Holly Lisle vs. RTD

[rabid1st]

Holly Lisle has an ax to grind against what she terms GLS, Genuis-Level Suckitude. She points out that many Pulitzer Prize winning works actually suck. And she's right about that, in my less than humble opinion. But her rules for Suckitude have a particularly telling rule for most of the SciFi "genius" writers out there. She has a rule against hope and one against coherence. There is even a rule against plot. But I immediately think of Rose and Donna and for that matter the Tenth Doctor when I read this rule...

XII. Thou shalt equate self-determination with heresy.

Self-determination is hope on steroids. Self-determination states that things could be better than they are, and believes the individual can do something to make them get better. In permitting your characters to express self-determination, you would be suggesting that your characters -- those malcontent bastards -- might in some way wish to see their worlds improve, or might even take a hand in improving them, or might have confidence in their own competence or the functioning of their own minds.

Read the rest of the rules or more stuff by Holly Lisle at her site...

http://hollylisle.com/index.php/Workshops/how-to-write-suckitudinous-fiction.html

Comments

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Whoops! That was me with the long explanation there.

[thisficklemob.livejournal.com]

I think you meant it in the "I shall keel you with my angst" way, but only for the one story. *g*

And, Booker Prize. Not Book Prize. I are Englush majer.

I haven't read Olive Kitteridge, but I can actually imagine a book about stagnant and petty people being well-written... because not everybody does move in a positive direction. But you have to have insight into how people think.

One book that does rather follow the "no heroes" rule that I really liked was The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood. It's a retelling of The Odyssey from Penelope's POV, and I started off thinking it was going to be a "Odysseus is a dickbag" story, because, um, that's kind of obvious to anyone who reads the original with even a bit of feminist sensibilities. But, she didn't take the easy way and make Penelope the noble and hard-done-by wife of the original, either; it made them both flawed humans.

But, there is plot. And theme. And such. *g*

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Yes, well it is more than not moving in a positive direction. It is the ability to inspire the readers to care about that stagnation. The complete stagnation of the entire writing process is what sets us off, I think.

I always return to Gone With The Wind where we find a lot of petty characters who end up much the same as when they started the book, despite many character developing plot points. I think what makes that ART is that the writer understands what she is saying about these people and their world view. She doesn't keep the people sheltered from the events...instead, she shows us that these people are coping in a way that is natural to them, by refusing to accept the reality of their circumstances.

That is a completely different kettle of fish, in my view, than simply thinking that recording Scarlett's lack of development is all you need to do as a writer. Saying Scarlett is selfish, look at her being petty here, can you believe it? doesn't really help us understand selfishness. Put another way, Scarlett behaves as she does because that is part of the story and her lack of development is all the more tragic because she is a more complex character, too. If all she'd been was selfish and childish and nothing had happened to her, I think she would have quickly faded from our memory.