Downton Defense

Basically, if you haven't seen Downton Abby, go watch seasons one and two right now. It's available on Netflix.

Go on. I'll wait.

Welcome back. Obviously, you've seen seasons one and two, and so you won't be annoyed by the spoilers that are below. Carry on.

So yesterday, Trisha posted a great blog about how when you set the rules of the world of your story, you need to stick by them.

She outs Downton Abby in particular of breaking the rules, most clearly with the character Matthew Crawley's "I can never stand again. No wait... It's a miracle, let's dance." plot line.

I suggest you click on her post, because she makes some great points. It's a common fault for T.V. shows to present an obstacle, and then just drop it when it gets boring. The worst offender I can think of is Glee, where characters are despondently in love with one character one episode,  break up for a dumb reason the next, and then drop their hate just so they can sing a duet two episodes later. And don't get me started about how they never sing the same song more than once. I get why for a T.V. show the repetition is annoying, but as a real life choir dork, it strains believability.

And you can't stop believing.

But anyway. On topic. I have to defend Downton Abby, because the point Trisha raised is a huge one for me as a writer.

Season two of Downton Abby has Matthew just returned injured from war. The Doctor says there is a chance that he could recover, but most likely he will never be able to stand again. He won't be able to walk, to run, or... most importantly, he won't ever be able to have children.

This is a big problem, because as the heir, his child (if it's a boy) will inherit a huge fortune. And it's not just the vast amount of money, and properties that the child would inherit, it's the history of it that's important.  The tradition. And don't forget who the fortune came from, Cora's American money, Lady Grantham's traditional money. Above all of that, what's most important is the name.

 Lady Mary has been raised her entire life under the knowledge that she is entitled to a better life then others because of the name she was born into. Imagine the kind of self delusion necessary to live surrounded by people you like or love ( like Carson, Ana, etc.) who live feet from you yet in a completely different world. How can you justify that without giving the thing that separates you (i.e. family name and money) an enormous amount of importance.

Mary loves Matthew, but has lost him now more than once because of her need to prove the weight of her family's name. And now, here he is, in a wheel chair, engaged to someone else who will care for him more patiently than she would. By all tradition she should let him go. If she marries someone else and has a son, then she will carry on "the family show" the way she'd been born to do.

And then Matthew stands.

I love that, that shot in the dark that scatters the ducks. For me, it's not because it breaks the rules that this moment stands out, it's because it reinforces my most important opinion/rule of writing. Always scatter the ducks. Always go for the thing that changes a path, because a story ends once the path is set.

Yes, I see how it is jumping the shark for him to recover, and I'd be right by Trisha's side, complaining about lazy writers breaking their own rules, except that long before he stands, the doctor says that there's a chance that he will recover. By that one comment, the doctor put the dueling pistols onto the mantle.

But even if he didn't, I think I'd still be willing to look the other way, because to me it's not about the rule or the expectation of the audience that they are breaking, it's about the test the characters are going through.  If you are going to test a character, and change them emotionally, prove themselves morally, or just hold a character over a fire, there is a segment of your audience who will stay by you, just to watch the characters squirm.

Not everyone will stay, but I probably will.

Trisha brings up the Spanish influenza story line as another example, and yes, it seems improbable that the only person who died from it, was the obstacle in the way between Mary and Matthew. But hey, it's a love story. Obstacles have to be removed somehow. And the creators go to great lengths to say that historically that's how it happened, it was just when a person seemed recovered that they were at their most dangerous stage.

Yes, I did watch the PBS specials.

There are a few other times when the writers suggest a treat or a threat, and then take it back, but for every "We're going to lose Downton", there's a punch that's not pulled. Characters die. Love stories end. Characters are pronounced guilty. Consequences happen, though usually the upstairs gets off lighter than those in servant's garb. But that's kind of the way with it, now isn't it?

Downton Abby, to me is all about the rules, and the traditions of polite society. The show is about  the fairness and impracticality of rules; from Matthew, a distant relation inheriting all the money, and not Lady Mary, because he's male, to the rules of conduct between the upstairs and the downstairs, to the unfairness of Lady Mary's affair compared to the maid Ethel's consequences for the same level of mistake.

I think writers can take notice to some of these rules. For example, a writer with a "name" can break a rule and survive just fine, but a lowly writer could break the same rules and have a huge fall out. Also, yes sometimes success can happen for someone else, even though by all accounts, it should have come to you instead. Speak up about it, or else marry the person who stole your opportunity. ( Downton suggest's that's fine).

If you can give me a character that I love, like Lady Grantham, or Walter Bishop, or Kristina Braveman, or Matrim, or Gen, or Katniss, then you can break any rule you want to, and I'll stick along for the ride.

The main reason, however, that I'm going to keep watching isn't because of the soap opera characters in Jane Austen clothing. It's not because of the seeping slow minutia of the lives and growth of the characters, or the picturesque landscapes, the house itself, or the amazing costumes.

 I will continue to watch for Lady Grantham.

That Dame Maggie is a treasure.

~Sheena

Links

This is going to be a short one this week. I have a new time commitment that I'm not sure I can talk about on the blog. That makes it sound much more exciting than it is, and it has nothing to do with publication or fame. But anyway, I've been working on this project a lot this week, so there went all my blogging time.

So here are some links for your enjoyment! Here's hoping that none of them have been posted on the blog before.

Some enterprising individual has collected the rules of magic from most popular fantasy series together in one huge chart. For someone who still feels like a newbie at designing magic systems (as described in earlier posts), I really love going over the chart, and seeing the commonalities and differences of magic systems. Interesting that the 'how to defeat magic' column is so empty...

(Someone on this blog definitely might have given me this link. If so, sorry for not crediting you. :( If only my memory were better...)

Everyone knows about David Farland's Daily Kick in the Pants, right? He publishes short and sweet tips on everything from designing your book covers to grammar to worldbuilding. One of my recent favorite posts is on the best way to hook a reader (and it doesn't have to do with the first 13!)

In fact, have you ever noticed that we don’t really have genres? We tend to buy our books based upon the emotions that they promise to arouse—romance, thrills, horror, wonder (in SF and fantasy), justice in Westerns, and so on...

Yet authors often fail to recognize what their readers’ needs are. I can't tell you how many times I've read stories for science fiction or fantasy contests that failed to arouse any sense of wonder at all--tens of thousands, obviously.

Interesting. I think some of my favorite fantasy authors (Diana Wynne Jones, Patricia McKillip) are quite skilled at conveying that sense of wonder. 

Finally, I think everyone here knows what day it is, a special day that many here have been planning for.

That's right, it's my cousin Jennifer's birthday! 

(That's her on the far right, and me on the far left, with my sister and grandmother in between).

I'm kidding, of course - today is the start of NaNoWriMo. I'm not participating this year, but I'll be here cheering on those brave, creative souls who are. You can do it! I believe in you. :)

Why "The Rules" are Important

Picture from stock-xchng: Doodle desks 2

Trisha’s latest post about going to college got me thinking about my own college days.  I’m really not sure how much college taught me about actual writing.  I’m not saying they weren’t helpful.  I learned a ton in college and grad school, which has inspired story ideas and enhanced my critical thinking skills.  But I learned very little about the craft of writing.  In fact, I had a few experiences in college which discouraged me about pursuing writing as a career.

The Class

In high school and my early years of college, I did really well in all my English and writing classes.  I had a decent grasp of grammar and was able to organize my thoughts well.  I always got good grades on my papers, so I thought I was an excellent writer.  Then I took an upper division technical writing class.

When I got my first paper back, my grade was good, but much lower than I expected and lower than what I was used to.   I was a little taken back.  I did everything the professor told me to do, and there was no explanation given for the lower grade, so I took my paper to him to find out what I had done wrong. 

The teacher looked over my paper but couldn’t give me any reason for my score.  All he said was it just wasn’t as good as some of the other papers.  I was frustrated because I wanted to learn.  I didn’t want to be an okay writer.  I wanted to be a damn good writer like I had thought I was, and if there was something wrong with what I wrote, I wanted to figure out how to make it better.  But my professor didn’t give my any help, just a vague, “it’s good, but just not good enough” answer with no suggestions on how to make it better.  I got through that class getting the same type of grade on every single paper and learned nothing.

I just shrugged it off.  Every other teacher I had seemed to like my writing, so maybe this one professor just didn’t like my style.  Writing is subjective, right?

Grad school

But then I got to graduate school, and my Ph.D advisor didn’t like my writing either, and she also couldn’t explain why.  She just told me to read a lot of published papers and try to emulate them.  I tried and failed.  In five years, she never liked my writing, and although my lab-mates were nice about it, I could tell they agreed with her. 

There was something wrong with the way I wrote, and it wasn’t grammar or organization, but something else, and no one could tell me what it was or how to fix it.  It was so frustrating.  I wanted to be a great writer, a professional level writer, but I couldn’t figure out how to improve my writing.

The Discovery

Some said-isms created by me in Wordle

Then after I graduated, I started tinkering around with writing a novel, but in the back of my mind I kept thinking that I just wasn’t good enough to do this.  I had story ideas and characters and plots, but I just didn’t have the talent to put the words together.  I kept writing anyway, and I started googling “how to write better,” and I discovered the stylistic “rules” of writing:  avoid passive voice, don’t overuse modifiers, vary sentence structure, omit needless words, use said instead of said-isms, etc.

I realized that there is something to good writing that is beyond grammar and organization.  There is style, and having a good, mature style is important in writing.  I think there was something wrong with my writing in college and grad school.  I got the basics down, but what I had failed to do was develop a strong style. 

Finding those rules breathed hope back into me.  Finally, I could see what makes some writing stronger than others.   Finally, there was a way for me to examine my writing, discover my weaknesses, and become better. There wasn’t just some nebulous problem with my writing that I could never fix.   I could develop a strong style and learn to be a better writer.

The “Rules” of Writing

There are more rules to writing narrative than the stylistic rules, like:  avoid prologues, don’t start with waking up, show don’t tell, avoid clichés, etc.  They come from common pitfalls made by beginning writers.  None of these rules are absolutes, just things to keep in mind.  Every story breaks at least one of these rules, but that is okay.  The idea is not to follow them without question, but to stop and think about if what you are doing is best for the story or just what is easiest for you as a writer.

I’ve had arguments (on writer’s forums) with those who are against any rules, and I do tend to get frustrated with those who believe that they are harmful to writers.  The rules showed me that writing isn’t something that you are either good at or not, but a craft that can be learned.  There is nothing in writing that can’t be learned, and that gives me hope.

Sure there are writers who do just fine never learning or thinking about the rules, and that is great for them.  But what about those like me? 

This is what frustrates me about those who are adamantly opposed “the rules” because it either implies elitism; “some people are just not good enough to be writers and there is nothing they can do about it.”  Or it gives new writers permission not to try to learn the craft; “There is no such thing as well-written.  It is all subjective, so there is nothing really to learn.  Just write however want and don’t worry about it.”  Both of these attitudes are can be pitfalls that keep beginning writers from developing.

I don’t think it hurts any writer to learn “the rules” and understand them, so when they break them (and everyone does), they do so deliberately and for a good reason.  That way the broken rule will strengthen the writing instead of weakening it.

Happy writing!  J

~MaryAnn

My personal relationship with Twilight

Photo by George Takai

I've been thinking a lot about Twilight lately.  


Everywhere I go, everything I read online, or see on TV has been treating Twilight like it's a butt of a joke. The worst book/ movie franchise ever. People have commented on it's writing, on the acting, ( which, full discloser, I agree is terrible.) on the anti-feminist themes, and the craziness/ pedophilia of the grown up fan women who lust after these characters.


Seriously?


Now I'm not saying Twilight is the best book ever, cause... It's not. But neither is it the worst. That quote by Stephen King...what is that... here, I'm looking it up...

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.” 

Some of the fans aren't helping.

This quote really emphasizes the hatred that is directed toward Twilight. Now I'm not saying Stephen King isn't correct in his assessment, but honestly, isn't that what Romeo and Juliet is all about? Or Phantom of the Opera, or Titanic, or the Odyssey, or Anna Karenina, or Le Miz, or...


Um... Dur?... 'Love conquers all' is the plot of a billion stories, and it's going to be the plot of a billion more. Twilight isn't original in that sense.


Which brings me to my next argument...Twilight is a copy. Yup... I've heard that one too. And it's true. There is an entire genre devoted to Vampire love.


 But then isn't any writing done inside a genre essentially copying?  One of my favorite quotes ever, is... "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein. I think, as a writer, I can't say I haven't borrowed an idea, or a theme, or that something from my stories wasn't blatantly... inspired... by someone else's writing.

Yes, there are a million Edwards
 in literary history.
And that's a bad thing how?

 Can you?


 If we can't be blamed for our idea sharing, then how can we crucify Stephanie Meyer for the same thing. Stephanie Meyers as made a billion million bazillion dollars... those stories she's "copied" haven't been near as successful. Take from that what you will.


Twilight was Stephanie Meyers first novel. She wrote all 130,000 words in three months which is about Nano speed. Now, I've seen my nano Novel, and I've seen my first novel, and they... I'm speaking truthfully... are much worse that Twilight.  Some, not all, of the first novels I've read aren't as good as Twilight either. 


Now I'm not saying Twilight is good. "It's not," she hissed. 


I am saying it was good enough to be published.


I've often wondered what would have happened, if Stephanie Meyer had joined a writers workshop, or let other people outside her family read it before sending it in to be published. She would probably edit out all the annoying quirks that bug us writer type people. Maybe would be convinced that she was starting in the wrong place, or dwelling too much on descriptions... 


In truth, she probably would have made a better book. However, there's a huge chance that she would have edited out what made her story sell so dang well, or perhaps become so disillusioned with the whole process, she might have never sent the novel in to be published, and essentially rejected herself.


When we try to write the correct way, aren't we actually just writing the same way it's always been done? Publishers are always saying they want something original, and yet how many times have you been told not to do something because it doesn't follow the rules. What if following "the rules" is what is standing between you and a billion batrillion dollars.


My personal experience with Twilight


When I was in Junior High, I went to see Titanic four times in the movie theater. I couldn't drive yet, I didn't have a job, or a source of income, yet somehow I ended up going to see Titanic FOUR times. But by the time Titanic came to DVD, it had been so over-saturated, that I officially became embarrassed that I ever liked it. I never bought the DVD. I made fun of it, often with the same friends I went to see it with in the first place.


The same thing happened to me with Twilight. The first time I ever heard of Twilight, I was in a Costco, and my husband said we had enough money to go pick out a book. I bought Twilight because of the cover. I had never read another Vampire book, and honestly had negative associations with the whole genre. My husband had to convince me to buy the book. 

I read the book, and I liked it. In fact, I liked it a lot. I hadn't heard of any of the hype yet, but I still liked it. I bought the other books in the series, and The Host. I loaned them to my friends, and we all... Okay most of us... liked the books. 


I have in my closet a tee shirt that says Team Jacob. (I only wear it now on laundry days.) 


We had a Breaking Dawn Breakfast were we went to Walmart together to pick up the book.


I still openly mocked the movie. The movies, in my opinion, are laughable grossness, and examples of horrible acting. I never became a Twihard... although I do think that name is creative.


Somewhere around, let's say the second movie, I became embarrassed that I ever liked the book. Now, when I try to reread the book, I can only see it's faults. I can only see how it's critiques are correct.

I've become a fair-weather fan.

So now, before the world, and my writing friends, and the thousand Vampire Diary fans who've stopped by theprosers to say "Hi," I want to officially say something.


Stephanie Meyer, 


as you look down from you giant pile of money, please know, even as I mock you, you aren't as bad of a writer as I think you are. Your stories aren't as laughable as the internet thinks they are, and George Takai is only making a joke.


Oh yyeesss.
~Sheena

Now that's I've embarrassed myself by admitting my feelings toward Twilight, how about you? What did you think when you read it?