Fantasy Focus

I'm saying that there is no reason he has to write a story that he's not interested in. If he's only interested in writing speculative fiction, it doesn't make him a bad writer. I am personally somewhat tired of fantasy, but I don't believe that the preponderance of fantasy authors on here is a bad thing from an objective standpoint. It merely annoys me as an individual.

Unless you're referring to the "rarely, if ever, a good idea" comment? I stand by that. Basing works off your own life, without making them wish-fulfillment wankery, requires a level of objectivity about themselves that most people don't have. And there really isn't any reward from it that corresponds to the risk.

Although short pieces like you suggest don't have as many problems.

edited 20th Dec '11 3:45:30 PM by nrjxll

Well, Gault is right in that I meant that my life isn't hugely interesting, even in the context of realistic fiction and the standards thereof. I suppose I could write such things as practice, but they'd probably never make for good, publishable material that anyone would really want to read.

Then again, my friend's dad published a book about his life, and though it wasn't a good seller it was apparently really good. So, who knows?

Everyone should read American Splendor. It's a straightforward autobiographical comic about a mailroom worker in Cleveland. Nothing special happened in his life, until very late in his life. He had a series of marriages and divorces, struggled with depression, and worked a shit job.

It lasted for 32 years and is completely amazing, because it is a straightfaced look at his life, warts and all.

The only reason your life isn't interesting to you is because it is your life and you have to live with it every day. The reason that writing is an amazing tool that can enrich the lives of everyone is because it can show everyone how amazing your completely boring insight into the world is. Genre fiction is one way you can show a reader your insight into the world, but it's hardly the only way, let alone the inherently most interesting way.

Also. See my avatar?

The reason the Coen brothers are hailed as geniuses is because of their absolute command of language. Fargo, Big Lebowski, O Brother, True Grit: those aren't improvised, even though they often seem easy. They're strictly scripted and painstakingly directed. This command of language comes from relentless listening, study, practice, and repetition. The only way you get that is by practicing and writing, doing absolutely mundane writing about absolutely mundane things, and that starts with absolute understanding of language in your own life.

edited 20th Dec '11 3:53:28 PM by AManInBlack

That's true. Proximity breeds familiarity, and familiarity breeds contempt.

Of course, that brings us to the question of, if we don't like our life or think it's boring, how do we sit through writing it? That, I think, is the real challenge: writing something you may not like well.

@nrjxll: Like I said, it's a guesstimate. I tend to see quite a few topics that discuss sci-fi themes. Granted, it's mostly in World Building, but I see them here too. I wouldn't call them a dying breed or anything, and while there's probably more fantasy writers, sci-fi writers aren't exactly extremely rare.

I dunno, a lot of sci-fi specific writers I meet can be stuck-up, so I tend to avoid conversations with them. I'm not exactly looking for or counting them.

I agree. As stated, I object to basing works on one's own life because it requires a degree of self-objectivity I don't believe most people have, at least not consistently. That doesn't mean the "my life is too boring" argument is particularly valid.

It's not valid because developing that objectivity and that ability to observe is absolutely key in order to develop as a writer. Introspection is one way to start on that path. Telling people not to introspect because it's hard and they don't like to do it is... just...

Myself included I can count on one hand the number of regulars to Writer's Block who work on sci-fi. (My count is approximately 4 myself included.)

Well, get enough 15-25 year-old introverts and nerds into one proverbial room and ask them to talk about writing... I mean, what did you expect?

This aside, speaking as someone who writes speculative fiction, it does become wearing to see so few writers here outside of the field. I understand why the fantastic is a popular subject here, but really, it shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all.

(Granted, in my own case, a certain amount of the inverse is true: Being someone who writes a particular kind of speculative fiction that is not so popular here, I sometimes feel just as alienated as I might if I wrote straight Lit Fic.)

Does working on fantasy and sci-fi still disqualify you? And how is sci-fi being defined?

Objectivity does not equal ability to observe. The latter can be easily developed, but I doubt the former can ever totally be achieved - I don't believe we will ever be able to entirely eliminate our biases from our writing. That doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile effort, but I personally think that writing about your own life, at least with longer pieces, carries too much risk of bias compared to most things, without a corresponding reward for it (it should probably be noted that I'm thinking from a reader's perspective here).

I never said this. But as far as genre and tone go, people shouldn't have to write anything they don't want to. I hope I'm imagining it, but there's a rather ugly undertone to your arguments here that speculative fiction is somehow not as worthwhile to write as non-genre fiction, and that by saying that USAF shouldn't have to write non-speculative fiction if he doesn't want to I'm holding him back as a writer.

As far as the "counting" thing goes, this is more based off of subjective observations then a survey or anything like that (though that might be interesting to see), but I would count someone who writes, or has written, both SF and fantasy as a writer of both.

edited 20th Dec '11 4:07:21 PM by nrjxll

Well, honest-to-god, I do want to write that one non-speculative fiction idea. It's just that, the way it came out in my head, I have to figure out how to write it without making it exceptionally corny and such...

Basically everything JHM just said.

Your biases are part of your voice. The point is developing your ability to write, and the only way to do that is to focus on your ability to observe, introspect, and write. You're confusing the sort of writing you yourself are interested in with the sort of writing that will help you develop as a writer. It doesn't matter if you are interested in stories about normal people living their lives. Writing stories about your own life will help you develop as a writer, no matter who you are. Speculative fiction isn't worth less as an art form, but it is worth less as a writing exercise (especially when you are just starting out as a writer), in the same way that life drawing are more valuable than stylized cartoons as drawing exercises.

Does that make sense?

Don't worry too much about being corny. Or even being bad. Turning study and introspection into practice will give you a start to iterate on.

edited 20th Dec '11 4:36:17 PM by AManInBlack

Yes. As I said, I've been approaching this primarily as a reader, not just in the sense of what I personally would want to read, but in that what I've been saying is about works that are intended for other people to read. As far as writing exercises go, we are largely in agreement.

Well, it depends upon how much you focus upon the characters and their actions relative to each other within the context of the work. But that's another argument entirely.

True. Fear of failure is a horrible thing, though. :/

Failing isn't failing. Is the foundation of a house a failure because it does not have a roof?

Now that made no sense.

I would have said it's not failure until you give up. You can always fix it and make it better.

edited 20th Dec '11 4:40:36 PM by NoirGrimoir

Oo. Aphorisms!

You should write a book of those.

[stonervoice]That's deep, man.[/stonervoice]

edited 20th Dec '11 4:40:57 PM by nrjxll

The "failing isn't failing" thing doesn't make sense to me, either, but the house analogy does.

Just the failing isn't failing thing. I totally get what he's saying, it's just kind of funny because on the surface he seems to be contradicting himself.

What about "failing at the start is not failing in the end"?

I caught that. I'm not totally thick...

edited 20th Dec '11 5:03:14 PM by JHM

Okay, since poetic language is falling on deaf ears- er, not being appreciated.

You aren't supposed to like a first draft. It's not done yet. You've still got a lot of work left to do to revise it and clean it up before it's anything like done.