to have the resource available. Even then, it would be a kind service to the reader to use it right. You know, I don't think publishers much less most writers know what this is about, otherwise it would never get past the editors.
Your example of Aragorn's song of Luthien at Weathertop is right on.
Estelyn: That's a wonderful example from Tolkien regarding the phases of the moon. Yes,
subtlety and I agree with Kuruharan,
brevity.
Birdland: I hadn't thought of the
attachment of modern sensibilities to protagonists as a fault, but you're right. Tolkien didn't do it, for obvious reasons. Some authors allow their protagonists to start out with modern sensibilities, but these get exploded by their experience of Faerie. I think that's what needs to happen. I can't think of any examples, but I seem to remember reading books in which protagonists maintain an ironic sarcasm throughout, and it kills the wonder. It almost forces Faerie to apologize to the protagonist, and therefore the reader, for what it is. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Squatter:
Quote:
|
If the interaction between two characters seems unlikely when placed into an equivalent real-life context then it probably won't work in Flobadobalopolis; Nutopia or the Mystic Kingdom of Kashmeichek either.
|
That is excellent.
Niphredil: I wasn't being critical of anyone's unpublished work in my little diatribe above. Nevertheless, the example you point to in your description of the castle, and the changes you made are indeed a case in point. The glistening of those curtains did wonders for me. Hah! Look, see? There's the wonder! It's nice to see that I'm at least a little consistent in my search for wonder...
On symbolic clothing and writers' favorite stuff: I'd say tread carefully. For Tolkien it worked because he made it natural and fun for Hobbits to be enamored of pipeweed. If you think your pet project might not be something that most readers will enjoy the way you do, cut it. I wrote one scene filled with wonder about how a cloud-mariner played his cloud like a harp and an organ and a choir one after the other, and I thought it was sublime. My readers thought it was too, but they pointed out to me that it did nothing for the plot, so out it went.
Nazgulnumber10: I'm glad you spoke up because I can tell you that no, I wasn't directing my diatribe at you. I confess that I haven't gotten to your story yet (I'm trying to catch up, really I am).
Muse: I'll keep Flaubert in mind. Thanks for mentioning him again.
Helen aka mark12-30: Elves are an especially touchy business, aren't they? I do agree with
burrahobbit that context is important. So I think it depends on the purpose a writer has for his Elves. Not every writer's world is going to have the same kind of Elves as Tolkien's. He ennobled Elves even beyond anything ever written or spoken about them in the history of oral-tradition and legend-keeping, I'd say. Nevertheless, your point on good guys
in fantasy being good (with maybe a character flaw or three) is well-taken. There is always the anti-hero whose character flaws outweigh his strong points, such as in the Thomas Covenant series. Come to think of it, maybe that's a fault and anti-heroes don't work in fantasy. Any opinions on that? That's pretty important to me because one of my protagonists has this very tendency.