Inferiority and Writing

[Gumboot]

Can I ask, Gumboot, in what ways do you find Jordan and Tolkien's world-building terrible? I'm genuinely curious! I see odd little flaws here and there, such as the geography of Jordan's continent and the fact that they all speak the same language, and I see that none of the past Ages were gone into in much detail (they're not necessary anyway), but... how he'd designed his races and places... Wow! Amazing.

I don't really want to send this thread off topic by deconstructing Middle-earth and Randland.

And Tolkien wrote from the first God, Eru Ilúvatar, to the spirits who wrote the Songs that created the world, to the Ages we know and love. He created an entire mythology, a world, races, languages (self-consistent and consistent to other languages)... how can anyone say he's bad at world-building? He's the one you can't really level that complaint at.

Suffice to say that Middle-earth is responsible for 99% of fantasy worlds suffering a significant shortage of agriculture.

Anyway, the inevitable question, since you've piqued my curiosity: do you have anything published, or are you a struggling writer, too? It's nice to compare and try to find positives about your own work, but to say you're better than anyone else could be misleading... to you and others.

I didn't say I was better than anyone else.

If you already think you beat others, what drive is there to improve further?

I personally aren't motivated by a desire to "beat others", so whether I "beat others" or not has zero bearing on my motivation.

For example, I think one of my strengths is characterisation, but I wouldn't say I'm better than the top-selling writers at it, and I certainly will keep striving to improve and learn. Just something to consider.

Something for you to consider; your OP revealed that you don't think you could ever be as good as your literary hero, who it was later revealed is Robert Jordan. If you're really any good at characterisation - as you indicate above - there's a good chance you're already better than your hero in that specific area. So congratulations.

 

[ratsy]

I have struggled a bit with this already and I am just getting into writing. I just tell myself that the authors I read have had countless years of experience, countless rewrites and editors to clean up their once pile of flawed paper. I am sure almost all of these people struggled before they were allotted bookstore space and the Michael Whelans and Darrel Sweets of the world gracing their book with wonderful art.

We are our own voice and lets just write!

P.S. If Randland was a theme Park, I am going to ride the rollercoaster from Dragonmount to the Aiel Waste baby! Fill up on Aes Sedai ice cream cones, and pee my pants in the Haunted House of the Forsaken

 

[Brian G Turner]

Worldbuilding and action are my strengths.

It's the close character experience I find most challenging - getting into a character's emotional conflict and development. If a reader isn't drawn into the characters, chances are they won't care for the story.

 

[Gumboot]

It's the close character experience I find most challenging - getting into a character's emotional conflict and development. If a reader isn't drawn into the characters, chances are they won't care for the story.

I absolutely agree that good characters are the most important thing in any story. A reader will forgive a whole lot if they feel empathy for your characters. But if they don't feel empathy it won't matter how good your expression is, or how complex your world, they won't care, and they won't read on.

I've personally found that my POV characters are the least interesting, and I probably spend the least time working on building them. I was worried about this, but there's a literature theory that more ambiguous POV characters enable readers to project whatever they like, making them feel a stronger bond. It's argued that the huge popularity of the Twilight series is precisely that Bella has no characterisation at all, but is a blank slate, allowing a reader to put themself in her place.

It's an interesting theory, anyway.

This reminds me of the other thread about planning chapters. I've found I plan more now than I used to, precisely because of my desire to create more complex characters. When I wrote totally organically characters would emerge in 2D, serving the needs of the narrative, and nothing more. What I've found is that to make complex characters, with their own lives and objectives, I have to plan in advance. I set myself the goal that every secondary character in the story should have their own story, often mostly occurring "off screen" that's complex and interesting enough that I could write a separate novel about that.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

but you can bet your bottom dollar Jordan wasn't awed by his own work - probably had all kinds of doubts/nagging worries the same way we all do.

Not everyone has doubts about their work. Most of us do, certainly, but there are some people who never seem to doubt themselves for a moment.

I think we each have to find the combination of confidence and self-questioning that serves us best. And then readjust it from time to time if it stops working.

 

[Erin99]

Ratsy, hello! A fellow Randland fan! Can you imagine the Rhuidean theatre or the House of Gateways?


And hello to everyone else posting here. I'm always up for replies - don't worry about taking this thread slightly off-topic. I always find threads interesting when they naturally wander to other topics.

Sorry if you took my post badly, Gumboot. I genuinely was interested in your answers, though I never mean to come off as rude. Anyway, I see you're another one who's spent over a decade on his work. Is it me, or are people like us mostly epic fantasy writers? The sheer amount of work needed to create a world takes time.

The only point I will debate (in a non-rude way, I hope!) is that I think agriculture in fantasy hasn't suffered from Tolkien. I believe a story should focus on what's vital, what makes the characters, plot, and world come alive... but things like agriculture don’t need to be heavily gone into. It's enough to know that places like the Shire exist, farming places; as a reader I don't need a passage on how people are fed. In my own work I only have brief mentions of farms, animals, and how such large cities are supplied with food. Also, Tolkien can't be held responsible for authors lacking imagination and using his ideas. It's up to the author to write a unique world and put in the work needed to make the world different.

And be careful with the no-personality characters. I've read Twilight, and the only reason it worked was because hormone-driven girls and daydreaming women lusted after the Perfect Man, who was somehow gentle yet fierce, loving yet aggressive, beautiful yet dangerous. And, let's not forget the "hard yet soft" line in the book! Personally, I got soooo annoyed with the girl's constant moaning about being clumsy and not pretty and such. I know we writers must write realistically, but we're also writing fiction. Everything needs to be a zillion times more interesting. Don’t you find characters who are active and dominant and not afraid to do what needs to be done more interesting? They're engaging. If I wanted to read some lifeless character, I'd read Mary Sue fanfiction.

To be honest, in the past I was accused of having a boring main character who didn't display any personality. People hated her. But I'd hidden her past cos I thought it would clutter book one (so I'd write it into book two instead), which consequently made me hide her most natural thoughts (because thoughts are a product of your upbringing and the way you look at the world). Luckily, I've got a brand new MC, and she’s actually enjoyable to read, I think (I hope!!!) - and she's not hiding her past. Wohooo!

Teresa, I don’t know whether to be jealous or shocked. I've always struggled with negativity (in life as well as my writing). I can't imagine someone writing something without moments of panic and doubt.

 

[Hex]

Speaking as a daydreaming woman lusting after the perfect man, I'd have gone for Jacob every single time and waved bye-bye to Edward.

I think we underestimate Twilight if we dismiss its popularity as being about women's hormones and their desperate (rather pathetic) need to be loved.

Although lots of people despise it -- frequently, all over the place -- one reason Twilight got so popular is because Stephanie Meyer did lots of things right. The tension between the characters was excellent, and although Bella is supposed to be an "empty" character, I never found her so. However you feel about sparkling vampires, it was at least unusual, and the first book had a great YA feel, with the mysterious new boy at school. I liked that Bella wasn't Xena (I was a bit bored of gung-ho urban fantasy girlies with guns when I read it).

Sigh. Why do I find myself defending Twlight all the time? I also loved Lord of the Rings and the Wheel of Time, just for different reasons.

 

[Erin99]

I know someone who would pick Jacob over Edward, too. Personally, I could never decide... Slightly more Edward maybe? I dunno!

And while I will say that Meyer did some things right - she latched onto a market and played up to it, and she was good at tension, yes - I did find her writing bland and, in the case of descriptions of Edward, repetitive. At the same time, I can understand how young girls would especially love descriptions of a perfect, loving hunk and another man competing for her attentions even though she felt she was plain. That's what Meyer excelled at; she knew her market. The book was full of sexual tension and descriptions of how the beautiful the man was compared to her clumsy, shy self. I'm not against shy characters, though - I find them fascinating - but for me, Bella did not really grow as much as I'd hoped over the series, and the ending left me somewhat... unfulfilled. Personal opinion and all that, though!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I was a Mormon during my teens/early twenties - I have only read bits of the first book as I don't like vampire stories. (Unless that vampire is Angel or Spike then the whole idea of sexual tension with dead things I just find plain icky). But I can see exactly where she got Bella from it felt I spent part of my life fighting her . In fact I could hazard a guess at exactly which magazine article inspired her and it is based on a true story - the girl had a port-wine stain. The bloke wasn't a vampire either

But I am always hesitant to slag a popular book. I can't personally stand Lord of the Rings or Stephen King but I do assume it is just because I don't get them not that they are bad.

When that many people feel your characters you have to be doing something right.

 

[Ursa major]

So you don't think Meyer should get it in the neck for writing Twilight and its sequels?

​

 

[Brian G Turner]

Sigh. Why do I find myself defending Twlight all the time?

I agree - over this year I've seen a lot of discussions that are either:

1. Women complaining that women writers are not visible enough
2. Women kicking down women writers who are visible

The argument appears to be that only those writers who don't sell well have any value, and that those who are wildly successful should be immediately discounted.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I think any book that captures people and entertains is well written even if the writer hasn't attended a creative writing course and got it perfect. They've communicated their story in such a manner that it has come to life.

 

[Hex]

I think it's easy to absorb the way in which (for example) romance is dismissed, and it tends to be written by women.

Leisha -- how fascinating you liked Edward more. After book 1, I preferred Jacob because I understood how their relationship had developed and how it was based on friendship and things in common -- my issue with Edward was that it was love-at-first-sight and because he was so beautiful (which didn't come across as well, I thought).

 

[ratsy]

I know this thread has went off topic...but I would never read Twilight...but then again I am a 32 year old man. But what I will say about those kind of books is this...it gets people who other wise don't read, to read. I was amazed when my wife read them, that EVERYONE she knows read them too. And most of these people would never have read if there was not the hype with them. So I am a fan of Meyers, not for her work, but for the fact that she introduced, or reintroduced a generation to reading again.

 

[Erin99]

No, I certainly wouldn't kick writers - male or female - and I'm shocked to hear some do, but as a free-thinking individual I still hold an opinion. That's important for discussion. I'm awed by people's successes when they happen, and I'm fully supportive of them even if I personally felt let down when reading them or their writing, but if something about the book/s doesn't appeal to me... *shrugs* I can't force myself to have a different view, but I can acknowledge that the masses love it. And I can wish the writer well.

It's weird how I, Brian says the argument appears to be people saying only low-selling books are of value, though. To me, if a book doesn't sell well it means there was not enough marketing, which is the case most times, or the book doesn't have a wide enough appeal. Or maybe some other reason. Successful books can be amazing, or they can be hyped up, or they can be only decent for airport reading. The same for other books.

And besides, all taste is subjective.

rasty - I always wonder how many go on to read other authors once they read something because the people around them are doing so. I'm sure it will encourage *some* to pick up more books, but not many. I hope I'm wrong.


Hex - I think it's because Bella gave her heart to Edward first, and that tainted me (if at all; I'm not sure, tbh). I'm a soulmate kinda person, and I was made to feel that Edward and Bella really clicked like soulmates. Then Jacob, no matter how lovely and friendly he was, intruded on that soulmate-ism. Maybe. I've never really analysed it!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Teresa, I don’t know whether to be jealous or shocked. I've always struggled with negativity (in life as well as my writing). I can't imagine someone writing something without moments of panic and doubt.

I hope you didn't take it that I'm one of those people who doesn't struggle with doubt. I struggle with doubt all the time while I am writing, which is why I take so long to finish everything. Even after I've finished, there will be parts of a book I love and parts that I think may be very bad. And then there are other books that I can't bare to look at, for fear that they won't be good at all. (Although that one may reflect where I was emotionally at the time of writing.)

But, yes, there are people who have no doubts that everything they write is just as it should be. They don't even revise. I've met them. I suspect they may not be aiming very high, though. I doubt you'd want to be like them.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's weird how I, Brian says the argument appears to be people saying only low-selling books are of value, though.

Oh, I've been reading a lot of blog posts of late, and many that start off with high ideals usually end up ripping each other apart. It's like watching the Judean People's Front on Monty Python, sadly.

Anyway, going back to the subject - I'll never be a Tolkien or a George R R Martin but I don't want to be, because they aren't me and they write their own stories.

So long as somebody somewhere someday enjoys something I write, then I've done my job. It's not a popularity contest, merely one of achieving best competency.

 

[Gumboot]

Sorry if you took my post badly, Gumboot.

Not in the least. We're having a group discussion, and absolutely everyone is entitled to give their opinion and views on every topic. That's why I like to be around these places, to discuss things with other writers. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was in any way upset.

I genuinely was interested in your answers, though I never mean to come off as rude.

You didn't seem the least bit rude.

Anyway, I see you're another one who's spent over a decade on his work. Is it me, or are people like us mostly epic fantasy writers? The sheer amount of work needed to create a world takes time.

It does indeed. And life has a way of getting in the road sometimes!

The only point I will debate (in a non-rude way, I hope!) is that I think agriculture in fantasy hasn't suffered from Tolkien. I believe a story should focus on what's vital, what makes the characters, plot, and world come alive... but things like agriculture don’t need to be heavily gone into. It's enough to know that places like the Shire exist, farming places; as a reader I don't need a passage on how people are fed. In my own work I only have brief mentions of farms, animals, and how such large cities are supplied with food. Also, Tolkien can't be held responsible for authors lacking imagination and using his ideas. It's up to the author to write a unique world and put in the work needed to make the world different.

It was just a bit of a quip but I suppose I should explain myself. The majority of fantasy worlds are tailored on Medieval Europe (and mostly England specifically, for some reason), but are generally described as depopulated areas with isolated villages and towns and farms surrounded by empty wilderness.

This is far removed from a viable feudal society which is built on intensely farmed land and dense village networks.

Because so much fantasy seems to involve lots of "travelling", we get to see a lot of the land, and when I read fantasy where our heroes cross miles of empty wilderness before encountering isolated settlements, it completely destroys my suspension of disbelief because that sort of society just isn't believable.

And it was Tolkien that really established that principal, but modern fantasy writers often miss that Tolkien wasn't trying to write a realistic living breathing world, he was writing mythology. It's fine for him to have an impossibly vast engineered city like Minas Tirith with an inexplicable food supply.

But lots of modern fantasy writers have followed his lead whilst trying to be "realistic". Even very compelling realistic writers like George RR Martin.

And be careful with the no-personality characters. I've read Twilight, and the only reason it worked was because hormone-driven girls and daydreaming women lusted after the Perfect Man, who was somehow gentle yet fierce, loving yet aggressive, beautiful yet dangerous. And, let's not forget the "hard yet soft" line in the book! Personally, I got soooo annoyed with the girl's constant moaning about being clumsy and not pretty and such. I know we writers must write realistically, but we're also writing fiction. Everything needs to be a zillion times more interesting. Don’t you find characters who are active and dominant and not afraid to do what needs to be done more interesting? They're engaging. If I wanted to read some lifeless character, I'd read Mary Sue fanfiction.

Don't get me wrong, I think Twilight is awful and the very thought of reading it gives me cold shivers, but I've heard several academics now pose the idea that the "protagonist as a mask for the reader" aspect is a big part of its explanation, and to an extent I think that's true of most genre fiction.

Having said that, it's not to say my POV characters are as lifeless as Bella, that was more of a musing aside I think, I just seem to spend less time thinking about their characters, perhaps because I write their POV so their character is more familiar and more obvious. It's the secondary characters I focus my efforts on, because otherwise they can be in danger of all sounding the same.

To be honest, in the past I was accused of having a boring main character who didn't display any personality. People hated her. But I'd hidden her past cos I thought it would clutter book one (so I'd write it into book two instead), which consequently made me hide her most natural thoughts (because thoughts are a product of your upbringing and the way you look at the world). Luckily, I've got a brand new MC, and she’s actually enjoyable to read, I think (I hope!!!) - and she's not hiding her past. Wohooo!

Yeah I think that's a good point there; if you're writing a POV that reveals a character's thoughts, it's very difficult to conceal things like their past without it being obvious and odd, because as you say; you're a product of where you've been.

 

[Gumboot]

I know this thread has went off topic...but I would never read Twilight...but then again I am a 32 year old man. But what I will say about those kind of books is this...it gets people who other wise don't read, to read. I was amazed when my wife read them, that EVERYONE she knows read them too. And most of these people would never have read if there was not the hype with them. So I am a fan of Meyers, not for her work, but for the fact that she introduced, or reintroduced a generation to reading again.

There's a problem with this theory. When Harry Potter came out a lot of people (academics included) were saying the same thing about getting children to read. But research has shown that the vast majority of those kids read the Harry Potter books and nothing else.

 

[Gumboot]

No, I certainly wouldn't kick writers - male or female - and I'm shocked to hear some do, but as a free-thinking individual I still hold an opinion. That's important for discussion. I'm awed by people's successes when they happen, and I'm fully supportive of them even if I personally felt let down when reading them or their writing, but if something about the book/s doesn't appeal to me... *shrugs* I can't force myself to have a different view, but I can acknowledge that the masses love it. And I can wish the writer well.

It's weird how I, Brian says the argument appears to be people saying only low-selling books are of value, though. To me, if a book doesn't sell well it means there was not enough marketing, which is the case most times, or the book doesn't have a wide enough appeal. Or maybe some other reason. Successful books can be amazing, or they can be hyped up, or they can be only decent for airport reading. The same for other books.

I have to deal with this issue in the realm of film a lot too, where I feel a lot more confident because film is my field of expertise, and what I do for a living.

I think, with any sort of storytelling medium, you can make a distinction between your subjective response to the work, and an objective analysis of the storytelling craft.

As a filmmaker, I can separate my enjoyment of a film from my assessment of how well the film was made. I thoroughly enjoy many poorly made films, and I also dislike many exceptionally well-crafted films.

Because I am knowledgeable of filmmaking craft I feel confident in commenting on a filmmaker's craft, and making an assessment whether a film is objectively good or not, irrespective of whether I enjoyed watching it.

So to with books. Anyone who has a lot of literary experience (both reading and writing) is in a position to separate a writer's craft from whether they enjoyed the book or not. For example I really enjoyed David Eddings' books when I was a teenager, but I know they weren't well crafted stories. Likewise I utterly hate The Handmaid's Tale but Margaret Atwood has certainly crafted a very well-written book.

In normal daily conversations, you're mostly discussing works with people who don't have the expertise to objectively assess whether a film or book is well crafted, so they tend to speak only of their own personal experience as an audience. Whether they enjoyed it. I often have to remind myself to limit my discussions to that, and reserve my assessment of the craft for when I'm talking to others who are similarly familiar with the craft (even better is to talk to people who know more about the craft than you, because then you learn).

Given this subform is a place for writers to discuss the craft of writing, I would expect there to be a much higher percentage of discussion about the objective quality of craft in a work than discussion about whether a work was popular or whether a reader enjoyed reading it. We all, to greater or lesser extent, understand the craft, and have the ability to objectively assess a work's quality.

As it happens, sadly, with literature I think there is a certain level of inaccessibility for much of the population, who are really only functionally literate. Good literature tends to be more complex, often with unusual and distinct turn of phrase (for example Cormac McCarthy) and a functionally literate person finds that very difficult to read and understand, so the very best literature these days tends to be unpopular, while simplistic writing, with simple characters, direct and simplistic syntax and minimal vocabulary tends to be easier to understand and therefore more popular.

The result is that you probably can make some generalisations (although I stress that they're just that; generalisations) that the best literature tends to be less popular.