![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesSince I'm not in the active phase of a project (still outlining), I've been doing a lot of reading and I think I'm even reading closer since my brain isn't distracted.
One thing I think I've discovered is my own personal rule of thumb for deciding whether I think a story is Good or Bad, in the sense of being Well Written or Poorly Written.
The rule of thumb is this: Do the story's reading rules illuminate the text and offer further, even more titillating insight into the setting, plot, and characters or do the reading rules detract from the story and point out it's flaws?
I guess you'd need me to define reading rules at this point. Fair enough. It's something I picked up in college (go UNF!) from my very favoritest literature professor, a man who's favorite topic was infanticide and how most literature is rife with examples of either literal or metaphorical infanticide.
By the by, he was actually quite a nice guy, but he had one of those minds that just refused to let people's squeamishness matter to him at all. He didn't seem to believe in backing down from the less pleasant facets of human nature, either.
But he taught about reading rules. I don't know if this is common in other college literature courses, or specific to him. I imagine the theory of it is probably relatively common.
The short version is that reading rules are instructions in the text, put there by the author, to tell the audience how to read the story.
Think of it as having a little guide on your shoulder while you're going through a story.
Most of these rules are subtextual, and subtle, but very effective. I'd wager that 95% of people who read can pick up on reading rules, they just don't know that they're doing it.
For example, it's my theory that when someone complains of a story that the ending wasn't believable, they're really complaining that the reading rules told them a different story than the surface level of the text told. Telling two different stories without somehow reconciling them, for a writer, is like being two faced. Readers, with good cause, just don't like that sort of thing.
As a writer, I can tell you that these reading rules aren't deliberately implanted. In fact, they may be just as subtextual and subconscious for us as they are for readers. But they are also the most powerful and difficult part of the story to rein in.
I think it's example time.
One story (or series of novels) that I consider to be Good are Michelle Sagara's Chronicles of Elantra series. Now, of course, no book is perfect, but I think these are pretty darn entertaining. I think this is because the reading rules inherent in the series add an interesting flavor to an already interesting story.
One of the rules throughout the novels is: pay attention to socio-economic classes and how they interact.
How do I know this is a rule? Because the amount of wealth, food, and other material goods a character, place, or setting has is always noted by Kaylin. It's a pretty central focus to her, but it's nothing she says outright. Whether her surroundings are "fancy" or not is always noted. The Barrani, the Castelords, the Dragons, the Emperor's Court are all wealthy. They are also all very suspect and not trustworthy. They don't explain themselves well, they don't play well with others, and they make Kaylin's life harder.
Thus, the rule is that the richer a character, the less trustworthy they are.
Just about every single character, setting, and situation is somehow related to class differences in a way. Kaylin is decidedly from the lower and below poverty-line class. She was raised on the streets. But she is also the poster child for class mobility, going from a street urchin to having her own apartment. Albeit, she's rather lower middle class, but she's still moved up in the world.
That leads to another reading rule, and that is this: Kaylin is a breaker of rules and boundaries because she herself has none. Is the anti-rule, the anti-boundary. She is the thing which opens all other things up. Clues to this are situated in everything from Kaylin's chronic lateness to the fact that one of her earliest and most important act in life was to cross the river from the fiefs into Elantra.
Now, this is a good reading rule to put in there because I think Kaylin would come across as a Mary Sue for all the broke rules in her wake. But when you understand that there is a deliberate force behind that, it becomes less annoying.
Not to mention that it also adds a depth of tension throughout the novels, because not all barriers, rules, and boundaries are bad. Some are very good, but if it is always Kaylin's place to break them, then it become interesting to see what happens when she has no choice but to tear down the walls that even she herself likes and relies on.
But none of these rules contradict or undermine the surface story. The subtext does not battle with the text. They work in harmony together. One adds depth to the other. Thus, the story, in my estimation, is Good.
In contrast, there are Bad stories, and their reading rules tell a different tale. Let's use Lori Handeland's Any Given Doomsday as an example.
The reading rules in Lori Handeland's book shred the text early on. The first rule is that the heroine is the Center of the Known Universe. You can tell this because everything in the book overlaps only through her. Things are weighed only in their relevance to her. The reader isn't even given explanations for things until it comes time for the heroine to angst and/or wax witty about them.
Every thing that happens in the book is only for the purposes of making our heroine look good. Thus, she can never look bad. Which means you can kiss any chance of being able to identify with her goodbye. Unflawed gems make for wonderful jewelry and terrible characters.
Second rule is that the heroine is protected from all things and will never suffer anything Really Bad directly. People die around her, but the heroine is never besieged by grief that paralyzes and robs her of her senses or her "snark". I put that in quotation because to call her wittiness snark is an insult to Snarkiness as an institution.
Every conflict in the book comes out in her favor. Her ex-beau betrayed her, well he comes back into town determined to be her protector and, of course, to make out with her. A demonic cougar attacks, and she not only has Amazing! Gymnastics! Skills!, but an amulet around her neck (not ever mentioned before) that protects her from the demonic spirit trying to possess her. Demons are looking to end the world, but it's Ruthie who dies and not her, even though she's unconscious and very vulnerable for a long time.
She's not mauled viciously and left with hideous scars. She doesn't get an arm hacked off. She doesn't die (unfortunately).
So while the author is trying very hard to convince me that I should be tense, excited, and a bit scared by the various conflicts the heroine goes into, I know it's a sham. Because her reading rules have already told me that I can yawn and flip to the end of the fight scene, because there's nothing to worry about. The heroine is always protected.
Not to mention that the author has already shown me that I shouldn't get too interested in the world surrounding the heroine, since nothing gets to stand on it's own. Everything in the book is in service to the heroine.
Most of the stuff that I learned in college literature courses, I've mostly forgotten. In my defense, most of it wasn't that useful or even interesting. But the reading rules have always stuck with me, because even if your only purpose is to just sit down and enjoy a book, reading rules help. They enhance the flavor of the story. Although if the story is crap-flavored, then you're in trouble.
My hope is that one day I'll even get smart enough to be able to conscious manipulate them in my writing, thus telling a better story.
One thing I think I've discovered is my own personal rule of thumb for deciding whether I think a story is Good or Bad, in the sense of being Well Written or Poorly Written.
The rule of thumb is this: Do the story's reading rules illuminate the text and offer further, even more titillating insight into the setting, plot, and characters or do the reading rules detract from the story and point out it's flaws?
I guess you'd need me to define reading rules at this point. Fair enough. It's something I picked up in college (go UNF!) from my very favoritest literature professor, a man who's favorite topic was infanticide and how most literature is rife with examples of either literal or metaphorical infanticide.
By the by, he was actually quite a nice guy, but he had one of those minds that just refused to let people's squeamishness matter to him at all. He didn't seem to believe in backing down from the less pleasant facets of human nature, either.
But he taught about reading rules. I don't know if this is common in other college literature courses, or specific to him. I imagine the theory of it is probably relatively common.
The short version is that reading rules are instructions in the text, put there by the author, to tell the audience how to read the story.
Think of it as having a little guide on your shoulder while you're going through a story.
Most of these rules are subtextual, and subtle, but very effective. I'd wager that 95% of people who read can pick up on reading rules, they just don't know that they're doing it.
For example, it's my theory that when someone complains of a story that the ending wasn't believable, they're really complaining that the reading rules told them a different story than the surface level of the text told. Telling two different stories without somehow reconciling them, for a writer, is like being two faced. Readers, with good cause, just don't like that sort of thing.
As a writer, I can tell you that these reading rules aren't deliberately implanted. In fact, they may be just as subtextual and subconscious for us as they are for readers. But they are also the most powerful and difficult part of the story to rein in.
I think it's example time.
One story (or series of novels) that I consider to be Good are Michelle Sagara's Chronicles of Elantra series. Now, of course, no book is perfect, but I think these are pretty darn entertaining. I think this is because the reading rules inherent in the series add an interesting flavor to an already interesting story.
One of the rules throughout the novels is: pay attention to socio-economic classes and how they interact.
How do I know this is a rule? Because the amount of wealth, food, and other material goods a character, place, or setting has is always noted by Kaylin. It's a pretty central focus to her, but it's nothing she says outright. Whether her surroundings are "fancy" or not is always noted. The Barrani, the Castelords, the Dragons, the Emperor's Court are all wealthy. They are also all very suspect and not trustworthy. They don't explain themselves well, they don't play well with others, and they make Kaylin's life harder.
Thus, the rule is that the richer a character, the less trustworthy they are.
Just about every single character, setting, and situation is somehow related to class differences in a way. Kaylin is decidedly from the lower and below poverty-line class. She was raised on the streets. But she is also the poster child for class mobility, going from a street urchin to having her own apartment. Albeit, she's rather lower middle class, but she's still moved up in the world.
That leads to another reading rule, and that is this: Kaylin is a breaker of rules and boundaries because she herself has none. Is the anti-rule, the anti-boundary. She is the thing which opens all other things up. Clues to this are situated in everything from Kaylin's chronic lateness to the fact that one of her earliest and most important act in life was to cross the river from the fiefs into Elantra.
Now, this is a good reading rule to put in there because I think Kaylin would come across as a Mary Sue for all the broke rules in her wake. But when you understand that there is a deliberate force behind that, it becomes less annoying.
Not to mention that it also adds a depth of tension throughout the novels, because not all barriers, rules, and boundaries are bad. Some are very good, but if it is always Kaylin's place to break them, then it become interesting to see what happens when she has no choice but to tear down the walls that even she herself likes and relies on.
But none of these rules contradict or undermine the surface story. The subtext does not battle with the text. They work in harmony together. One adds depth to the other. Thus, the story, in my estimation, is Good.
In contrast, there are Bad stories, and their reading rules tell a different tale. Let's use Lori Handeland's Any Given Doomsday as an example.
The reading rules in Lori Handeland's book shred the text early on. The first rule is that the heroine is the Center of the Known Universe. You can tell this because everything in the book overlaps only through her. Things are weighed only in their relevance to her. The reader isn't even given explanations for things until it comes time for the heroine to angst and/or wax witty about them.
Every thing that happens in the book is only for the purposes of making our heroine look good. Thus, she can never look bad. Which means you can kiss any chance of being able to identify with her goodbye. Unflawed gems make for wonderful jewelry and terrible characters.
Second rule is that the heroine is protected from all things and will never suffer anything Really Bad directly. People die around her, but the heroine is never besieged by grief that paralyzes and robs her of her senses or her "snark". I put that in quotation because to call her wittiness snark is an insult to Snarkiness as an institution.
Every conflict in the book comes out in her favor. Her ex-beau betrayed her, well he comes back into town determined to be her protector and, of course, to make out with her. A demonic cougar attacks, and she not only has Amazing! Gymnastics! Skills!, but an amulet around her neck (not ever mentioned before) that protects her from the demonic spirit trying to possess her. Demons are looking to end the world, but it's Ruthie who dies and not her, even though she's unconscious and very vulnerable for a long time.
She's not mauled viciously and left with hideous scars. She doesn't get an arm hacked off. She doesn't die (unfortunately).
So while the author is trying very hard to convince me that I should be tense, excited, and a bit scared by the various conflicts the heroine goes into, I know it's a sham. Because her reading rules have already told me that I can yawn and flip to the end of the fight scene, because there's nothing to worry about. The heroine is always protected.
Not to mention that the author has already shown me that I shouldn't get too interested in the world surrounding the heroine, since nothing gets to stand on it's own. Everything in the book is in service to the heroine.
Most of the stuff that I learned in college literature courses, I've mostly forgotten. In my defense, most of it wasn't that useful or even interesting. But the reading rules have always stuck with me, because even if your only purpose is to just sit down and enjoy a book, reading rules help. They enhance the flavor of the story. Although if the story is crap-flavored, then you're in trouble.
My hope is that one day I'll even get smart enough to be able to conscious manipulate them in my writing, thus telling a better story.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 08:23 pm (UTC)By the by, he was actually quite a nice guy, but he had one of those minds that just refused to let people's squeamishness matter to him at all. He didn't seem to believe in backing down from the less pleasant facets of human nature, either.
I love people like that.
And I've never heard it called "reading rules" but I think I'm going to call it that from now on, because it's the best name for them I've heard so far.