On knowing your audience

[Swank]

Would watching fight scenes in movies help at all?

Only if you want to master writing novelizations of movies.

 

[HareBrain]

If a writer has a particular specialist experience and communicates that, someone else with the same experience might say "Ah, yes, that's how it is exactly" and for that reader the recognition will elevate the writing. If you don't have that experience, it doesn't mean your writing will read badly (so long as you do any necessary research), just that you'll have to find some other way to elevate it.

 

[Montero]

And I'll put my money where my mouth is: Issue a challenge to write one of these supposedly experience necessary scenes and we'll see how hard it is.

It's not just how hard it is to write, it is how plausible it is afterwards to anyone with any experience of something similar.
I would also say that at base, fighting one to one whether with advanced weapons or none, will have some basic similarities for the person doing it. Fighting using a machine is already well known, whether being a drone pilot, in the plotting room of a submarine, or a battleship war room, or driving a tank - you can extrapolate and do so to the betterment of the detail in your story. I read some military sf, and most of the ones I've enjoyed the most, been most involved in, has been written by people with some military experience - it is how the characters behave to each other. I've also watched documentaries like "Warship" and the notable difference to movies is the calmness. They've all practiced and practiced and know how to be a part of a team, and take pride in staying calm. I also suspect if they can't stay calm, they might well be encouraged to find another career.

@msstice I'd watch both movie and newsreel films. The newsreel films would give you some of the reality, the movie would give you an idea of how to turn it into a story, in the sense of breaking it down into little scenes. You'd need to avoid sounding like a newsreel/movie though in the way you tell it. I would also suggest getting hold of memoirs by people who've been through riots. I'd add from my own experience of being on a re-enactment battlefield, which is quite organised once you know what is going on, that the very first time I did it, it was wildly confusing, loud, scary, people appearing out of nowhere, losing the people you were supposed to be with, being unable to predict anything. Then after a season of being in different sized battles twice a weekend about every third weekend, it all slows right down, you know who is who, you know to look out for the cavalry sneaking off around the sides, because it is all more familiar you have spare brain power to use on staying with your regiment, following orders and spotting things starting to kick off. The scene you are planning, you need to decide the experience of the person who is at the riot and whether their viewpoint is "aargh, aaargh, where the **** did that come from" vs "huh, that little ******* four rows back is planning to chuck bottles and wind up the police".

 

[Laura R Hepworth]

I've said this before, but I think there that these days there is almost always a "phenomenon book" (or series) that sells vast numbers regardless of quality (good or bad). Examples would be Twilight, Harry Potter, The Girl on the Train, or 50 Shades of Grey. If you're extremely quick to see that they're successful and to write a similar novel, you might be able to ride their success, but it's unlikely, especially since you probably won't have anywhere near the same amount of publicity behind you.

I just read an article on Substack from a lady who used to work as an editor for two major publishers and has now gone freelance and she was saying pretty much the same thing. She talked about the glut of vampire books she was inundated with that were trying to follow the Twilight craze. Not only were they late to the trend, but editors were sick of seeing them and so barely paid them any attention when trying to read them. It was just a 'here we go again, let's get this over with' reaction and she couldn't really judge the manuscripts because of it. She was strongly encouraging writers to not chase trends, but, as she put it, 'write the book of your heart' and maybe end up leading a new trend rather than trying to follow them.

 

[msstice]

I love the ones written by people who clearly have been in a position to wonder just if this is the last thirty seconds

PS. @The Big Peat how do you know this? Is it because the author declares this, or it's autobiographical etc.?

 

[Toby Frost]

She was strongly encouraging writers to not chase trends, but, as she put it, 'write the book of your heart'

Perhaps the best option is to get a feel for what probably isn't going to work, and not to do it.

 

[Karapace]

Interesting topic. I have two approaches. 1. I write for an audience. Short stories published on a monthly basis, I know what they want, I write to it, I get paid. 2. I write what interests me and work to persuade people to be my audience, often this works. I write stories that I like and do it because it interests me. it is not a money spinner... yet.
My interest lies with the experimental, the off the wall unusual or sometimes just the thing that encapsulates a life or a moment. Most of the books I like struggled to find a publisher in the begining and only became classics after the fact once an audience and a public had grown to accept them

 

[Swank]

It's not just how hard it is to write, it is how plausible it is afterwards to anyone with any experience of something similar.
I would also say that at base, fighting one to one whether with advanced weapons or none, will have some basic similarities for the person doing it. Fighting using a machine is already well known, whether being a drone pilot, in the plotting room of a submarine, or a battleship war room, or driving a tank - you can extrapolate and do so to the betterment of the detail in your story. I read some military sf, and most of the ones I've enjoyed the most, been most involved in, has been written by people with some military experience - it is how the characters behave to each other. I've also watched documentaries like "Warship" and the notable difference to movies is the calmness. They've all practiced and practiced and know how to be a part of a team, and take pride in staying calm. I also suspect if they can't stay calm, they might well be encouraged to find another career

I just don't understand why SF writers and readers should expect future combatants to use procedures that are reminiscent of today. If you actually have a sense for realism, the most off putting things with military SF should be the existence of something like an infantry soldier or battleship. This just sounds like a kind of steampunk where the story is judged on how authentically anachronistic story elements are. Like a good plank walking scene in a space pirate book.

 

[sknox]

Here's another angle on the Experiential Question. When this debate comes up, it's often phrased in terms of some practical experience in the world, and there follows some spirited exchanges. But we writers, especially in these genres, write about other things, as well (a point Swank was making). So here's another angle.

What "experience" do I need in order to write elves? But that's too broad. What about writing old elves versus child elves? Female elves versus male elves?

And now to cross-pollinate, what about an elf in combat? Will having direct experience of *human* combat be a help or a hindrance to writing elvish combat? I can see both cases being made. And, knowing this forum well, I can see five other cases being made that I haven't thought of. <g>

Here's yet another angle. How much history do you need to know to write historical fantasy? Do you need to know how actual historians do history, or are we just talking knowing stuff about the past? If I set a story in 16thc Augsburg, will it be beneficial (or necessary) to visit Augsburg personally? After all, 21st century Augsburg bears little resemblance to late medieval Augsburg, so what is it we're really after here?

I'll make a suggestion, and then stop. I see two aspects to the source material. One is utilitarian. It's getting facts right--or deliberately or ignoring those facts, but doing so deliberately. The other, though, is inspiration. There's a long tradition of fictionalizing based on real persons or events. Surely that applies on a micro level of fictionalizing combat or horse riding or orc tracking. Knowing stuff, having Experience, can be helpful without having to be necessary.

 

[The Big Peat]

PS. @The Big Peat how do you know this? Is it because the author declares this, or it's autobiographical etc.?

A lot of big name authors do eventually give out quite a few autobiographical details, which I generally only encounter after reading their books and going "ahh".

For example, I only found out about David Gemmell's terminal cancer diagnosis and that he was expelled from school for using violence to collect gambling debts after reading a few of his books, and the detail about having sixty stitches from fights by the time he was sixteen after reading all of them. But from the beginning, there was something about the way he presented his characters' reactions to danger & fear, and their violent impulses, a mixture of honesty and sympathy and straight-forwardness, that compelled me. He is my favourite author of action heavy books (note - action heavy, not adventure/epics with some action).

Similarly I was completely unsurprised to learn that Steven Pressfield had been a marine after reading Gates of Fire, or that Robert Jordan had been in 'Nam after The Wheel of Time, or that Tolkien had been in WW1. Etc.etc.

However Bernard Cornwell writes wonderful action books and despite his best attempts never joined the army, and I find Katherine Kerr very good on these points and I don't think she ever lived anything other than a normal life. It's a guideline, not a rule.

Asking only in half-jest: I have one pivotal scene where an MC starts a big fight. A riot. I've never started a riot myself. Would watching fight scenes in movies help at all? How would I gain experience for this without actually getting in a fight? I might not change how I wrote the current one: I wrote it slightly surreally and I like it that way, but it's a general question.

... well, I bet that Joe Abercrombie did this a ton (intentionally or not) given his work in screen production and the cinematic feeling of his books, and lots of people love his scenes.

So yeah, I think it could help.

I would probably recommend studying riot scenes in books, or historical accounts and actual footage, but movie scenes can give you a solid idea of what people find dramatically satisfying about them.

But since I mentioned Abercrombie, he's a good example of what I mean by people who write action-heavy, violence-laden books that just feel off to me. And I don't hate his work! He writes a very entertaining action scene and he can be very funny. But the emotional resonance is off for me. Too much hyperbole, too many super tough guys. He's writing them as Tarantino or Ritchie-esque gangster entertainment (only fantasy) and that's fine, it's super popular, but it's not my favourite flavour of ice cream and I'll bet that if he'd lived a different life with some ugly memories peeping over his shoulder he'd be writing them different.

Incidentally, I think it's a lot easier to sell this in TV/movies, or at least it is to me.

If a writer has a particular specialist experience and communicates that, someone else with the same experience might say "Ah, yes, that's how it is exactly" and for that reader the recognition will elevate the writing. If you don't have that experience, it doesn't mean your writing will read badly (so long as you do any necessary research), just that you'll have to find some other way to elevate it.

Yip yip yip. One of the most obvious things in the world.

And heck, if you want it, you can absolutely overcome it. Take Scrubs. Did Bill Lawrence work in a hospital before writing Scrubs? Sure didn't. Is Scrubs often held up as unusually realistic by medical staff? Yup. But then Lawrence based it on a friend's experiences, had several medical advisors, and apparently sourced every single patient story from medical professionals.

But of course, the fact that Scrubs is held up as the exception, shows that plenty don't... and still write great, well loved stories. Faithful depiction isn't needed for everyone.

I mean, this part of it is possibly the least controversial story opinion that I think can happen. Not Every Story Is For Everyone. You see it in every thread here. Some people want realism, some don't, some think X is realistic, some think Y is realistic, and so on.

One of the obvious splits is Stories For X and Stories About X. I first came across the idea put that explicitly in Hello Future Me's video on mental health in stories but it's so obvious I think I'd grasped it well before. It's at the heart of the Own Voices movement - people wanting stories for X, which usually means stories by X.

There's nothing wrong with Stories About X. There's nothing wrong with Three Parts Dead (a lawyer friend hates that) or Gladiator or Fury or whatever. But they're often going to struggle with some of X. You've all heard about the lawyer or doctor or cop who's been banned by their spouse from watching shows about their profession because the spouse gets sick of them complaining, right? But then you've also heard of people who love these shows despite knowing they're completely unrealistic.

There isn't a firm rule. There isn't one way to do it. There isn't, to try and be on topic, only one audience or groups of monolithic sub-audiences.

But there is a difference and people will have preference.

 

[The Big Peat]

Also two things that seem very obvious to me

a) Exact experience isn't needed for the empathic and intelligent who've gone through something similar
b) The less people who've gone through the experience shown in the book, the less likely people are to have issues. The audience of people who've actually met elves is small

 

[msstice]

Also two things that seem very obvious to me

a) Exact experience isn't needed for the empathic and intelligent who've gone through something similar
b) The less people who've gone through the experience shown in the book, the less likely people are to have issues. The audience of people who've actually met elves is small

A thought also struck me: how about an experience that most people think they understand, because it is common, but actually don't unless they have close personal association with it? My WIP has a strong parent-child component to it because that is the most significant thing in my life (Parent child in space with attendant dangers - every other parent trying to escape reality: Hop on board!).

Before I had my own, I had ideas about what kids would be like. I definitely have ideas about what teenagers are like, not the least from TV. But when I actually had one of my own it was both expected and unexpected, and the feelings inside me completely changed. I'm not at the teen phase yet, but I'm expecting it will be same but different from the stereotypes shown on TV.

Perhaps children are special this way. It looks like all downside from the outside, but when you are on the inside, I think most parents would rather die on the spot than not be part of the timeline where they have kids.

Sentimentality aside: my concrete thought is: perhaps people who don't have kids, and perhaps some who do, will read my book and say: That kid is completely unrealistic. Has this author even seen a child?

Strangely, I'm OK with that, because this writing stuff is turning out to be more spiritual than commercial.

 

[Swank]

The audience of people who've actually met elves is small

I have enjoyed their baked goods.

 

[Swank]

That kid is completely unrealistic. Has this author even seen a child?

I know this may come with a host of objections, but why write SFF about an average child?

 

[msstice]

I know this may come with a host of objections, but why write SFF about an average child?

The children don't have a gimmick (super powers, prodigy etc.) and neither do the adults, if that was the import of your question. All my characters are ordinary. What happens to them, and the choices they have to make, and what this reveals about them are interesting.

Edit: Another way I could interpret your question is: Shouldn't a reader expect an unrealistic child/character. I was thinking of character plausibility. Would a person (kid) behave this way? If you have some notion of how children behave, you might not believe a completely accurate depiction of an actual child, because your notions are off - but it's the notions that are unrealistic, because they are not properly modeled on real children.

 

[Swank]

The children don't have a gimmick (super powers, prodigy etc.) and neither do the adults, if that was the import of your question. All my characters are ordinary. What happens to them, and the choices they have to make, and what this reveals about them are interesting.

Edit: Another way I could interpret your question is: Shouldn't a reader expect an unrealistic child/character. I was thinking of character plausibility. Would a person (kid) behave this way? If you have some notion of how children behave, you might not believe a completely accurate depiction of an actual child, because your notions are off - but it's the notions that are unrealistic, because they are not properly modeled on real children.

I take the pov that we aren't writing Updike novels, and that our characters either are already extraordinary, or will be soon as a result of the extreme choices they will make to weather their circumstances. So I don't think they are ordinary. Ordinary characters in SFF are cannon fodder.

 

[The Big Peat]

I have enjoyed their baked goods.

And certain baked goods are a good way to meet them!



Anyway, yes, there's almost certain people who have very different experiences of parenthood and are convinced others are lying, and this will affect their reading of the book. True of a lot of things.

Just like people have different expectations of SFF.

Or opinions of the difference between extraordinary and unrealistic.

I guess all good reasons to know your audience, if it's actually feasible...

 

[Karapace]

I take the pov that we aren't writing Updike novels, and that our characters either are already extraordinary, or will be soon as a result of the extreme choices they will make to weather their circumstances. So I don't think they are ordinary. Ordinary characters in SFF are cannon fodder.

I think of it as ordinary characters in SFF are thrust into extraordinary circumstance (ie Sam Gamgee) and how they deal with it is what makes them interesting.
I also take the point that the problem from the author's point of view with ordinary characters in a world of extraordinary characters is not getting them killed before they are done.

 

[Montero]

I just don't understand why SF writers and readers should expect future combatants to use procedures that are reminiscent of today. If you actually have a sense for realism, the most off putting things with military SF should be the existence of something like an infantry soldier or battleship. This just sounds like a kind of steampunk where the story is judged on how authentically anachronistic story elements are. Like a good plank walking scene in a space pirate book.

OK, but part of the point I was making is that there is only so many ways to interact with technology as a human, and existing human experience of current technology can describe what it is like for someone, even if the SF technology is a whole lot more advanced. There is team work, or isolation, you might up it so you are all in a virtual environment, whether holographic or implants in your head, but in some way you interact with it, give it instructions and the common factor is the human being.

Here's yet another angle. How much history do you need to know to write historical fantasy? Do you need to know how actual historians do history, or are we just talking knowing stuff about the past?

My main thought is "consistency". Understand the economic limits of your society, and the social limits of your society, and what the implications are, then get inside the character's skin as they are restricted, or inspired by working around these limits. So if you are pre-industrial, you are probably short on metal and it is precious - you have a lot more things made from wood and if you have to flee your house, you snatch the very valuable in terms of money and how useful it is, metal cauldron off the hearth and take it with you. We undervalue metal massively. People used to have a special carry case for an individual needle - they were also hard to make being thin.

@The Big Peat regarding your points on experience in reader and writer and what you do and don't notice. One of the things that has struck me about Terry Pratchett's books is the breadth of his experience, whether first or second hand, he knows the feel. I've heard a cop say that the depiction of The Broken Drum is a perfect depiction of a cop bar, for example. Above all I find that as I re-read them down the years, new things pop out because I've now had further experiences that make me notice them.

 

[Swank]

I think of it as ordinary characters in SFF are thrust into extraordinary circumstance (ie Sam Gamgee) and how they deal with it is what makes them interesting.
I also take the point that the problem from the author's point of view with ordinary characters in a world of extraordinary characters is not getting them killed before they are done.

I agree. But I was saying that it doesn't just make Sam interesting - it makes Sam extraordinary. Sam's choice to pick up and carry Frodo into Mordor is one of those points where the character is no longer making decisions like a normal person. And that's the kind of character that we want to read about - rather than one that spends a couple days considering giving up and going home.