Mangara
Well-Known Member
Horrible medical treatment/unrealistic survival. People dying too slowly from mortal wounds. People managing to not get infections and suchlike from said wounds. The Lost World (Michael Crichton) was terrible for this!
What little things do you pick up because of your life knowledge/experiences?
- Thread starter Jo Zebedee
- Start date
He should have known better - isn't Chricton a doctor?
I agree. As a nurse, I tend to notice medical issues more. Death tends to be particularly poorly done in movies. It's one thing to account for personal experience varying greatly (and it does). But *nobody* lies in someone's arms telling important, final last words, then just keels over dramatically. Yet that seems to be the most common type of movie death!
From all my research on mediaeval life - reading books, visiting places, and events - it is clear that most fantasy stories have almost nothing in common with the mediaeval period, despite attempting otherwise.
I've said it before, but - swords and wenches do not make a story mediaeval!
I know some on the political left complain loudly about there being too much "mediaeval European-based fantasy", but frankly, barely any authors write it.
Lots of RPG and computer game inspired worlds - but very few that say the author researched mediaeval Europe.
I've said it before, but - swords and wenches do not make a story mediaeval!
I know some on the political left complain loudly about there being too much "mediaeval European-based fantasy", but frankly, barely any authors write it.
Lots of RPG and computer game inspired worlds - but very few that say the author researched mediaeval Europe.
Very true. That's just what many authors think they are writing, often because they get their ideas about the medieval period from reading other fantasy novels rather than from actual research.
And they don't understand that certain things happened (or didn't happen) because of the prevailing beliefs that made medieval European society function the way it did. I tend to notice when a writer creates a quasi-medieval world and none of the characters (or at least not the "good" ones) embraces anything vaguely similar to a medieval world view.
Well, OK, but isn't that why they're called Fantasies and not Historical novels?
And no matter how well you research, aren't some periods just so unknown that you can say most anything you want and nobody can call you on it because the knowledge of what really happened at that time just doesn't exist? I've always thought that's why King Arthur has remained so popular. Hell, from 500 to 800 there COULD have been dragons, unicorns and working magic, it's unlikely, yes, but in the end we just don't know.
As far as picking up things from my "life experiences", if the OP is defining them as I think they are then no, not a lot. Contrary to most people I don't learn very well by doing, because I'm too concerned with doing the thing to really step back and analyze it a lot. With just about everything I just muddle through most of the time. I only learn by doing something if I do it a lot, whereas if I read or study. I pick up a lot more in the same amount of time. I learn best of all if I can read or study and then discuss it with an expert, to pick up nuances, inferences, implications etc. but even then applications others find obvious escape me completely I seem to be a natural student rather than someone who can actually DO stuff.
This is an interesting thought, and I can imagine you are right (I don't know a lot about the medieval world myself). However, do fantasy writers actually seek to recreate the medieval world, or do they try to recreate something else? I think critics tend to lump much fantasy into the "medieval" camp as a short-hand way to group them. The predominant theme over the last 50 years of fantasy writing has probably been to recreate Tolkien's middle-earth, which was not actually medieval, but more closely related to anglo-saxon and middle-english times. Tolkien was a scholar of old- and middle-english wasn't he? I suspect this perspective has come through in other novels, rather than medieval history per se.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
Yes, I'd agree with that. I can think of no other single writer - possibly Jane Austen in Romance, but even she doesn't get close - who has overshadowed and in many ways stifled a genre the way Tolkien's influence has done with fantasy. I have nothing against Tolkien himself, but some of the imitation has been slavish.
The problem to me is that I don't want to literally recreate medieval (in my case Renaissance) life when I write fantasy. I am writing a caricature of Renaissance life, in the way that a film noir is a caricature of 1940s life. Just as the noir director might leave out the vast majority of people leading banal, crime-free lives, the fantasy novelist is surely entitled to push the more boring details of real life in the middle ages into the background. The problem, as I see it, comes when the writer makes an error that insults the reader's attention and jars him out of the story.
But where do you draw the line? I want dialogue that flows like modern speech, and so I don't want to write stilted mock-olde-wolde speech (probably mock-Victorian, anyway). I think this is the real problem - when and to what extent you make your mock-historical world like our own.
But this is probably off-topic.
The problem to me is that I don't want to literally recreate medieval (in my case Renaissance) life when I write fantasy. I am writing a caricature of Renaissance life, in the way that a film noir is a caricature of 1940s life. Just as the noir director might leave out the vast majority of people leading banal, crime-free lives, the fantasy novelist is surely entitled to push the more boring details of real life in the middle ages into the background. The problem, as I see it, comes when the writer makes an error that insults the reader's attention and jars him out of the story.
But where do you draw the line? I want dialogue that flows like modern speech, and so I don't want to write stilted mock-olde-wolde speech (probably mock-Victorian, anyway). I think this is the real problem - when and to what extent you make your mock-historical world like our own.
But this is probably off-topic.
Well, I've had lots of off-the-wall jobs, so there are different areas for me.
I've been put off by inaccurate animal details, such as the guinea pig that had a dozen hairless babies with their eyes stuck shut -- guinea pig babies are born with fur, eyes open, and ready to eat solid food, and there aren't generally more than two or three to a litter.
I've also been put off by idiotic casino scenes, having worked in them for years -- one of the Agatha Raisin books had Agatha visiting Las Vegas, and after she lost track of her friend in a casino, she talked to security and was taken to the surveillance room where she went over the tapes until she found her friend being kidnapped. Sorry, ain't gonna happen!
Sometimes a thing just doesn't ring true, and I crinkle up my face and say, "he did what? No, I'm sure he didn't." Of course, sometimes that thing turns out to be an important plot point and I'm proven wrong, too.
I've been put off by inaccurate animal details, such as the guinea pig that had a dozen hairless babies with their eyes stuck shut -- guinea pig babies are born with fur, eyes open, and ready to eat solid food, and there aren't generally more than two or three to a litter.
I've also been put off by idiotic casino scenes, having worked in them for years -- one of the Agatha Raisin books had Agatha visiting Las Vegas, and after she lost track of her friend in a casino, she talked to security and was taken to the surveillance room where she went over the tapes until she found her friend being kidnapped. Sorry, ain't gonna happen!
Sometimes a thing just doesn't ring true, and I crinkle up my face and say, "he did what? No, I'm sure he didn't." Of course, sometimes that thing turns out to be an important plot point and I'm proven wrong, too.
Evil genius super weapons.
If I was evil and wanted to take over the world/universe/multiverse, and I had an ultimate super weapon, I would use it right off the bat. Then use it some more. I would use it at every available opportunity until all my enemies were gone, not wait until the last moment, giving the good guys every chance to destroy it before it was used.
I don't like stupid bad guys. Bad guys should use every trick in the book and get things done fast. If I was Goldfinger and I captured Mr Bond, I wouldn't strap him to a table and slowly laser him in half, I would shoot him in the head on the spot! Twice! Over and done with.
If I was evil and wanted to take over the world/universe/multiverse, and I had an ultimate super weapon, I would use it right off the bat. Then use it some more. I would use it at every available opportunity until all my enemies were gone, not wait until the last moment, giving the good guys every chance to destroy it before it was used.
I don't like stupid bad guys. Bad guys should use every trick in the book and get things done fast. If I was Goldfinger and I captured Mr Bond, I wouldn't strap him to a table and slowly laser him in half, I would shoot him in the head on the spot! Twice! Over and done with.
Issues surrounding child protection.
This morning I watched the woefully bad French/Irish/Swedish film Dark Touch. It's a film trying to explore the ramifications of abuse and riffs heavily on Carrie and Firestarter but really is a confused muddle where the MC, Naimh, is written in a way that can't decide whether she is avenging angel, or sociopath. Anyway, regardless, of the horrendously weak script and embarrassingly poor acting, the way it handles the issues of child protection - both at the girl's school, and by the Garda (police) - is just a gaping flaw in these times.
I am a fool for watching it to its conclusion, but once I start something I like to finish it. That's the last time I do that!
Oh I should say re my knowledge, I work teaching students with challenging behaviour.
pH
This morning I watched the woefully bad French/Irish/Swedish film Dark Touch. It's a film trying to explore the ramifications of abuse and riffs heavily on Carrie and Firestarter but really is a confused muddle where the MC, Naimh, is written in a way that can't decide whether she is avenging angel, or sociopath. Anyway, regardless, of the horrendously weak script and embarrassingly poor acting, the way it handles the issues of child protection - both at the girl's school, and by the Garda (police) - is just a gaping flaw in these times.
I am a fool for watching it to its conclusion, but once I start something I like to finish it. That's the last time I do that!
Oh I should say re my knowledge, I work teaching students with challenging behaviour.
pH
ethelredtheunredey
Dark and Bowellish
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 54
It's not the Emperor who is the real villain in Star Wars. The real villain is the monarchist secessionist guerrilla terrorist force known as then 'Rebel Alliance'. Fronted by a dispossed Princess for gods sake! Backed by an unaccountable, unelected and elitist warrior-priestocracy who favour 'ecumenism by the sword'. Like some White Russian attempt to restore semi-feudalistic relations amongst an Empire that yes, yes could be cruel. But how many lived and worked without once having to bow to Darth? How many planets worth of proletarians were kept in employment building the great super star destroyers, the spy mechs, the TIE Fighters. I put it to you that the real villain here is Luke, the sister-fancying wrong un whose best mate is an intergalactic spiv and smuggler. A man whose only motivation is that waaah my uncle and auntie got burned to death. Something he gets over with remarkable alacrity.
I bloody well cheered when Darth chopped his hand off.
I bloody well cheered when Darth chopped his hand off.
steve12553
The Enigma of Steel
Dinosaurs. And I'm not very forgiving about it, either
That's definitely my biggest one and most likely to cause a rant.
I'm a couple of days late for this one but are you discussing the conspiracy to keep me believing that there was such a thing as a Brontosaurus for more than 50 years when actually long before I heard the word they decided that the Brontosaurus was actually just a larger Apatosaurus and there really was never a Brontosaurus. My childhood was shattered when I heard this.
tinkerdan
∞<Q-Satis
What no brontosaurus; ha: next thing someone will tell me that pluto is now a minor planet.
I can let a lot of things fly past in the face of reason, but I do tend to get itchy when the the plot gets a bit trope heavy.
I tend to read from the place that the most important part of a novel is the character portrayals so the tech and even the scenery around them tend to become more Blah blah in my head so as long as they do a great job with keeping the character real and the plot is not so reliant upon the strange twists that take me beyond my usual suspension of reality I'm fine with it.
Too much description of anything will throw me right out of a story quickly though, and I think that's because it's a red flag that the story might hinge on all that description. I might end up spending an extra few minutes rereading and trying to make sense of it before discovering that the author just had some odd fixation over the idea of trying to authenticate the story by creating a description that demonstrated how well they knew the era from which they were cutting their scene.
Unfortunately I'd be put off more by the long accurate description than by the abbreviated test your suspension of reality limited edition.
I can let a lot of things fly past in the face of reason, but I do tend to get itchy when the the plot gets a bit trope heavy.
I tend to read from the place that the most important part of a novel is the character portrayals so the tech and even the scenery around them tend to become more Blah blah in my head so as long as they do a great job with keeping the character real and the plot is not so reliant upon the strange twists that take me beyond my usual suspension of reality I'm fine with it.
Too much description of anything will throw me right out of a story quickly though, and I think that's because it's a red flag that the story might hinge on all that description. I might end up spending an extra few minutes rereading and trying to make sense of it before discovering that the author just had some odd fixation over the idea of trying to authenticate the story by creating a description that demonstrated how well they knew the era from which they were cutting their scene.
Unfortunately I'd be put off more by the long accurate description than by the abbreviated test your suspension of reality limited edition.
BigBadBob141
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,103
What annoys me is people who can't do there sums properly.
I recently read a story about a man who escapes from Nazi Germany in 1938, he is now 88 years old at the present point of the story.
If he was a baby when he left the present year would be 2026 at the most, yet in the story it is 2119.
Which makes no sense at all, this but one of many examples I have come across over the years where things just don't add up.
If authors are no good at doing sums they should invest in a calculater!
I recently read a story about a man who escapes from Nazi Germany in 1938, he is now 88 years old at the present point of the story.
If he was a baby when he left the present year would be 2026 at the most, yet in the story it is 2119.
Which makes no sense at all, this but one of many examples I have come across over the years where things just don't add up.
If authors are no good at doing sums they should invest in a calculater!
Genius being the result of inherent talent, rather than intense devotion and obsession. Nobody sits down at a piano and hammers out an amazing performance without honing the motor skills. Nor do they write mind blowing concertos without first making a load of mistakes in mediocre pieces. Every prodigy is the result of obsessive training.
Except that's not actually the case with true genius (the word gets over used). Obsessive training surely plays a part, but inherent talent is, without doubt, a key ingredient. Mozart could master classical solos on the piano in half an hour when he was just four years old. This cannot be down to years of obsessive training can it? It comes down to unearthly natural talent. Likewise, the great mathematician Gauss, who could calculate primes and developed new number theory before he was 10 without any particular exertion or training.
Dozmonic, are you disavowing the idea of natural talent underpinning genius, or simply saying that prodigies work hard too? Natural talent is the standout factor here, not the effort, which is common to lots of untalented people also. We aren't born equal, some are inherently much more talented (dictated by genetics).
Natural talent is someone whose mindset is well suited to learning a particular skill or talent, someone who learns fast from their failure. Gauss didn't spend 10 years never contemplating maths at all and then blow away several thousand years of mathematical theory in a single day. Mozart's father was a massive musical figure of the age and had his son playing obsessively from a young age.
10,000 hours is the oft cited figure to be world class. But any skill you learn suffers from diminishing returns. Those first 1,000 hours produce more than the next 1,000. And you don't have to be sat at a piano playing all that time, if your mind is dwelling on it, because that's still reinforcing the neural pathways for what you're learning. If you find someone who can accelerate those early stages and put things in a way you can understand, or if you luck upon such a way yourself, then yes you accelerate the process, but no, I don't believe Mozart, Gauss, Da Vinci, Feynman, Einstein, von Neumann, Beckham or anybody in any field just strolled along, picked it up and was world class.
As for genetics I have to suggest another book: Identically Different by Tim Spector. Specifically chapter 3. These things are often overhyped and just not as clear cut as sensationalist media would have us believe.
10,000 hours is the oft cited figure to be world class. But any skill you learn suffers from diminishing returns. Those first 1,000 hours produce more than the next 1,000. And you don't have to be sat at a piano playing all that time, if your mind is dwelling on it, because that's still reinforcing the neural pathways for what you're learning. If you find someone who can accelerate those early stages and put things in a way you can understand, or if you luck upon such a way yourself, then yes you accelerate the process, but no, I don't believe Mozart, Gauss, Da Vinci, Feynman, Einstein, von Neumann, Beckham or anybody in any field just strolled along, picked it up and was world class.
As for genetics I have to suggest another book: Identically Different by Tim Spector. Specifically chapter 3. These things are often overhyped and just not as clear cut as sensationalist media would have us believe.
Similar threads
-
A little confusion about nuclear fission discovery and theory
- Started by DAgent
- Replies: 4
-
-
Absolutely love this little mouse tidying a guys workbench- Started by Astro Pen
- Replies: 5
-
I need help with some little dialogue and other things.
- Started by huxley
- Replies: 5
-