The importance of suffering in fiction

[Cathbad]

I think constantly using the word "magic" is simply slightly unimaginative writing.

I was going to make a point, so I went and checked how many times I had used the word "magic" in Flight of the Elves.

Okay, it was 144 times out of about 110k words. That actually surprised me, because I didn't recall using it that often. So I browsed through, seeing where it was used.

I feel a little exonerated. The word is most often used by non-users, and by the top elf in a Sorcery "guild", describing magical items/affects. They call each other Sorcerers, and the magic they cast "spells".

Still, when I do my revisions, I might try to bring down that number...

 

[Cathbad]

Selfie: Australian slang term named international word of the year

When we first heard this word, my AD&D group had um... another definition in mind...

 

[Vaz]

Suffering is required in fiction, and not in the sense of suspense.

I'm not talking about Grimdark-esque, protagonist tortured until their nipples fall off either, a more real type of suffering that all readers' can relate too. We see the best and worst of people when they suffer, whether through battling illness or struggling to get by on a few coins whilst taking care of a sick loved one - for me there's nothing more interesting than seeing the best of a character in such a situation. Show a person's strength when they should be at their weakest and you'll create strong empathy in your readers.

Like I say, you can't appreciate the sweet if you don't take a regular shot of the sour.

v

 

[DelActivisto]

I was going to make a point, so I went and checked how many times I had used the word "magic" in Flight of the Elves.

Okay, it was 144 times out of about 110k words. That actually surprised me, because I didn't recall using it that often. So I browsed through, seeing where it was used.

I feel a little exonerated. The word is most often used by non-users, and by the top elf in a Sorcery "guild", describing magical items/affects. They call each other Sorcerers, and the magic they cast "spells".

Still, when I do my revisions, I might try to bring down that number...

It's a pretty common word, relatively speaking, especially in fantasy. I think people naturally expect it to crop up. My only argument against it is... we have magic in this world. It's just that when we understand things, we no longer attribute it to the supernatural. Flies lay maggots, they don't magically generate in midair (although it can seem like that, and I regularly blame spontaneous genesis on them!). Plants grow by photosynthesis, not by magic sent from the sun god. iPhones certainly seem magical, even to me, and I've been using one for a few years now.

Out of curiosity, I also checked my 98k WIP for the word; I had 9 instances of "magic" and a total of 25 instances of it used in other forms, such as "magician" and "magical." The rest of the time I call my magic, simply, the "Brightness."

I'm not saying either option is better or worse, just how I like doing it.

When we first heard this word, my AD&D group had um... another definition in mind...

I'm afraid I fail to understand the allusion.

 

[R.T James]

It's a pretty common word, relatively speaking, especially in fantasy. I think people naturally expect it to crop up. My only argument against it is... we have magic in this world. It's just that when we understand things, we no longer attribute it to the supernatural. Flies lay maggots, they don't magically generate in midair (although it can seem like that, and I regularly blame spontaneous genesis on them!). Plants grow by photosynthesis, not by magic sent from the sun god. iPhones certainly seem magical, even to me, and I've been using one for a few years now.

Out of curiosity, I also checked my 98k WIP for the word; I had 9 instances of "magic" and a total of 25 instances of it used in other forms, such as "magician" and "magical." The rest of the time I call my magic, simply, the "Brightness."

Okay for somebody whose story has a legitimate species called Mages and magic is a thing, it comes up.... *taps fingers on the table*

Legitimately NOT AT ALL.

Two words of magic, and both of them magical and used to the describe the experiences with women. One the look on her face, and one the experiences of many lovers in general. Two uses of the word magical.

I am honestly surprised a story which involves magic.. doesn't mention it really anywhere. Even power and abilities only have 4 and 2..

the word sex however 32. Ohh... freud come here freud! *whistles*

I think this stems from the fact the MC legitimately hardly thinks about his powers. Afterall its something he was born with, and he never had a time where he could't do what he can do. Being genetically superior mage and first of your species of mancer is difficult as in. Let us not place in self doubt to ruin our already damaged and bruised self esteem caused by an abusive father who was a monarch, and a very bad, arguably emotionally abusive girlfriend who we were going to marry.

Man no wonder why my MC even confesses he's one toe stub away from being a dark lord and laying waste to a specific nation and anything that gets in his way. Bugger never stood a chance.

I had way too much fun with this post.

Part of me wonders if a thread like this would be fun to do. One where we list off word counts of specific words that entertain us or surprise us. I will confess I expected the word magic to actually be used in my story.

 

[DelActivisto]

I think Pro Writing Aid will tell you that. It will show your most commonly used words I belive, which for me are usually "was," "that," "there," etc.

 

[Cathbad]

I'm afraid I fail to understand the allusion.

And this is a family forum so... I'll hush.

 

[R.T James]

And this is a family forum so... I'll hush.

I'm the pervert so just think how'd I'd interrupt it.

I'll just say I'm handy like that.

 

[The Big Peat]

To talk about the actual article... its doing my nut in.

But then I hate Christmas, hate delayed gratification, have put down Song of Ice and Fire, never watched Star Wars before midwhatevers were a thing...

... and I just read a post elsewhere talking about the concept of Traction rather than Tension; that Tension isn't the only thing that makes you turn pages. And its true! Its so obviously true, or at least to me, who will re-read the crap out of books with fairly limited plots all day every day.

So reading an article all about how I gotta keep that tension, gotta make the slow reveals... nein. I've just read another gospel.

And looking at her examples...

People hated Hannibal Rising? Okay. How many people love The Killing Joke? Or Rogue One? Or, to get into the examples most relevant to SFF authors, was there complaining about New Spring/Dunk and Egg/Silmarillion etc.etc? Not I've ever heard.

Does she have a good point about the risks of revealing the man behind the curtain? Sure. Is she right that its a universal mistake? Too many authors have done it for me to agree. Generations of women might lust after Darcy because he's a blank template but Watchmen is the greatest graphic novel to date because they dig right into the humanity and past of these people. Besides, at some point, there needs to be a pay off right? Some things *have* to be revealed. Its about what to reveal where, not how long can you keep it.

Play the tension too long and it snaps. You have to ease the tension from time to time. That means revelations, end games, conclusions and all of that. Obviously this comes under "When its time to" but the time to do so can be really freakin' early and I don't think this article covers that. Re: SoIaF. Start listing the series' defining moments. There's at least two in book 1, and one's super early.

Give the people what they want. Give it to them early and give it to them often. That doesn't mean giving them *everything* they want - you need to hit them right at the end too - but something. Good albums have hit songs at the beginning and the end.

I mean, maybe I'm reading the whole post wrong. But what I'm seeing is a really good piece of advice being given far too universally.

 

[Toby Frost]

Hmm. I do sometimes wonder if these sorts of articles stress playing psychological games with the reader too much, especially in preference to writing a good book. I can still remember scraps of description from Lucky Jim, The Books of Blood, Cold Comfort Farm, 1984 and others that are being especially well-written, and that sort of thing doesn't seem to get discussed a lot. But maybe it's just that I don't read enough articles, or the right ones.

That said, each book has its own requirements. A story where the question is "Why did he do that?" instead of "What did he do?" will probably require a fair amount of looking into the character. The problem is working out where it's necessary/appropriate to do so.

Regarding the word "magic", I can't see why it shouldn't be used, especially by ordinary people in a world that isn't very different from our own. I could imagine more pompous wizardly types calling it "sorcery" or "the Art", or having particular names for particular bits: "necromancy", "scrying" etc.

 

[Dan Jones]

I agree with a lot of what Peat has to say here, and I do think the blog touches on one or two good points too, though the trying-too-hard, random look-at-me CAPS LOCK ZANINESS and exclamation mark ejaculations of the blog prose itself makes it very difficult to love.

A story doesn't have to be stretched by tension alone. In the example she cites, like Moonlighting, the tension is snapped once the two protagonists get together (ditto Friends, though they split Rachel and Ross up soon after they got together, probably because they realised the show would have no legs otherwise), ditto The X-Files. But Moonlighting then declined because there was nothing else to offer the audience. Stretching tension out for the sake of it just leaves you with a saggy rope. A recent example would be The Walking Dead. First few series, brilliant, highly tense, and then after series 6 you realise that this is literally just a shaggy dog story, with no beginning, no resolution, we're just waiting for characters to be introduced and then killed off. And once you realise that, all the tension sags out of the story.

I'm reading 1Q84 at the moment, and its true, there is tension, but it's more about tension from scene to scene. The greater driver of the book is the air of mystery, the sense of plunging down the rabbit hole, and that's in part down to Murakami's magical prose. There doesn't need to be a central tension rope running through every scene.

Not so long ago, I read Slaughterhourse Five. It couldn't be any more different than 1Q84 if it tried. Its prose is utilitarian, its timeline is shattered into pieces, and yet the two books have one notable similarity in that they don't go in for the long-game tension trick. I know what happened at the end of the Second World War, and Dresden, and the fragmentation of time and experience in the book means there's very little in terms of character arc and plot to hitch your tension rope to - there's also no-one really to "root" for. That didn't stop me devouring the book in two days and being hugely thought provoking, and still relevant today.

If your story exists for the sole purpose of delivering a payoff, then it's a bit like giving in to hunger pangs with a McDonalds. Immediately satisfying, but probably quite unmemorable.

 

[tinkerdan]

I was a bit disappointed by this. The title suggested that the character suffering was vital to the readers interest in the story and I was looking toward the description of something having to do with lengthening and strengthening that suffering: for some great purpose.

However in reading it seemed that the point was to, as some suggested, maintain a level of tension in the story and then there is added the notion that the writer needs to be careful about revealing too much before the end or risk losing the readers interest. So someone else mentioned reader suffering and that might pertain here; since stretching out the tension does tend to add to the readers suffering especially when the final climactic conclusion falls short of the massive coronary heart failure the reader has built.

It also, for some reason, seemed that rather than tension they might have been referring more to unresolved plot points(the reason I tagged it that way is that I feel often that the back-story or flashbacks are usually tied to a plot points having to deal with the character development). On the other hand we all know already that I'm easily confused.

It seems to me that not examining character motives could be an error, regardless of the notion that most readers today don't care about that. If the character is devoid of motive they might be as helpful as an unreliable narrator and probably end up much worse. Although I'll admit that perhaps it does work for certain types of stories. I suppose if it were made clear that they had no motive then I as a reader would be able to deal with it. However if we fall back on the premise of the article we would have to ask--when would it be prudent to reveal this or should we reveal it and if we don't then that seems to leave an entire thread hanging and if you skip any sort of back-story or flashbacks then you'd better be getting close enough to the character--so that the reader is clear at some point that the character has no motive. And yet if you get that close to a character then it seems for me that it would be a letdown to think the character has no motive or reason for their behavior(even if the reason is insanity).

Overall though, there are good points here about not giving too much away and a reminder to fall back on the notion that a writer needs to trust readers to be able to fill in some of the blanks.

It's a matter of balance because no matter how far you go or how much you withhold there will be someone who falls outside of the box on both ends. Some will over-anticipate where you are headed and you run the risk they throw the whole thing down before finishing.
And some will not discern enough to fill in the blanks and might toss it in the trash for lack of some plot resolution.
The job is to trap as many in-between and give them something that is a bit of surprise yet satisfactorily sensible to the story.

Sometimes how and where you end a novel can be as difficult to write as how and where to start one.

Once you get both of those done well; there's a measure of forgiveness built into the middle part if you craft well.

Though it's still important to remember that the story is usually that journey in-between.

 

[DelActivisto]

I just realized I hadn't read the article in the OP, and I must say, I disagree almost completely.

I have a very scientific mindset. I like to analyze things, and I like to imagine worlds that are completely and totally different from ours, yet function by a set of rules. So stories like Harry Potter can annoy me after a while, because there is no explanation for why the magic exists. It just does, and explanations like that drive me insane.

I prefer Brandon Sanderson's take to the matter. The origins of the magical abilities in Mistborn, for instance, get thoroughly discussed. There is a wide variety of background material that partially explains the magic systems, why they work the way they do, and more. And I don't feel that that detracts from the story. For me, it adds to the depth and clarity of the story.

In fact, I feel like her example backfires on itself. She uses Game of Thrones as an example for drawing out tensions. Yes, it does that, and it also contains a massive amount of explanations, background, and character development. She seems to think that if we describe too much in our stories, they become less, not more.

Further, most people constantly think about themselves, where they're going, and where they've been. Characters should experience flashbacks, I think, in the form of remembering things as they ponder. Because real people ponder a lot, except for energetic party going bouncy extraverts, perhaps.

No, everybody thinks about stuff, including their motives and rationale. To avoid that, I think, is to skirt building believable characters.

Or maybe I'm thinking about this too hard.

 

[R.T James]

If anybody doesn't think about their past they have something to hide. If a person never goes "Huh? That reminds me of something from my childhood."

Either your character is alexithemic, or their current persona is fake, a created identity.

Which I could buy as a great way to make the reader suspect something is up.

Key thing with making characters who are believable is what I believe is sense of depth that stems from realistic study of people. I put a lot of thought into psychology and sociology of the stories I write.

If you have a character who is tied up, whipped with chains daily for a week straight and alcohol dumped on the wounds every night and they're perfectly fine, either they have an extreme fetish,they are repressing it so hard they're one stiff breeze away from clawing out their eyeballs, or your character is unrealistic.

I would buy a person seeing a rocking horse in a dark alleyway broken and worn down going "oh wow I had one of those as a kid. Damn I had fun on that thinking I was a cowboy."

As they play somebody's throat like a violin and perforate their chest a few times.

Conveying the characters goes hand and hand with conveying the world, For one makes up the other.

That's why lore building is such a tricky thing. That's why many people cringe at fan fictions. (I apologize to any fan fiction writers here but I'll raise you My Immortal as the ultimate proof of my stance.)

Because we see how it doesn't flow well with the lore, clashes with what is established and doesn't 'feel' correct.

Many people seem to think that detail is a sin worthy of being hung by your legs and your genitals mutilated.

But honestly detail is required unless you're writing a story where we most likely know what everything is.

Sorry, off topic semi rant over! *tips hat*

 

[Cathbad]

annoy me after a while, because there is no explanation for why the magic exists. It just does, and explanations like that drive me insane.

As a reader, I couldn't care less for an explanation of magic. What I do care about, is consistency. It's easy to see when an author hasn't set rules for the magic in his/her world. I'm left thinking, "How did that happen, and why didn't he do it before?" Magic without a cost; magic with no bounds; magic used to fill plot holes. All these are abhorrent.

The author needs to write down the rules for magic in his world. I have, and I abide by them. But why should I discuss them in a novel? Seems like a waste of words, when most fantasy fans won't care.

And discuss where magic comes from, or why it exists? I know both of these answers for my universe - but how many characters in my world would know this? (In fact, the number is 3. Three of the four arch-mages in my world know these things.) So no, I'm not about to discuss these things in a novel, either. (In a story I wrote long ago - published in a fanzine - one of those arch-mages alluded to the "sources" of magic, but did not reveal them.)

The main reason I care less for sci-fi than fantasy is those authors often find it necessary to give scientific explanations for things in their universes. Many of those explanations are pages long. Frankly, I really don't care why those islands float in the air: That the phenomenon exists is awe-inspiring! It should be left so, without the explanations that take away that awe. Likewise, I don't want t know the inner workings of a phaser, or why a silicone-based lifeform might exist.

Enough ranting. Just another two-cents from your resident bearded Fantasy-Freak!

 

[DelActivisto]

As a reader, I couldn't care less for an explanation of magic. What I do care about, is consistency. It's easy to see when an author hasn't set rules for the magic in his/her world. I'm left thinking, "How did that happen, and why didn't he do it before?" Magic without a cost; magic with no bounds; magic used to fill plot holes. All these are abhorrent.

The author needs to write down the rules for magic in his world. I have, and I abide by them. But why should I discuss them in a novel? Seems like a waste of words, when most fantasy fans won't care.

And discuss where magic comes from, or why it exists? I know both of these answers for my universe - but how many characters in my world would know this? (In fact, the number is 3. Three of the four arch-mages in my world know these things.) So no, I'm not about to discuss these things in a novel, either. (In a story I wrote long ago - published in a fanzine - one of those arch-mages alluded to the "sources" of magic, but did not reveal them.)

The main reason I care less for sci-fi than fantasy is those authors often find it necessary to give scientific explanations for things in their universes. Many of those explanations are pages long. Frankly, I really don't care why those islands float in the air: That the phenomenon exists is awe-inspiring! It should be left so, without the explanations that take away that awe. Likewise, I don't want t know the inner workings of a phaser, or why a silicone-based lifeform might exist.

Enough ranting. Just another two-cents from your resident bearded Fantasy-Freak!

Well like I said, I think it's my scientific attitude coming through. I'm getting a biological science degree, not a creative something or other. (Seriously considering getting a masters in creative writing tho.)

So I agree about the rules. And even though there will obviously exist a reason for the fantasy to have magic, the characters may not know this. You couldn't reveal this if you wanted to without it being awkward info dump, unless it is part of the story.

For my case, it is. The magic system has a finite beginning. It was created, and no one knows who or how. It even has a mind of its own; it's like a source pool of natural energy and knowledge. At the end of the trilogy I'll discuss how this happened, who created it, and the magic source itself gets lines and a plot. Should be a lot of fun!

 

[Cathbad]

Three of the four arch-mages in my world know these things

Suddenly thought someone might want to know why the fourth arch-mage doesn't know these things.

Simple Answer: He doesn't care. His only interest seems to be to protect his mountain, and the city atop it. In this goal, he keeps informed about the goings on in the world, by means of unique spies (most notably an enhanced, giant condor); but he stays out of those goings on, unless they threaten the mountain.

Okay, enough about Lord Condor (for now).

 

[The Big Peat]

I think its fair - if not obvious - to say that there's a lot of different tastes about what gets revealed, when it happens, how it happens, and so on.

I also think its probably fair to say most readers really, when it comes down to it, don't have many dealbreakers here. Oh, they'll have preferences, and maybe they'll deduct a mark from their rating if reviewing, or it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back if the book is mediocre, but I don't think it magically transforms good to bad (and almost certainly not vice versa) for most people. Only time it does is when you decide to explain an anchor of the series late on and make an utter hash of it, but the main problem there is execution. The big reveals are always make or break.

The more I get into this, the more it seems that there are very few things that can't be done with good execution. There's a lot of focus on what's easiest to execute and I think rightly so, but its very easy to get carried away in saying "This makes it more difficult" (or sometimes, "I don't like this personally") and end up going "This can't/shouldn't be done". Which is - again obvious - rarely true.

 

[DelActivisto]

I think its fair - if not obvious - to say that there's a lot of different tastes about what gets revealed, when it happens, how it happens, and so on.

I also think its probably fair to say most readers really, when it comes down to it, don't have many dealbreakers here. Oh, they'll have preferences, and maybe they'll deduct a mark from their rating if reviewing, or it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back if the book is mediocre, but I don't think it magically transforms good to bad (and almost certainly not vice versa) for most people. Only time it does is when you decide to explain an anchor of the series late on and make an utter hash of it, but the main problem there is execution. The big reveals are always make or break.

The more I get into this, the more it seems that there are very few things that can't be done with good execution. There's a lot of focus on what's easiest to execute and I think rightly so, but its very easy to get carried away in saying "This makes it more difficult" (or sometimes, "I don't like this personally") and end up going "This can't/shouldn't be done". Which is - again obvious - rarely true.

Kind of goes back to something one of my bosses told me... he was a notable industrialist that worked for a large metal fabrication company. He told me,

"I don't care how you do it - just make it perfect!"

 

[Dan Jones]

@DelActivisto the desire for scientific explanations sure is strange coming from someone claiming to be Mary Poppins. So, you gonna tell us how that talking, flying umbrella and bottomless handbag work?