skyknyt: (Default)
So Lise gave me some topics to talk about in my journal, and since I've wanted to get back into the whole, you know, writing stuff that other people actually read thing, here they are:
1. More Madoka analyses!
2. I remember you saying a while ago you were leaving your job to work on a comic script. But I also know you're working at Blizzard again. So what happened in there?
3. What are you writing lately?
4. Books/anime/TV/movies that have caught your interest recently
5. Why so many anime have Neal Stephenson endings?
6. Skyrim is awesome, but still not as awesome as Morrowind - and why
7. Why people should read Michael Swanwick

Why so many anime have Neal Stephenson endings? )
skyknyt: (Default)
So Lise gave me some topics to talk about in my journal, and since I've wanted to get back into the whole, you know, writing stuff that other people actually read thing, here they are:
1. More Madoka analyses!
2. I remember you saying a while ago you were leaving your job to work on a comic script. But I also know you're working at Blizzard again. So what happened in there?
3. What are you writing lately?
4. Books/anime/TV/movies that have caught your interest recently
5. Why so many anime have Neal Stephenson endings?
6. Skyrim is awesome, but still not as awesome as Morrowind - and why
7. Why people should read Michael Swanwick

Why so many anime have Neal Stephenson endings? )
skyknyt: (Default)
So Lise gave me some topics to talk about in my journal, and since I've wanted to get back into the whole, you know, writing stuff that other people actually read thing, here they are:
1. More Madoka analyses!
2. I remember you saying a while ago you were leaving your job to work on a comic script. But I also know you're working at Blizzard again. So what happened in there?
3. What are you writing lately?
4. Books/anime/TV/movies that have caught your interest recently
5. Why so many anime have Neal Stephenson endings?
6. Skyrim is awesome, but still not as awesome as Morrowind - and why
7. Why people should read Michael Swanwick

Why so many anime have Neal Stephenson endings? )
skyknyt: (Default)
The "to be continued" at the end of The Hunger Games is about as unnecessary as they get.
skyknyt: (Default)
The "to be continued" at the end of The Hunger Games is about as unnecessary as they get.
skyknyt: (Default)
The "to be continued" at the end of The Hunger Games is about as unnecessary as they get.
skyknyt: (Huh?)
Okay, so [livejournal.com profile] dev_chieftain has been reading the Hyperion Cantos lately, and I went a-searching for my original post on the subject. Shmitz's comment there is pretty much the definitive flaw of the books, and it's almost hilarious just the increasing regularity of that flaw gets as the books continue, until the last book literally ends with a scene from Huck Finn.

Even before that, his writing kind of slowly orbits this singularity of referentialness for the sake of being referential. This is a fairly difficult problem to avoid as a writer! Brust kind of sums it up when he says, “I write stuff that I think is cool.” I think, generally speaking, that if what you're writing isn't something you think is cool, you're not going to write something very interesting. The writer's passion and excitement for what they write will almost inevitably bleed over to the reader when they are constructing the words into a world in their head.

So, where's the problem? When that stuff you think is really cool isn't anchored into the world you're writing down into words. So that characters are named and connections are implied via your internal reference, but are never structured properly in the actual book. It's great that you think (dead famous person) is awesome and groundbreaking, but why are they in the book? Even good ol' Brust has this problem in the latter books of the Khaavren cycle, because they turn more and more into Silmarillion style "then this event happened, and this event, and character X was there and oversaw it." And the only way the section is involving at all is because, as a reader, we know what character X did later. Without the context to know why it should be interesting now, in this book, it probably should not be the subject of the reader's attention.

But, if it's cool foreshadowing, or references events in another book, making it a background item while something else goes on can definitely reward the reader while making the world look fleshed out. The gimmick needs to be justified and well knit into the world, or else it will just destroy that integration of the world into the reader's head.
skyknyt: (Default)
Okay, so [livejournal.com profile] dev_chieftain has been reading the Hyperion Cantos lately, and I went a-searching for my original post on the subject. Shmitz's comment there is pretty much the definitive flaw of the books, and it's almost hilarious just the increasing regularity of that flaw gets as the books continue, until the last book literally ends with a scene from Huck Finn.

Even before that, his writing kind of slowly orbits this singularity of referentialness for the sake of being referential. This is a fairly difficult problem to avoid as a writer! Brust kind of sums it up when he says, “I write stuff that I think is cool.” I think, generally speaking, that if what you're writing isn't something you think is cool, you're not going to write something very interesting. The writer's passion and excitement for what they write will almost inevitably bleed over to the reader when they are constructing the words into a world in their head.

So, where's the problem? When that stuff you think is really cool isn't anchored into the world you're writing down into words. So that characters are named and connections are implied via your internal reference, but are never structured properly in the actual book. It's great that you think (dead famous person) is awesome and groundbreaking, but why are they in the book? Even good ol' Brust has this problem in the latter books of the Khaavren cycle, because they turn more and more into Silmarillion style "then this event happened, and this event, and character X was there and oversaw it." And the only way the section is involving at all is because, as a reader, we know what character X did later. Without the context to know why it should be interesting now, in this book, it probably should not be the subject of the reader's attention.

But, if it's cool foreshadowing, or references events in another book, making it a background item while something else goes on can definitely reward the reader while making the world look fleshed out. The gimmick needs to be justified and well knit into the world, or else it will just destroy that integration of the world into the reader's head.
skyknyt: (Huh?)
Okay, so [livejournal.com profile] dev_chieftain has been reading the Hyperion Cantos lately, and I went a-searching for my original post on the subject. Shmitz's comment there is pretty much the definitive flaw of the books, and it's almost hilarious just the increasing regularity of that flaw gets as the books continue, until the last book literally ends with a scene from Huck Finn.

Even before that, his writing kind of slowly orbits this singularity of referentialness for the sake of being referential. This is a fairly difficult problem to avoid as a writer! Brust kind of sums it up when he says, “I write stuff that I think is cool.” I think, generally speaking, that if what you're writing isn't something you think is cool, you're not going to write something very interesting. The writer's passion and excitement for what they write will almost inevitably bleed over to the reader when they are constructing the words into a world in their head.

So, where's the problem? When that stuff you think is really cool isn't anchored into the world you're writing down into words. So that characters are named and connections are implied via your internal reference, but are never structured properly in the actual book. It's great that you think (dead famous person) is awesome and groundbreaking, but why are they in the book? Even good ol' Brust has this problem in the latter books of the Khaavren cycle, because they turn more and more into Silmarillion style "then this event happened, and this event, and character X was there and oversaw it." And the only way the section is involving at all is because, as a reader, we know what character X did later. Without the context to know why it should be interesting now, in this book, it probably should not be the subject of the reader's attention.

But, if it's cool foreshadowing, or references events in another book, making it a background item while something else goes on can definitely reward the reader while making the world look fleshed out. The gimmick needs to be justified and well knit into the world, or else it will just destroy that integration of the world into the reader's head.
skyknyt: (Huh?)
-Women
-Minorities
-Watson
-Shoddy detective work
-Watson's shoddy detective work
-Shoddy criminal work
-People touching his stuff

Things Sherlock Holmes likes
-Mycroft asking him to do stuff
-Catching criminals
-Drugs
-Revenge killings
skyknyt: (Default)
-Women
-Minorities
-Watson
-Shoddy detective work
-Watson's shoddy detective work
-Shoddy criminal work
-People touching his stuff

Things Sherlock Holmes likes
-Mycroft asking him to do stuff
-Catching criminals
-Drugs
-Revenge killings
skyknyt: (Huh?)
-Women
-Minorities
-Watson
-Shoddy detective work
-Watson's shoddy detective work
-Shoddy criminal work
-People touching his stuff

Things Sherlock Holmes likes
-Mycroft asking him to do stuff
-Catching criminals
-Drugs
-Revenge killings

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom