Kevin wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2005, at 3:25 AM, Charlie
wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > So you've created these fictional people, and
now
> you're imposing
> > your own sense of modesty on them. How true
are
> your characters now?
> > How real can they be, with that
constraint?
>
> Sorry, Charlie, but this is fiction, it's
not
> "real."
My idea of fiction reflects the real world to some degree.
That's the kind of fiction I like, personally. I hear there
are other kinds. You can keep them.
> Real life doesn't have to be believable or full
of
> great dialogue.
> Fiction does. If writers wrote the way most
people
> actually speak,
> nobody would bother reading.
I never said that writers should write the way most people
actually speak. My thrust was that a writer should not have
his characters speak the way he himself speaks (hence my
words: "imposing your own sense of modesty on them").
> A good writer is always editing himself,
tailoring
> his work for his or
> her readers, trying to tell the story he wants
to
> tell without losing
> his audience. It's part of the creative
process,
> this distilling
> reality and re-presenting it as fiction. A
writer
> who only writes for
> himself is almost surely going to get the
audience
> he desires.
>
> And a writer who is always whining "but it
happened
> in real life" to
> justify some complete leap in logic or some
excess
> or another, is
> probably not going to gather much of an
audience
> either.
Kevin, what can I say, thanks for the education. And there I
was, going along, writing characters exactly as I hear people
speak in real life, not once considering that I could employ
my own critical judgement on the words I'm writing
down.
> > And getting sideways of the issue a bit...
We're
> crime readers and
> > writers, right? We read and write about people
who
> kill, steal,
> > torture, maim, defraud, assault, rape, jay
walk,
> etc... Pardon me for
> > being controversial, but I think those guys
and
> gals may well indulge
> > in ripe lingo at times. Bad actions, bad
language
> - which is more
> > acceptable? Is "I'll cut your balls off"
more
> acceptable than "I'll
> > cut your fucking balls off"?
>
> Without knowing anything about the
character
> speaking, it's hard to
> tell. But adding "fucking" doesn't add much to
the
> dialogue in this
> case, as far as I can see.
Again, my point was that compaints about (or silent aversion
to) the use of "fucking" (or whatever) in crime fiction
should be put into context: crime fiction is full of bad
stuff. How is a bit of bad language a problem?
Not once in my email did I suggest that "fucking" (or
whatever) should be spliced into a writer's text at every
opportunity. Not once did I advocate swear words for their
own sake. I argued that swear words in themselves should not
be censored away just because they are swear words.
You know, I don't disagree with anything you say. But you
didn't have to take me completely out of context to say it. I
can see how much you enjoyed it though, so I guess I don't
mind.
> And don't worry about
> being controversial --
> you're not.
Cheers,
Charlie Williams.
www.charliewilliams.net
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> What would our lives be like
without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the
arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Mar 2005 EST