The White Lily (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
thewhitelily) wrote2007-10-31 12:40 pm
thewhitelily) wrote2007-10-31 12:40 pm
Entry tags:
Magna Cartas
It’s the countdown to NaNoWriMo – less than twelve hours remaining!
Last year, before November started, I read No Plot? No Problem! which was most interesting in a number of ways. But one of the things that struck me was the assertion that writers often find themselves writing books that they’d never read, and that’s never a good thing. The suggestion was to make a “Magna Carta” of all the things they like (or don't like!) in a book, and make sure they’re doing some – or all – of them in their story. I wrote a list back then, but didn’t publish it – this year I’ve decided to expand and post it.
So here we go: my fictional kinks. If a book’s got a fair few of these in it, I’m practically guaranteed to like it.
Magna Carta I:
Plot Elements:
• A whole lot of disparate threads coming together for an ending, bonus points for at least one of an inanimate/force of nature/entirely up to chance driving the timing of the conclusion.
• A protagonist making a difficult choice – finally choosing the less selfish way and being shattered when it suddenly dissolves and they realise that what they’d originally wanted (and now have) is hollow
• When a liar tries to lead a conversation towards coming clean, the deceived reassures them in the wrong direction and they end up reinforcing the lie.
• An initial impression leading to consequent misinterpretation of differently motivated behaviour
• Slightly bittersweet happy endings
Style:
• A metaphor that extends and then weaves back for a doubly relevant kick at the end, a la Terry Pratchett
• Something that flies straight over the protagonist’s head and hits the reader in the face, not because the protagonist is stupid, but because he/she doesn’t have the context/emotional distance to recognise it.
• Specifics that allow the reader to make their own judgements rather than spoon feeding emotions/character traits – Dudley didn’t throw a tantrum; he threw his turtle through the greenhouse roof.
• The feeling of attention to detail and every word counting that you get from a good drabble, transposed up.
Relationships:
• Parental instincts/love conquering all else, even when they don't.
• Love that’s based on being able to accurately predict the other's actions (ie. trust), understanding, and shared experience rather than passion.
• Two people enjoying/drawing strength from interactions which might at first appear to be negative (ie. love/hate).
• One person’s faith in another giving them all the courage they need.
• That shocked moment of silence in an argument just after someone angrily blurts out an unexpected truth.
Characters:
• A protagonist with autistic leanings
• An antagonist whose vulnerability is also his only strength (ie. love for a particular person), OR the vulnerability being the inevitable conclusion of his greatest villainy (ie. sowing the seeds of his own downfall).
• A protagonist who climactically overcomes a personal weakness and feeling even more accomplished when no one else realises just how difficult it was.
• A skill/power that is too immersive and thus is its own built in weakness
• A protagonist who felt trapped by societal/other restrictions but realises that the cage was (or still is) of their own making in conforming
• Extremely specific character traits around which any archetypal secondary characters are built
Themes:
• Taking control of your destiny and choosing rather than drifting – even if those choices aren’t actually any different.
• Life as a self-fulfilling prophecy: your attitudes influence everything.
------------------------
And now for the the Magna Carta I’s evil twin. These are the elements of a story that will make me pull my hair out, spend all night jittering with rage or disgust, tear out the offending pages and burn them, then bury the ashes at the bottom of the compost heap.
Magna Carta II:
Plot Elements:
• Misunderstandings produced by half-overheard/contextually misinterpreted conversations or the like which stir up resentment over opinions that were never actually held or expressed by either party and could have been averted by just bloody well asking.
• Monologuing, either from the protagonist or the antagonist. Yes, Ms. Rowling, I’m looking at you. Unless there’s a reason for it (like Harry needing to convince Voldie that his wand wouldn’t work for it to not work) then just skip it and explain in the denouement.
Style:
• Too much exposition
• Primer style
• The word “passionately” describing a kiss or anything sexual.
• Too slowly paced
• Canned character summaries as they’re introduced.
Relationships:
• Love at first sight.
• Sexualisation of a relationship simply because it’s strong.
Characters:
• A character who is still obsessed with or immersed in the angst of their parents’ deaths many years later. Child, sibling, or lover is okay, as long as that’s not what their whole life is about.
• A wrongfully accused or unfairly treated protagonist who indulges in self-pity rather than acting proactively.
• Actually, self-pity in general.
• A stupid protagonist, who for plot reasons doesn’t make connections that should have been totally obvious
• A stupid protagonist, who outwits a more intelligent adversary by unbelievable means (ie. shouting louder, adversary’s random intelligence failure, or deus ex machina. Persistence, assistance, or ironic luck may be acceptable, depending on the skill of the writer.)
• A stupid protagonist, with whom we are nonetheless supposed to sympathise
• A stupid protagonist, full stop.
And… I think that’s it. Hopefully that should help keep my story on track!
In other news, I now have a working title: Cloud Castles – and my protagonist has finally deigned to inform me that her first name is Louisa, but she’d really prefer to be called Lou. Oh, and my wrists have settled down to a managable level. Yay!
Last year, before November started, I read No Plot? No Problem! which was most interesting in a number of ways. But one of the things that struck me was the assertion that writers often find themselves writing books that they’d never read, and that’s never a good thing. The suggestion was to make a “Magna Carta” of all the things they like (or don't like!) in a book, and make sure they’re doing some – or all – of them in their story. I wrote a list back then, but didn’t publish it – this year I’ve decided to expand and post it.
So here we go: my fictional kinks. If a book’s got a fair few of these in it, I’m practically guaranteed to like it.
Magna Carta I:
Plot Elements:
• A whole lot of disparate threads coming together for an ending, bonus points for at least one of an inanimate/force of nature/entirely up to chance driving the timing of the conclusion.
• A protagonist making a difficult choice – finally choosing the less selfish way and being shattered when it suddenly dissolves and they realise that what they’d originally wanted (and now have) is hollow
• When a liar tries to lead a conversation towards coming clean, the deceived reassures them in the wrong direction and they end up reinforcing the lie.
• An initial impression leading to consequent misinterpretation of differently motivated behaviour
• Slightly bittersweet happy endings
Style:
• A metaphor that extends and then weaves back for a doubly relevant kick at the end, a la Terry Pratchett
• Something that flies straight over the protagonist’s head and hits the reader in the face, not because the protagonist is stupid, but because he/she doesn’t have the context/emotional distance to recognise it.
• Specifics that allow the reader to make their own judgements rather than spoon feeding emotions/character traits – Dudley didn’t throw a tantrum; he threw his turtle through the greenhouse roof.
• The feeling of attention to detail and every word counting that you get from a good drabble, transposed up.
Relationships:
• Parental instincts/love conquering all else, even when they don't.
• Love that’s based on being able to accurately predict the other's actions (ie. trust), understanding, and shared experience rather than passion.
• Two people enjoying/drawing strength from interactions which might at first appear to be negative (ie. love/hate).
• One person’s faith in another giving them all the courage they need.
• That shocked moment of silence in an argument just after someone angrily blurts out an unexpected truth.
Characters:
• A protagonist with autistic leanings
• An antagonist whose vulnerability is also his only strength (ie. love for a particular person), OR the vulnerability being the inevitable conclusion of his greatest villainy (ie. sowing the seeds of his own downfall).
• A protagonist who climactically overcomes a personal weakness and feeling even more accomplished when no one else realises just how difficult it was.
• A skill/power that is too immersive and thus is its own built in weakness
• A protagonist who felt trapped by societal/other restrictions but realises that the cage was (or still is) of their own making in conforming
• Extremely specific character traits around which any archetypal secondary characters are built
Themes:
• Taking control of your destiny and choosing rather than drifting – even if those choices aren’t actually any different.
• Life as a self-fulfilling prophecy: your attitudes influence everything.
------------------------
And now for the the Magna Carta I’s evil twin. These are the elements of a story that will make me pull my hair out, spend all night jittering with rage or disgust, tear out the offending pages and burn them, then bury the ashes at the bottom of the compost heap.
Magna Carta II:
Plot Elements:
• Misunderstandings produced by half-overheard/contextually misinterpreted conversations or the like which stir up resentment over opinions that were never actually held or expressed by either party and could have been averted by just bloody well asking.
• Monologuing, either from the protagonist or the antagonist. Yes, Ms. Rowling, I’m looking at you. Unless there’s a reason for it (like Harry needing to convince Voldie that his wand wouldn’t work for it to not work) then just skip it and explain in the denouement.
Style:
• Too much exposition
• Primer style
• The word “passionately” describing a kiss or anything sexual.
• Too slowly paced
• Canned character summaries as they’re introduced.
Relationships:
• Love at first sight.
• Sexualisation of a relationship simply because it’s strong.
Characters:
• A character who is still obsessed with or immersed in the angst of their parents’ deaths many years later. Child, sibling, or lover is okay, as long as that’s not what their whole life is about.
• A wrongfully accused or unfairly treated protagonist who indulges in self-pity rather than acting proactively.
• Actually, self-pity in general.
• A stupid protagonist, who for plot reasons doesn’t make connections that should have been totally obvious
• A stupid protagonist, who outwits a more intelligent adversary by unbelievable means (ie. shouting louder, adversary’s random intelligence failure, or deus ex machina. Persistence, assistance, or ironic luck may be acceptable, depending on the skill of the writer.)
• A stupid protagonist, with whom we are nonetheless supposed to sympathise
• A stupid protagonist, full stop.
And… I think that’s it. Hopefully that should help keep my story on track!
In other news, I now have a working title: Cloud Castles – and my protagonist has finally deigned to inform me that her first name is Louisa, but she’d really prefer to be called Lou. Oh, and my wrists have settled down to a managable level. Yay!