Downtown Khazan: Siriel's Temporary Edition

[Sharpandpointies]

If you're supposed to like the central character of a series, then Stephen Donaldson absolutely sucks as a writer.

Looking at his main two series, neither Thomas Covenant, nor Morn Hyland (The Gap Cycle) are at all sympathetic as central characters. Heck, I kept hoping Nick Succorso would throw Hyland out of an airlock.

Covenant actually got voted one of the top ten antiheroes of all SF/Fantasy by some literary group. :)

I have all three series. Enjoyed them immensely.

[Omegalith]

According to supplemental materials, there have only been five successful High Summoners in the history of Spira... And a Calm lasts less than six months.

This raises an interesting question: Why even bother?

The impression I got whilst playing the game is that they're roughly once per generation and that the Calm lasts close to a decade.

[Beadle]

Covenant actually got voted one of the top ten antiheroes of all SF/Fantasy by some literary group. :)

I have all three series. Enjoyed them immensely.

Don't get me wrong - I loved the series (although I've yet to read the third - two of them are sat on my bookshelf for when I find any time to do some reading), but Covenant himself is not all that sympathetic a character.

A bad-tempered, leprosy-ridden rapist (over-simplification, I know) is not exactly your archetypal central figure. It's guys like Lord Mhoram you root for.

And Hyland is just plain annoying. She only gets marginally bearable when her even-more-annoying, force-grown son (born of another rape - seriously Donaldson LIKES rape. I think he might be that guy from Blazing Saddles.) comes into the story. Angus Thermopyle, Nick Succorso and the political guys like Hashi Lebwohl are much more enjoyable.

[Omegalith]

(born of another rape - seriously Donaldson LIKES rape. I think he might be that guy from Blazing Saddles.)

Oh yeah, I know an author with that problem...



Really awkward to read, isn't it? Particularly when it's an important plot point.

[Ghost]

I found the character likeable enough, for myself. But it's very likely that teen girls - the target audience - identified with her more. Which I suspect is sort of important for the teen romance crowd - the capacity to imagine themselves in that position.

Without that, there's a problem.

I don't know about that. Plenty of girls love Harry Potter without being maltreated orphan boys. Identification probably helps, but it is it really that vital?

Personal opinion being what it is, sure.

I suspect millions of readers of the series would disagree. :)

Yeah, but I can't just shrug my shoulders and go: "That's just the way it is, I guess." That goes against my understanding of how writing works.

Not really. She pulled it off. She hit her target audience with enough of what they needed to really latch onto the books, as well as being in the right place with those books at the right time.

Thats's another thing I don't like, the "she was in the right place in the right time" argument. It makes it sound as if she won the lottery, but that's not really what happened. She got an agent on her first try, then eight publishers competed for her manuscript, then she went on to sell an absurd number of books. I don't think that can be explained as luck or fortunate circumstances. That's an effect her writing had on actual people.

Stuff like that happens in the publishing business.

I suspect that if one starts looking for specific causes for 'why a large group of people liked something', one could very well run into some serious problems working it through.

How can understanding the mechanisms of popularity not be important for a writer? That has to be a vital aspect of the craft.

Enjoyment and appreciation of entertainment is subjective. There's no magic formula.

Taste is subjective, but also something that can be analyzed. "Subjective" doesn't mean "unfathomable", you can still understand it. Human behavior as a collective is fairly predictable, so if a very large group of people like a certain thing, you should be able to figure out what it is.

If you want to read more into it, try to figure out why, by all means, but it takes nothing away from Meyer's success. :)

Not trying to "take away" from her success. I'm just pointing out that whatever it was that enabled that success, it has to be something immensely powerful. Powerful enough to completely nullify everything she did wrong, at least for someone of a certain mindset.

[Ghost]

Oh yeah, I know an author with that problem...



Really awkward to read, isn't it? Particularly when it's an important plot point.

Terry Goodkind kinda does that as well, or at least he did last time I read Sword of Truth. It got kinda jarring after a while.

[Eternal Torment]

I remember hearing about a group of evil pacifists appearing in the Sword of Truth.

[Omegalith]

I remember hearing about a group of evil pacifists appearing in the Sword of Truth.

Ah yes, my knowledge of that series is probably best described as "less than minimal", but I do recall that being made fun of on several occasions.

Strictly speaking though, mercilessly mowing down a group of entirely peaceful protestors who espouse a philosophy harmful to societal morale and stability would be considered heroic by medieval standards.

By modern standards? Heck no, but I can see why an otherwise pleasant character might consider it a good idea, and there's nothing that says good writing means having to only make protagonists that use the same moral compass as our own society.

[Eternal Torment]

Ah yes, my knowledge of that series is probably best described as "less than minimal", but I do recall that being made fun of on several occasions.

Strictly speaking though, mercilessly mowing down a group of entirely peaceful protestors who espouse a philosophy harmful to societal morale and stability would be considered heroic by medieval standards.

By modern standards? Heck no, but I can see why an otherwise pleasant character might consider it a good idea, and there's nothing that says good writing means having to only make protagonists that use the same moral compass as our own society.

Quite true. I suspect that the justification for killing the evil pacifists was unrelated to medieval morality, however.

[Radioactive Zombie]

No, and despite liking that show when I was younger I have no idea why it would be.

If it's a reference to anything it's that I once saw a piece of fan art combining characters called Blackjack, Glory and P-21 into a composite called "Gloryjack-21" and thought that was a pretty cool name.

I really want to see a good PVE mmo, ones of these days..

[Omegalith]

I really want to see a good PVE mmo, ones of these days..

I was actually talking about this thing.

[Sharkerbob]

Honestly, these days I just copy and paste the same old rant with a few minor changes.

What rant?

[Sharpandpointies]

I don't know about that. Plenty of girls love Harry Potter without being maltreated orphan boys. Identification probably helps, but it is it really that vital?

With ROMANCE (which, sorry to say, Harry Potter is most certainly not)? For teen girls? I would guess yes.

Milage may vary. :) Not really interested in arguing the point. Not really interested in debating on this, period, actually. :)

Yeah, but I can't just shrug my shoulders and go: "That's just the way it is, I guess." That goes against my understanding of how writing works.

To each their own. :)

Thats's another thing I don't like, the "she was in the right place in the right time" argument. It makes it sound as if she won the lottery, but that's not really what happened. She got an agent on her first try, then eight publishers competed for her manuscript, then she went on to sell an absurd number of books. I don't think that can be explained as luck or fortunate circumstances. That's an effect her writing had on actual people.

My thoughts?

For starters, you'll note that I never said luck and placement were the only reason. There are, obviously, many factors. Luck and placement are some of them (witness Rowling's story versus Meyer's, and hosts of other writers who are famous but took years to reach that point).

Point being, no, it's not all luck and placement - 'winning the lottary'. At the same time, I personally feel that luck and placement are factors - hitting an agent who sees the potential on the current market, or a publishing house that feels the same, or both. Rowling could have easily gone through ten more publishing houses, never sold the book, whatever. After twelve, it's pretty obvious that whatever made the book a wild success wasn't obvious to everyone who looked at it.

You might have a different opinion.

And when did this become an agrument, anyway? Why use that word?

How can understanding the mechanisms of popularity not be important for a writer? That has to be a vital aspect of the craft.

Of publishing, sure. But I see people trying to figure out what's going to be popular beforehand all the time in entertainment, and it's grossly hit and miss. Same deal with figuring out why after the fact.

Me, I'm not writing in the same niche as Meyer, for the same audience. I've learned some stuff from poking through her books about mood, and that was helpful. But what made her a multimilionaire is unlkely to be distilled down to a single thing, and I'm more interested in actually writing stuff I'd like to write than searching for a magic bullet. :)

Mechanisms of popularity? I'm more likely to get that from going into a bookstore and looking at what's on the shelves currently crowded with Urban Fantasy) and the general trends of what's popular now than searching for how a single, incredibly popular writer managed it. Maybe that's teh science background in me, but that's how scientists try to predict. They don't look at outliers. They look at trends.

Obviously others may disagree! And that is their perogative. People approach writing in many different ways.

But those are my feelings on the matter. Yours differ, and that's cool.

Taste is subjective, but also something that can be analyzed. "Subjective" doesn't mean "unfathomable", you can still understand it. Human behavior as a collective is fairly predictable, so if a very large group of people like a certain thing, you should be able to figure out what it is.

So, why do people like Meyer's stuff, then, Ghost? :) Analysis? That's not sarcasm, by the way. I'm avoiding sarcasm in this post, so if anything sounds like it, it ain't.

This is why I prefer trends. With ONE test subject (Meyer's series) you have too many variables. Walking into a bookstore and looking at what's selling in general in the fantasy section - and what publishers are therefore buying - gives ME a better idea of what's popular in general (and also because, let's be honest, I'm not going to replicate all the factors that led to Meyer's books going stellar :).

Not trying to "take away" from her success. I'm just pointing out that whatever it was that enabled that success, it has to be something immensely powerful. Powerful enough to completely nullify everything she did wrong, at least for someone of a certain mindset.

Well, there's the whole business about her writing being crappy despite a rather vast chunk of readers who would disagree. Forgive me for making that assumption, I won't make it again.

In any case, if you manage to figure out that thing she did that enabled her success, please let me know. Because while I don't believe in magic bullets, if someone handed me one I'd damn-sure use it. :)

[FarBeyondC]

Seeing that a certain someone has yet to answer a question in another thread, I'll see if I can work my way towards answering said question here.

And so, I ask the following questions:

What the weakest thing that can hurt the Hulk?

• Movie Hulk
• Base Comic Hulk
• Reasonably Angry Comic Hulk

How much damage is a Class 100 capable of?

[mailedbypostman1]

Mechanisms of popularity? I'm more likely to get that from going into a bookstore and looking at what's on the shelves currently crowded with Urban Fantasy)

Seriously. There's A LOT.