Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Arterial Spray

Pages: [1]
1
Writing Group / Re: A General Theory of Satisfaction
« on: October 15, 2007, 02:35:32 AM »
Quote
I'm not sure that I would consider P&P romance genre fiction.
R...really?  I was under the impression that P&P was practically the paradigm for romance fiction (again, insofar as romance fiction that is more than erotica) -- though perhaps it is more of a 'romantic comedy' than a straight up romance.  Could you give some examples of books that you think are romance novels?
Quote
To my shame or credit, I've read a few. And I don't think that "deserving" comes into it.
OK, but ask yourself: did you want the love-interest characters to end up together?  If so, why?  What about them and their actions throughout the course of the novel made you think they deser...were right for each other?
Quote
I do think, however, by adding the word "subjective" you have added a good deal of credence to your theory, but that you should further develop that, and divorce it from the loaded word "justice" and focus on describing it as "deserving"
You may be right, though I think the word "justice" has fewer connotations of objectivity for me than it apparently does for you.

2
Writing Group / Re: A General Theory of Satisfaction
« on: October 15, 2007, 02:01:05 AM »
Quote
I'm going to venture to disagree.
Please do...
Quote
I think your theory enshrines a single principle -- justice -- beyond the importance it's given.
Probably, but if my theory is mistaken then hopefully it will be mistaken  in an useful way -- that is to say, in such a way that revealing why it is mistaken will lead to a deeper understanding.
Quote
Certainly a "just" story is often satisfying, assuming that we care in the first place. If we had no feeling for the characters in the first place, we wouldn't care who got what they deserved and who didn't. Honestly, from an objective stand point, Westley didn't deserve to win -- he was a notorious and murderous pirate.

So for starters, I think the "deserving" part of your theory is off. It's not true justice, it's who we feel for. I've often found myself routing for clear villains, simply because I liked them more.
Actually we don't know if we was in fact murderous  or if it wasn't all just clever marketing (so to speak).  Indeed, the only person who he actually kills on screen is Vizini, and he only does that because Vizini has a knife to Buttercup's throat.  Compare this to Prince Humperdinck (who brutally tortured Westley to 'death' only hours before) -- rather than kill him Westley tricks him into being tied up.

But your larger point is well taken.  You may be right in saying that the justice at issue is not "true justice" (i.e. 'objective' justice, if such a thing exists).  However the kind of justice at issue may indeed be subjective justice, wherein we feel that certain characters deserve to win precisely because we like them.  Of course, the connection between our liking a character and our feeling that they deserve victory may be spurious: which is to say, the fact that we like a particular character and the fact that we feel they deserve to win may both be the result of a third fact -- i.e. that they have certain traits we admire (which are more commonly known as virtues).  If you think back to villains that you have liked more than the respective heroes of the story, ask yourself why you liked the villain more than the hero.  Many villains have numerous virtues (they wouldn't be a credible threat otherwise), such as being proactive, goal-oriented, clever, and so on.  They may in fact deserve to win because of those virtues, especially if the hero lacks virtues; for instance, if the 'hero' is an annoying, whiny, self-righteous, hypocritical twit.
Quote
secondly, I don't think that justice is the only principle which can satisfy. Certainly mercy is just as well. The Power and the Glory is immensely satisfying to me -- the protagonist is the best person around, but even he will confess that he is hardly deserving of hero status: he's a Catholic priest who drinks far too much and has fathered at least one child since taking his vows. Yet, when he shows mercy, returning to give last rites to a murderer, insuring in the process that he'll be caught and there will be no one left to minister to the believers in his area, we are incredibly pleased with his character and how he's grown. I guess you could call it justice that he's caught and executed, but that is hardly what satisfies.
I haven't read The Power and the Glory, so I cannot comment.
Quote
And certainly love is another. There's an entire genre of books that don't concern themselves with deserving other than in an oblique sense. Just fantasy fulfillment. (OK, not all romance novels fit that description, but many of them do -- they rely on reader identification with a character rather than what the character has "earned.")
Well there are genres that my theory does not necessarily apply to, such as comedy and erotica.  However I do think it applies to Romance fiction (insofar as Romance fiction is more than simply erotica).  For example, look at Pride and Prejudice.  The novel is primarily taken up with demonstrating how Elizabeth and Darcy deserve one another, in that they both muster the strength and integrity of character (i.e. are virtuous) to overcome their personal failings (his pride and her prejudice).  Indeed, in the end all the marriages that occur in the book are just, in that each couple deserves each other: Elizabeth and Darcy deserve each other, Wickham and Lydia deserve each other (in a bad way), Jane and Bingley deserve each other (in a good way), even Charlotte Lucas and Mr Collins deserve each other.

3
Writing Group / A General Theory of Satisfaction
« on: October 15, 2007, 12:24:19 AM »
Kid: [upset] Grandpa!  Grandpa!  Wait, wait.  What did Fezzik mean, "he's dead?"  I mean, he didn't mean dead?  Westley is only faking, right?
Grandpa: Do you want me to read this or not?
Kid: Who gets Humperdinck?
Grandpa: I don't understand.
Kid: [annoyed] Who kills Prince Humperdinck?  At the end, someone's got to do it!  Is it Inigo?  Who?!
Grandpa: Nobody.  Nobody kills him.  He lives.
Kid: You mean he wins?  Jesus, Grandpa!  What did you read me this thing for?
-- The Princess Bride, scene 12

Recently I have been trying to figure out what makes stories satisfying (or, conversely, what makes some stories unsatisfying), and I came up with the following theory.  Comments, questions, criticisms, and refutations are all welcome.

My general thesis is that satisfying stories are those that slake our thirst for justice; defining 'justice' here very simply as "people getting what they deserve".  Thus, if we have a story with a hero and a villain, the story will be satisfying if, in the end, the hero receives a well-deserved victory and the villain receives a well-deserved defeat (defining 'victory' and 'defeat' broadly in terms of the fulfillment or the thwarting of one's desires, plans, and goals).

The key in that previous sentence is the 'well-deserved' part.  In a satisfying story, much of the characterization and plot development will be designed to ensure that the hero 'earns' his victory and the villain 'earns' his defeat.  Typically a person deserves a reward (such as a victory) because they are virtuous (or because they become virtuous).  Thus, much of the story will have the purpose of demonstrating the hero's virtue (via a series of tests or challenges), or of providing the opportunity (which is then taken) to become virtuous.  For instance, this may explain why the heroes of satisfying stories often have flaws and failings, yet they manage (after much struggle) to overcome those flaws and failings -- because the tenacity and courage to face and overcome such internal obstacles is a virtue that we tend to admire and think is worthy of praise and reward.

If the hero is victorious merely by luck (rather than because of his virtues), or indeed in spite of his many vices, then (I contend) the story will be unsatisfying.  This may be why 'Deus Ex Machina' are generally reviled as unsatisfying means to resolving stories: the victory of the hero is unearned, received not because of his virtues but because of the unforeseen whim of the gods (or in other words, because he was lucky).

Similarly, satisfying stories will also provide ample opportunities for the villain to earn his defeat.  This tends to mean demonstrating how the villain is both wicked and dangerous, since (generally speaking) you usually need to have both evil intent and the (demonstrated) capacity to carry out your evil intent in order to deserve punishment.  In stories without villains per se (i.e. with antagonists who are not 'evil', but rather are simply in conflict with the protagonist), the focus will only be on allowing the protagonist to earn his victory, and won't have to bother with making sure the antagonist earns defeat.

To illustrate my theory, consider why the reaction of the 'Kid' (played by Fred Savage) in The Princess Bride seems so natural.  At that point in the movie, he thinks that the villain (Prince Humperdinck) is going to get away 'scot-free' and that the hero (Westley) is not going to be victorious (because he seems to be dead).  The Kid expresses great disappointment and disatisfaction with the story, and his reaction is both relatable and natural.  Why?  I content that this is because, by that point in the movie, it was clear that Westley deserved to be victorious and that Prince Humperdinck deserved a thorough ass-kicking (if you'll pardon the expression).  Think back to the stories that you found unsatsfying -- did the characters not get what they deserved (or not deserve what they got)?

As a corollary to my theory, the more a story satiates our desire for justice the more satisfying it will be.  That is to say, a really satisfying story will involve the hero deserving and receiving a really great victory, and the villain deserving and receiving a really nasty defeat.  Since the sweetest victory is one that is snatched from the jaws of defeat (i.e. where one wins out even though it seems all is lost), and the bitterest defeat is one snatched from the jaws of victory, really satisfying stories will tend to have an underdog hero defeat the villain 'against all the odds' -- i.e. when for most of the story it seems certain or highly probable that the villain will win.

Anyway, what do you think?  Agree?  Disagree?

4
Brandon Sanderson / Re: Mistake in Well of Ascension
« on: October 07, 2007, 03:22:40 AM »
Quote from: EUOL on October 06, 2007, 11:48:45 PM
This one got introduced late in the editing process as I was shuffling around several plots.  In the original, way back planning stages of the series, Clubs was going to be a Seeker and Marsh a Smoker. I swapped that, but I've NEVER been able to shake it from my subconscious.  Kind of like the way that Tin used to be Silver.  (I worry about getting that one mixed up in places too.)
Huh.  Was Clubs going to be the one who became a Steel Inquisitor?

By the way, I have to say that "Smoker" is a delightful name for a type of wizard.

5
Brandon Sanderson / Re: Mistake in Well of Ascension
« on: October 03, 2007, 01:43:54 AM »
Quote from: Ookla The Mok on October 03, 2007, 01:36:37 AM
Karen and I caught that one too. (Plus Vin can sense bronzepulses for bronze, so even if Clubs suddenly became a Seeker, she would have been able to tell if he were burning bronze.) It's the most problematic error on the list we're compiling, which we'll post once we've finished the book. Unlike most of the  other errors, fixing it would likely require text reflow for the whole rest of that chapter, but luckily it's a short one.
It was the only mistake I noticed (or that I remember noticing), but then I went through the books pretty quickly.

6
Brandon Sanderson / Mistake in Well of Ascension
« on: October 03, 2007, 12:33:58 AM »
So I just spent the last 25 hours reading Mistborn and Well of Ascencion (I found the first book so gripping I read it in a single sitting and then went to the store to get the next book and ended up reading that straight through too).  For the most part I was very pleased and impressed by the books (though to be honest I liked the first book more than the second).  However, I did notice a mistake in the Well of Ascension that I found a little jarring.  I looked through the forum here, but didn't see any previous topics on this point.

Some minor spoilers are contained below.  If you haven't read 'Well' yet, stop right here....

On page 216 (the hardback edition, obviously), or in other words the first page of chapter 24, the text reads as follows:

"She had asked Clubs to burn bronze, and he had claimed to hear nothing from the north.  Either he was the kandra, lying to her about his ability to burn bronze, or Vin could hear a rhythm that nobody else could."

Yet this contradicts the rest of the book and the first book, wherein Clubs is a 'Smoker' Misting -- i.e. he can only burn copper, not bronze.  If Vin was going to ask someone to burn bronze and check if they heard pulses from the Well then she would have had to ask a Seeker or a Mistborn.  This wouldn't really have bothered me, but for the fact that two fairly important plot threads appeared to be heavily involved in this paragraph -- the "Who is the kandra spy?" thread and the "Am I the Hero of Ages?" thread.  It was here that Vin determined that either Clubs was the kandra or that she was like Alendi (in being uniquely able to hear the Well).

So that was a little upsetting.  I wonder if that is something that can be fixed for the paperback edition (assuming the publishers do that sort of thing)?


Pages: [1]