Thoughts of an insomniac, vol 17, ch 3
Nov. 5th, 2006 05:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
desperanceYesterday was one of those infuriating ones where I did everything right: worked well all day but not obsessionally so, took exercise (well, went shopping: by me, this is exercise), didn't eat too late, didn't drink too much, had restful time with book before bed at 1am by which time surely to God I must have been tired - and then just didn't sleep and didn't sleep, and didn't sleep till dawn.
Still, this always throws up something interesting. I was thinking about something that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
autopope had said, about needing to go back over his new novel to fix the plotting, to make sure the mechanics of it worked (I paraphrase, but not I think to the point of abuse). And the point was that this was the first time he'd found a need to do this, but it was also the first time he'd written a book within (loosely) a murder-mystery skin; so I was consoling, said it happened to me and others all the time, it was an accepted part of the process; you put on a crime-writing hat, you expect to need to do this, to go back and refix the hinges so that the trapdoors open as they should.
But then last night, thinking this through because for God's sake you've got to think of something, it struck me that yes, I used to do this automatically, to assume the need for it, that time when I was genuinely a crime writer; my first drafts never used to make sense, because so much changed en route. Actually, though, I haven't done it for years, not for books and books. Which means there is a qualitative difference between the writing of mystery fiction - in its broadest sense - and the writing of fantasy ditto ditto, such that that whole stage of the process falls away. You could say that it's just because I'm more experienced now, I don't get my plots in such a tangle; but I don't think that's it. I think the nature of plot is so different between the two genres, the process takes cognisance of that. In brief, I incline to the notion that fantasy plots are driven by a kind of historical inevitability that completely o'ersweeps the artifice of mystery plotting.
Still, this always throws up something interesting. I was thinking about something that
autopope had said, about needing to go back over his new novel to fix the plotting, to make sure the mechanics of it worked (I paraphrase, but not I think to the point of abuse). And the point was that this was the first time he'd found a need to do this, but it was also the first time he'd written a book within (loosely) a murder-mystery skin; so I was consoling, said it happened to me and others all the time, it was an accepted part of the process; you put on a crime-writing hat, you expect to need to do this, to go back and refix the hinges so that the trapdoors open as they should.But then last night, thinking this through because for God's sake you've got to think of something, it struck me that yes, I used to do this automatically, to assume the need for it, that time when I was genuinely a crime writer; my first drafts never used to make sense, because so much changed en route. Actually, though, I haven't done it for years, not for books and books. Which means there is a qualitative difference between the writing of mystery fiction - in its broadest sense - and the writing of fantasy ditto ditto, such that that whole stage of the process falls away. You could say that it's just because I'm more experienced now, I don't get my plots in such a tangle; but I don't think that's it. I think the nature of plot is so different between the two genres, the process takes cognisance of that. In brief, I incline to the notion that fantasy plots are driven by a kind of historical inevitability that completely o'ersweeps the artifice of mystery plotting.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 09:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 09:51 am (UTC)Sometimes, yes - but what I'm more interested in is blending something of the mystery mindset into the fantasy environment. One of my bugbears is the way classic fantasy still follows the Tolkien route, where a wise man sits you-the-hero down in chapter three and says "This is the most powerful magic ring in the known universe, and your task, Frodo, should you choose to accept it..." and there you are, that's the plot of the next three books spelled out for you in advance. It's about transparency, and I like books to be opaque. At the end of vol one of my Outremer books, you still don't know what's going on; end of vol two, you think you do and you're wrong; the big reveal comes at its proper point, late in vol three.
My editor hates this; she believes profoundly that fantasy should be transparent. Sigh.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 07:35 pm (UTC)Yes - I feel transparency is an over-rated quality. Give me the murk! (but I want an ending that makes sense...)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:34 pm (UTC)If you have any trouble laying hands on copies, let me know; I carry stock.
And all my endings make sense to me. (Tho' the cliffhanger habit between vols has raised howls of fury, notably from the States. I really don't get that - got to break the story somewhere, so why not at a moment of tension?)