snurri: (Default)
[personal profile] snurri
1. Writing is hard.

2. You get no points for doing your best.

3. Readers award no points for difficulty. (Suggested by Greg van Eekhout.)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 07:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gregvaneekhout.livejournal.com
I, personally, would add:

3. Readers award no points for difficulty.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 07:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] czakbar.livejournal.com
Good addition.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 07:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
Good point.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-flea-king.livejournal.com
I have met readers, particularly in academia, who do. At least one of whom I could point to on LJ...

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gregvaneekhout.livejournal.com
NAMES, DAMN YOU! NAME NAMES!!!

Good point.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
I'm certain there are exceptions, but I would argue that they're of the prove-the-rule variety.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-flea-king.livejournal.com
This probably falls into the xkcd "as soon as you name a kink, a website comes into existence for it" phenomenon.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
Please, no links to Cthulhu porn.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
Bring on the Cthulhu porn!!

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
You asked for it. (It's actually very tame. Note the second comment, however.)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jamiam.livejournal.com
3. Readers award no points for difficult.

Hell, at the moment I'm taking points away as fast as I can.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
A Three-point Commentary on the Latest Short Fiction Kerfluffy, [AMENDED]

1. Writing is fun!

2. You get no points for trying too hard to be fancy.

3. (some) Readers will love your work if you love your work.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
1. I can agree with. 2. I mostly agree with, although I would argue that there is a taste factor involved. And 3. I think is just flat out wrong, at least as a cause-and-effect statement.

Bring it on :-)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
Okay, after I posted it I had my doubts about three, just because I've seen people fall in love with their own work and that's not a good thing. Let me try again:

3. If you write with joy, your readers will read with joy.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
See, I like the sentiment, but I just don't think it's true. Plenty of bad writers really enjoy writing--I did, when I was a bad writer, and I still often do when I'm writing badly--and I don't think that makes a bit of difference as to how others receive the work.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
Oh, oh, how about this, then?

3. If you are COMPETENT and write with joy, your readers will read with joy.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
WE MUST NEVER BE COMPETENT.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
OR REPENTANT ABOUT BEING COMPETENT!!!

(I'm basically describing myself as a writer there: I write competently, but with joy.)

(or if not with joy, with much happiness most of the time)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
I find it interesting that, as Jay Lake pointed out, the response seems to be splintered in part due to varying definitions of the word "competent." To me it means "decent but unexceptional," and I wouldn't place your work in that category.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
Competence as JVdM seems to be defining it is "refusal to take chances." Or "safe."

For me it's putting the words in an order so that they make sense.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
Well, again I think that "safe" is something that can be read a lot of ways.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarah-prineas.livejournal.com
You are so right.

Like, for example, dare I say, the writers who write the experimental narrative because it's safe, because they don't actually know how to write plot and character, which is, maybe, dangerous?

You know they're out there.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
Sure, I'll buy that. But to me, dangerous can also mean something as simple as writing about real emotions.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-flea-king.livejournal.com
AGREED.

This is why I apply the principles of wabi sabi to my writing, making sure at least one fundamental aspect of the story is royally screwed up, thus making it more human and beautiful.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
Wow . . . I can't quite tell if you're serious, but if you are, that's really interesting and I want you to elaborate.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-flea-king.livejournal.com
I wasn't serious, but I wish I was. Then I could have a reason to be indignant about how badly I write and how little of it I sell.

It's an interesting idea in theory, but stories are mechanical at the level I was thinking. In the sense that, you can't apply the aesthetic principle of wabi sabi to something that must "go." If it doesn't go, it doesn't work, and it's aesthetic value is meaningless.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
True. I wonder, though, if you aren't onto something anyway. I often have things in my stories that I'm not sure I can entirely justify, but which just seem to belong, and a lot of the works I really enjoy do the same. The exemplar, to me, is the Mike Yanagita scene in "Fargo"; in a lot of ways it doesn't belong there, but it also kind of perfects the film.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-flea-king.livejournal.com
That's a very interesting example and I'm going to have to think about this more now.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-flea-king.livejournal.com
Yeah, I just can't buy 3 after having spent those years on the OWW. It might be true if all other things are equal, but they rarely are.

I do believe in a something similar, however, which is that, all things being equal, if you write about a subject passionately, you may be able to make the reader passionate about the subject as well. But I don't think it's a certainty, just a good bet.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jamiam.livejournal.com
(some) Readers will love your work if you love your work.

And (some) readers will simply think you are a massive wanker! Alas.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 09:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jamiam.livejournal.com
Hence the love of their own work thing, I guess.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:03 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jamiam.livejournal.com
Dave, I love you. (Greg, you too.)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
You only love me when I'm cranky.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gregvaneekhout.livejournal.com
You only love me when I'm a roiling ball of hypertensive rage.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
I should get paid for feeding you straight lines like that.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-21 10:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jamiam.livejournal.com
Man, I love you guys.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-22 12:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megmccarron.livejournal.com
love you. also, sorry for being kind of an asshole on the phone last night. it's part of my charm?

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-22 12:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
You were being an asshole? I missed that part. There was a kick-in-the-ass aspect to the talk, but you weren't being mean.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-23 03:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bondgwendabond.livejournal.com
I agree that readers don't award points for difficulty, but I actually think readers are often _too_ forgiving. Witness The Da Vinci code and a host of others. :)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-23 05:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snurri.livejournal.com
Oh, sure. One must never forget that readers are the enemy, and as such are fickle and taste-impaired.

Profile

snurri: (Default)
snurri

April 2011

S M T W T F S
      12
345 6 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags