[DreamerM]

We're discussing art here, not hard facts. There isn't really a wrong answer. Certainly it's just as silly a standard to dismiss someone's opinion purely because they dislike Rowling.

Dismissing someone's opinion because that someone dislikes Rowling has more to do with differing priorities rather then standards. The person in question disparged Rowling's "self-insertion" into her own stories, which told me that their preferences as regards to storytelling are so far removed from my own as to be utterly inconsequential to my mind.

Keep in mind that this person never explained why he had a problem with self-insertion, or what made him believe that Rowling was guilty of it (I personally don't believe she is, as her central character may be a noble, self-sacrificing heroic ideal, but he is not a projection of her own personal fantasy self.) She was guilty of many things, like the gross overuse of Deux Ex Machina devices, but I don't think self-insertion was one of them. That someone would assert otherwise, without support, as though it was common knowledge, sparks off my skepticism and leads me to the conclusion that the party in question is, shall we say, full of it.

Nobody's saying the story was bad or that Yahtzee shouldn't write more. All anyone did was explain where the story fell short for them - it's called constructive criticism, and every creative endeavour needs it.

Agreed. However, the key word here is "constructive." Someone asserting that MSN cannot be mentioned by name because it destroys some fantasy, or that (most alarming of all in my own opinion) that comedy, drama, and horror cannot be mixed the way Yahtzee tries to is advocating the destruction of the very things that I most enjoy about his writing.

As a writer, he's very ambitious. It'd be easy for someone like him to just string jokes together and call it a story, but he actually seems to aspire to take us somewhere, and use comedy, wit, drama, and horror to do it. If his execution falls a bit short of the mark it's only because he's aiming so damn high.

Although I'm sure he doesn't need us to tell him which advice to take and which to ignore.

Agreed.

Speak for yourself, please.

I don't really see how I can do anything else. Still, it's easier to operate on the assumption that "I'm Right" then the opposite.

And while I do agree that drama meshed with comedy can work really well, I'm not sure anyone was saying it couldn't. I think it's more that Yahtzee's particular attempt at blending them here didn't work as well as it could have.

It was not the situation that was humorous, there was nothing really funny in the story itself. The comedy came from the narrator's voice; his wit and dry aggravation at the predicament he found himself in.

That's the tricky thing about first-person narrators. If they react to their situation with humor, then that's what we see, if they react with soul-killing despair, that's what we see. If the character is generally ambivalent, concerned but more for themselves then anything else, that sets the tone for the entire story.

[Sniffles]

Perhaps, but the Japs have grown a lot more proficient in it, amongst other things. This has been their universal tactic: see what the other people are good at, learn it well and one-up them. I can't think of any recent American horror film that was actually any good.

Well, lazy Americunts do have this horrible compulsion to remake every Japanese horror movie they hear of or at least shamelessly rip one off at any chance they get, but that doesn't mean the Japanese are better than Americans at it. If you ask me, the Japanese have their own bad habits as far as horror, or any cinema, goes. Americans may have their generic slasher nonsense, but the Japanese have their black-haired-crazy-girl-does-atrocious-things-so-let's-use-gore-and/or-kids-to-disturb-these-feeble-roundeyes thing. That may be a bit specific, but I can think of about four Japanese movies that stick to that criteria. American horror and Japanese horror are two pretty different topics, all in all, so I don't think you can accurately say which is better. Although I agree that there would be no Japanese horror without American, or at least Western, influence.


Jesus, guys, you scared away Yahtzee! And I was gonna make cappuccino. You ruin everything!


Fuck da police.

This post has been edited by Sniffles: 10 March 2008 - 06:16 PM

[Gobbler]

My, my, aren't we a fountain of douchbaggery.

Keep in mind that this person never explained why he had a problem with self-insertion...

I have a problem with it when it becomes too obvious and disrupts the flow of the story.

, or what made him believe that Rowling was guilty of it (I personally don't believe she is, as her central character may be a noble, self-sacrificing heroic ideal, but he is not a projection of her own personal fantasy self.)

It's not the main topic, but okay, if you insist.
Try to think a bit further there, protagonists aren't the only way to do self-insertion. Here, someone else already demonstrated her point with which I can mostly agree.
Particularly the points mentioned at 4:33 PM and 7:25 PM, if it please you.

Agreed. However, the key word here is "constructive." Someone asserting that MSN cannot be mentioned by name because it destroys some fantasy, or that (most alarming of all in my own opinion) that comedy, drama, and horror cannot be mixed the way Yahtzee tries to is advocating the destruction of the very things that I most enjoy about his writing.

We found it to be disturbing and discussed ways to avoid this and improve his style of writing - you may or you may not agree, but destructive criticism still looks different in my book.

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 10 March 2008 - 06:29 PM

[Game Over]

Jesus, guys, you scared away Yahtzee!

Possibly to avoid PTSD.

[DreamerM]

My, my, aren't we a fountain of douchbaggery.

We being who? You and I, or is that a royal "we?"

I certainly hope I can make my point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, as by the time those make the scene, any sort of intelligent discourse is usually over.

I have a problem with it when it becomes too obvious and disrupts the flow of the story.

In what way did it do that?

We found it to be disturbing and discussed ways to avoid this and improve his style of writing - you may or you may not agree, but destructive criticism still looks different in my book.

Again the term "we." Royalty again?

"Disturbing" is an awfully strong word to describe such things, and your "ways to improve his style of writing" were awfully vague. You did not flame, but neither

I'll reiterate that none of this is supposed to be a personal, direct attack and perhaps it would be better for both of us to just agree to disagree.

[Gobbler]

In what way did it do that?

Generally, Trilby being a Mary Sue.

Again the term "we." Royalty again?

Read the chatlog again, I trust that you will find it not to be a monologue.

"Disturbing" is an awfully strong word to describe such things, and your "ways to improve his style of writing" were awfully vague. You did not flame, but neither

My take on it is, that it can already be helpful to identify problems and maybe giving a hint into the right direction. I'm not a professional writer, I do not claim to be possessed by the only truth there is, and I certainly cannot be buggered to do other people's work.
As coincidence has it, I actually expect people to have the decency to further use their own mind and creativity if they should choose to listen to me, instead of me having to dictate their every action or spell each chatlog out thrice for them.

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 10 March 2008 - 10:51 PM

[DreamerM]

Generally, Trilby being a Mary Sue.

The male term for Mary Sue is Gary Stu, just for the record, and you misuse the term, as Mary/Gary are fan-born creations in which the author inserts an idealistic persona of themselves into an established cannon who then proceeds to forever occupy the minds, for good or bad, of all the central characters, usually charming or seducing them along the way.

Saying Trilby is a Gary Stu is kind of like saying Harry Potter is as well: he's not a fan-wank, he's an original character with whom the author (and by extention, the reader) most identifies and is thus used primarily as the window into the story's primary world. I really don't care if the narrator has the same taste in hats as the author, as long as both the character and the story he's telling me are interesting.

Read the chatlog again, I trust that you will find it not to be a monologue.

I never suggested it was, it just appeared to me that one person speaking in mass for a group of independent individuals was rather unreliable. Unless it's a political rally.

My take on it is, that it can already be helpful to identify problems and maybe giving a hint into the right direction. I'm not a professional writer, I do not claim to be possessed by the only truth there is, and I certainly cannot be buggered to do other people's work.
As coincidence has it, I actually expect people to have the decency to further use their own mind and creativity if they should choose to listen to me, instead of me having to dictate their every action or spell each chatlog out thrice for them.

I don't think anyone was asking you to do their work, but it doesn't matter.

Peace treaty, man. Agree to disagree?

[eflatmajor]

Why didnt he look at any doors!?

Some how i cant imagine Tribly as the friendly co-worker or the type of guy to seclude himself in darkness so he can think. Its a little out of character but then again its hard to imagine him out of any situation where he isnt in mortal peril or a risky situation

oh and two times out of ten? Simplify your fractions man!!!

This post has been edited by eflatmajor: 11 March 2008 - 05:07 AM

[Caffeine]

Awesome!
More please.

[David-kyo]

The male term for Mary Sue is Gary Stu, just for the record, and you misuse the term, as Mary/Gary are fan-born creations in which the author inserts an idealistic persona of themselves into an established cannon

Ha, ha.

[smartarse]But just to clarify, a Mary-Sue or a Gary Stu does not necessarily have to be a character in fan-fiction, it can exist in completely original works as well. The name merely refers to the fact that he/she is too perfect to be true.[/smartarse]
Of course, works of fan-fiction are universally considered shit by people who have any sense, and inserting Mary Sues into a literary work is also a shitty idea, so I see what you mean.

This post has been edited by David-kyo: 11 March 2008 - 12:33 PM

[DreamerM]

[smartarse]But just to clarify, a Mary-Sue or a Gary Stu does not necessarily have to be a character in fan-fiction, it can exist in completely original works as well. The name merely refers to the fact that he/she is too perfect to be true.[/smartarse]
Of course, works of fan-fiction are universally considered shit by people who have any sense, and inserting Mary Sues into a literary work is also a shitty idea, so I see what you mean.

Mary Sues in original context are more universally known as Author Surrogates or Author Characters. And the damning thing about Mary Sues is not that they are author insertions, it's that they are usually bad characters: too perfect and too powerful to be sympathetic or engaging. They're never sufficently challenged. It's alright to have a powerful main character as long as you also have even-more-powerful enemies to oppose them.

Say what you will about Trilby's author-insertion characteristics, but Yahtzee's never stepped down from really putting him through the wringer. Hell, even the ghost kid, who was harmless, was a genuine problem.

And yes, Cannon. My spelling suxorz the big1111.

[FFreak3]

Sorry I failed to congratulate, thank and such things, Yahtzee for actually writing for the website for once.

My computer was offline because the hard drive blew up.

Thanks yahtzee.

/me goes to read the rest of the thread

[FFreak3]

you pretentious ****tards.

It's a story, it amuses me, if someone would write one of these every day, I'd start visiting their site. After a while, i might request a book or donate cash or something. Thus, it is every bit as great as I need it to be, and Yahtzee has nearly perfectly fulfilled my expectations of a superior blogpost

End of Message.

[DreamerM]

you pretentious ****tards.

Hear him, for he speaks truth!

Sorry about that.

[Ghello]

I liked it, though I do agree Greg was a tad sterotypical, he kinda reminded me of that movie Lucas.

I couldn't figure out what MoO ment right away either, though, since Trilby was the narrator, you can't argue. It would've been redundant writing "Ministry of Occult" over and over in his journals, so he shortened it, I don't see why acronyms are so bad.