Why Didn't You...

[Philip Overby]

New blog entry by Mark Lawrence that I felt was an interesting read. He responds in part to readers who criticize the way he tells his stories and the worlds he tells them in. Part of his criticism against, well, criticism is that he prefers to work within the boundaries of fantasy as it was laid out before him and doesn't want to delve into putting messages into his work or shoehorning something in to please a certain crowd. Worth a read I think.

Mark Lawrence: Why didn't you...

Do you feel the need to get really deep into original world-building for the fear that readers may not what to see a "typical" fantasy settings? Or do you try to distance yourself from what was done before to attempt to stand out from the crowd? (Lawrence thinks characters are most important to stand out, not necessarily the setting, unless I'm interpreting his post wrong).

 

[Scalvi]

I worldbuild because I like worldbuilding. When a story needs a new setting, I make it. Although I do agree with his talk about not making silly additions like changing precise measurements and descriptive terms.

 

[Trick]

I definitely want an original world but not at the expense of reader interest. How far can it be taken? People complain that he uses real-world historical gender roles, why not complain that he has "men" and "women"?

"He could have made everyone asexual and made such a great sociological point!" Who frickin cares... He did not write THAT book.

For myself, I play with measurement, monetary and time systems because it's fun but if they were the focus of the story, honestly if they intruded at all, only I would read my work.

I get the strange feeling that the people who ask these questions and have these complaints couldn't write a book to save their lives. Those who can't do, criticize.

 

[Svrtnsse]

One of my beta readers is occasionally commenting on how a family I'm describing in my story is conforming to outdated gender stereotypes.
Strictly speaking, she's right. This is something I could address and I could mix it up and I could make the traditional family structure of the anfylk into something that in no way corresponds to anything even remotely resembling anything in the real world. I could, but I don't want to.
This isn't because I want to preserve current real world gender stereotypes or because the issue isn't important to me. What I want is for the family described to be an easily understandable and relatable fixture in the story. It's something to anchor the reader to the world with. The family functions in a way I believe most readers will understand and be able to relate to (but not necessarily approve of). It's idyllic and idealised. It IS a stereotype.

As a writer, I like stereotypes - from a purely technical perspective. Stereotypes are a shortcut to the reader's imagination. The reader may not approve of the stereotypes and they may not enjoy them, but they will almost certainly be aware of them. They understand the stereotype and can relate to them.
Through clever use of stereotypes I can give my world a greater sense of depth.

This doesn't mean I approve of real world stereotypes and I don't want to cement them or appear as if I support them.

I'd like to think that the Female (capital F) in my story breaks the mould in a positive way. I try to make her a unique and distinct individual, with her own issues and and her own personality. She's not just there as a trophy to be swept off her feet by my male protagonist.

I may continue this post/rant later. Something's come up.

 

[ScipioSmith]

I get the strange feeling that the people who ask these questions and have these complaints couldn't write a book to save their lives. Those who can't do, criticize.

The best of such critics do, at least, admit that: they can't write the stories they want to read, so they try and get other people to write them instead. The problem is when it becomes prescriptive. I didn't much care for Prince of Thorns, I only read it all the way through because I got it for nothing, but the fact that he didn't write a book I liked is no more his problem than the fact that he beat out my preferred choice for the David Gemmell Award is a condemnation of the prize or the voting process.

Taste is taste and that's all there is to say on the matter.

 

[Mythopoet]

I don't know. I've never read any of Mark Lawrence's books so I can't judge his reasoning against his actually work, but this post doesn't ring true for me as a writer or a reader.

His first "reason":

Asking me why the story does X or Y feels, on this end of the question, as meaningless as asking my why I dreamed of an eagle over a forest last night rather than a crocodile in a swamp.

Just doesn't hold water. We have no control over what we dream. Is he really suggesting that he has no control over what he writes? Does he just sit down at his computer and let words flow forth in a stream of subconsciousness and then send the manuscript off to his agent immediately without any more work? Because that's the only way this analogy makes any sense. Come on now, most writers revise and edit multiple times before actually submitting their work and readers know it. (At least, readers who actually care enough to ask the author directly why he did one thing instead of another are certainly aware that writing a book is a process.) The first draft is usually very different from the final published work. It's different because the author makes changes, either of his own volition or at the behest or editor or agent. These changes are made for reasons and not just "that's the way it flowed from my imagination directly to the page, man".

When a reader asks "Why did you write this thing in your book rather than another thing?" they are asking why the author chose to include that thing in the finished, published book rather than another. It's a valid question most of the time. Almost every time I have wondered something of this nature it has been because, to me, the book seemed to be naturally leading to one thing rather than the thing that actually happened. Or perhaps I felt the author set up a certain expectation and then didn't fulfill it. I can't speak for the people who have questioned Mark, but I think when a reader asks such a question they deserve a more honest answer. "Because that's the way I wanted to write it" would be more honest than "who knows where thoughts come from; they just appear!" (And major kudos to anyone who gets that reference.)

His second "reason" seems to essentially be "I need my readers to do most of the imaginative work for me (thus undermining his previous point) but I can't actually trust them to do it without getting confused."

I have no problem with anyone writing the stories that they want to write however they want to write them. However, I think he's underestimating readers and overlooking a large portion of the fantasy readership. There are many, many fantasy readers (I'm one of them) who love fantasy for the worldbuilding, for the fact that you get to experience a world different from this one. We take pleasure in learning about zoob fruit and microts and the like. When we read about a world where the north is the arid desert and the south is a freezing glue jungle we don't stop to compare it to our world and assess the author's cleverness, we just immerse ourselves in the world for what it is. The more imaginative the world the more we delight in it. No, we don't want characters to fall by the wayside in favor of worldbuilding. We're of the opinion that in depth worldbuilding and great characterization can go hand in hand. And we enjoy a story much more when they do.

It's fine for an author to say, "Look, this is the kind of story I like to write. I want to focus on characters, not worldbuilding." But it bothers me when writers act like doing in depth worldbuilding results in less depth in other areas by default or when they don't even seem to recognize that in depth worldbuilding is the major draw of fantasy for many readers. When it comes down to it, I could find books with great characterization in any genre, but fantasy is the only genre that gives me magical worlds. For me, that's the draw and that's what makes it fantasy.

 

[Philip Overby]

Lawrence has stated before that he doesn't edit (or there is very minimal editing in any case). So his statement about "words just coming out" would be true in some sense. I do agree that writers have control over what they write to a large degree. But there is the case of an idea taking hold of you and not leaving you alone until you write it. I've had that happen, so I can understand that aspect.

I also like fantasy with a lot of world-building, but I think what he is getting at is that readers want him to subvert the genre and do all manner of world-builidng he doesn't want to do as a writer. We see lots of questions around here about elves and orcs and the like and the answer that almost always comes out is "Do what you want." I think Lawrence is comfortable working in the world he created and isn't so much interested in some of the other aspects that some readers seem to want to thrust upon him.

I look at it like this. If someone said to me, "Phil, your writing is too weird. Make it simpler and put more standard fantasy races in it and you'll have something." I would say, "OK, cool, thanks for your opinion" and keep writing the same way I have been. Some things about a writer can change gradually, but I don't think the genre's conventions should all be changed. They exist for a reason. Some people like them.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I haven't actually seen the questions this guy's been asked, but reading the article I got the feeling the suggestions he's referring to are of the kind that would have required some rather big changes to the story - or a completely different story.

Without having read his books, or the suggestions/questions he's received, it's pretty hard to say.

Do you feel the need to get really deep into original world-building for the fear that readers may not what to see a "typical" fantasy settings? Or do you try to distance yourself from what was done before to attempt to stand out from the crowd? (Lawrence thinks characters are most important to stand out, not necessarily the setting, unless I'm interpreting his post wrong).

I've put a lot of effort into world building. The main reason for this isn't to create an atypical, original, setting and it's not to distance myself from what other writers are doing. Those are reasons too, but the main reason is that it helps me add life and depth to my story.
I want my setting to be more than just a pretty backdrop. I want the reader to experience it as a living, breathing, world - as a place they'd like to visit. I believe that to achieve this, it's important that I as a writer am very familiar with the world. I can't just mix up some elves and a dash of magic and a dragon and a horde of hobgoblins. The world has to make sense and for it to do that I need to know how it works - so I do a lot of world building.

I also think, that it doesn't much matter what kind of world it is. I could achieve the same depth in a bog standard fantasy world if I put the same effort into it. I could make the reader feel the same desire to visit the place if I did (provided I'm a good enough writer, but let's assume for the sake of the argument that I am).

So yes, I feel the need to get really deep into the world building; not to be original and different, but to provide a better reading experience. If the characters in my world feel real and believable, it doesn't matter if they're hobbits or anfylk.


EDIT: I should point out that the anfylk were originally called hobbits. On the surface, the difference is negligible. I changed the name once I realised that the word hobbit was trademarked.
I think that there are enough sub-surface differences that once the reader gets to know them, they'll have a good feeling for how hobbits and anfylk really aren't the same at all - even if it looks like it at first glance.

 

[Feo Takahari]

This topic always weirds me out, because there's a massive assumption no one ever seems to bring up. The way I look at it is that the more elements you add to the world, the more complicated and difficult to write it is. The way it's typically assumed is that the more different the world is from other worlds folks have written, the more difficult to write it is.

I don't want to make this just about gender roles, since it's a small part of the post, but I think it's a good example of the issue. If I have something meaningful or interesting to say about gender roles, I take the effort to write a society with gender roles and realistically work out how that would affect the characters. If I have nothing to say about gender in that story, I don't bother giving the society any gender roles and save myself the work. But if someone gets in an argument about gender roles with an author or an author's fans, the assumption seems to be that writing a patriarchal society is easier than writing an egalitarian one, apparently on the grounds that patriarchal societies are a thing that's often written. To put it starkly, the only way that makes sense to me is if you're blandly copying other writers' societies without any regard for the specific factors of mortality, religion, cultural exchange, etc. at work in your setting.

Obviously, this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with writing a fantasy setting that mimics other fantasy settings. Some factors like climate may necessarily involve mimicry. (As some critic remarked of Eragon, "Has Paolini ever heard of a rain shadow?") But if we're just talking in terms of what's easy and what's not, the question shouldn't be "Why didn't you," it should be "Why did you?" For what reason did you choose to follow in others' footsteps?

 

[Jabrosky]

Do you feel the need to get really deep into original world-building for the fear that readers may not what to see a "typical" fantasy settings? Or do you try to distance yourself from what was done before to attempt to stand out from the crowd? (Lawrence thinks characters are most important to stand out, not necessarily the setting, unless I'm interpreting his post wrong).

Most of the time when world-building, I simply put into my world whatever appeals to me personally. My interests are not always the same as the stereotypical fantasy fan, so I'd like to think my settings stand out from those of most other writers. In the end what really matters is what I like.

 

[Trick]

...if someone gets in an argument about gender roles with an author or an author's fans, the assumption seems to be that writing a patriarchal society is easier than writing an egalitarian one, apparently on the grounds that patriarchal societies are a thing that's often written...

I think it's actually on the grounds that Medieval Europe was patriarchal as is/was a lot of the real world. I got the impression people were asking him why he used real-world stereotypes when he could have imagined a better society. If the complaint were that he used things from others' books it would imply he's unoriginal which, though possibly insulting, doesn't really matter.

In my opinion, anything that does not feature prominently in my work needs to be practically invisible and one way to do this is to use real world norms, whether they're good or bad. If I have a pimp beating a hooker in the background of a scene and it fits the atmosphere of the book, it will only draw the reader's attention away if I point out that the pimp is a woman and the hooker is a man. That sort of juxtaposition could be a book in and of itself but I have no interest in writing it. All power to someone who does.

 

[Feo Takahari]

In my opinion, anything that does not feature prominently in my work needs to be practically invisible and one way to do this is to use real world norms, whether they're good or bad. If I have a pimp beating a hooker in the background of a scene and it fits the atmosphere of the book, it will only draw the reader's attention away if I point out that the pimp is a woman and the hooker is a man. That sort of juxtaposition could be a book in and of itself but I have no interest in writing it. All power to someone who does.

This might be a stupid question, but what sort of atmosphere would you say it fits? Or to put it another way, if you were writing a book that had a pimp beating a hooker in the background, what would it be a book about? I think I might agree with you to a point.

 

[Trick]

My MC is a thief employed by a mobster who also owns brothels and employs pimps. Does that answer the question?

My point isn't that gender roles can't be represented differently or eliminated completely in a fictional book, just that I am not currently trying to open that can of worms and it doesn't seem like Mark Lawrence wants to either.

 

[Feo Takahari]

My MC is a thief employed by a mobster who also owns brothels and employs pimps. Does that answer the question?

My point isn't that gender roles can't be represented differently or eliminated completely in a fictional book, just that I am not currently trying to open that can of worms.

Agh. I think I know what I want to express, but I can't find the words for it. Maybe I can explain it by example . . .

I have a story called Eternal that's all about the concept of sin. One idea I wanted to address was sexual sin, and I wanted to frame that as blatant bigotry, so I wrote a villain who has seriously messed-up ideas about men, women, and lust. There's nothing unusual or unexpected about the villain's ideas other than their extremity and vehemence, and I guess you could say that I agree with you in that sense--in that particular case, I didn't want to make things more complicated.

I'm currently writing a story called Chitin that's all about personal identity. I have some things to say in that story about bodily integrity, but nothing specifically about gender roles, and I didn't think adding issues of gender would do anything to improve the story or make it more meaningful. In that story, I don't address gender roles in any way. Again, I don't make things more complicated than they need to be.

I've never written a story that had a female pimp and a male hooker, because I don't have anything specifically to say about such a thing. I did once write a male pimp and a male hooker to avoid overcomplicating a plot by adding gender to it, but in general, I'm not trying to "reverse expectations." That's not what I'm talking about. I just want to put things to use, and not put them in if I don't use them for anything meaningful.

Does any of that make sense? (This is a big part of why I try to show this stuff instead of tell it--every time I try to tell my ideas, I wind up using the wrong words and getting people arguing against something I don't actually mean.)

P.S. For what it's worth, I'm not accusing you of anything. It sounds like your story puts its violence to use.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Does any of that make sense? (This is a big part of why I try to show this stuff instead of tell it--every time I try to tell my ideas, I wind up using the wrong words and getting people arguing against something I don't actually mean.).

Aye. Sounds pretty much like the point I tried to make with a whole bunch of words, and which trick then made with a whole lot less words.

 

[Trick]

It sounds like you have a very definite idea of the themes in your work and that's commendable. I don't see the themes in my work until I'm at least half way through writing the first draft. My impression of Mark Lawrence's statements is that he doesn't necessarily start out with a theme in mind, just a character. Thus when his themes are questioned he may feel like is intuition is faulty since he didn't plan them. Being a confident, successful author he responds with a 'screw you critic' type of blog post and I would feel similar. This is all conjecture so take this as me explaining how I would react.

In my WIP there is basically a patriarchal society. Since I am not planning on making gender roles a part of my theme (at least not intentionally) I have not done anything differently in that regard than I would expect to see in a similar situation in our world, to avoid distraction from the plot. They, as you said, would be neither meaningful nor useful; at least not in the book I'm writing.

You're right that violence is definitely put to use in my story. In the case of a hooker being beaten by a pimp (in what could be seen as a stereotypical way) my MC has a distinct aversion to men hurting women. A fair fight he would be fine with but not a huge man beating an unarmed, small woman with a cane. He would probably feel less intensely about the pimp beating a small, unarmed male prostitute but still he would stop it, though he would probably pick both of their pockets regardless. I know this is stereotypical but I feel the same way as my MC to a point and if that means part of my belief system is stereotypical, so be it. I live in a patriarchal society so I am most definitely influenced by it as is my writing. I happen to be Irish and there are many stereotypes about my people. The most negative being that we're a bunch of drunks, so not much to combat or complain about in that regard but stereotypes can be good; but even the good ones don't always apply and a lot of the bad ones rarely do.

I think we're agreeing but want to write different things.

 

[Jabrosky]

For my part, while a lot of my settings draw on cultures that were patriarchal in real life, I have no problem modifying those cultures so that my end results are more gender-egalitarian than the sources of their inspiration. Just because a fantasy culture has certain trappings associated with a certain real one doesn't mean it has to perfectly mirror the real culture in every respect. Who says you can't have medieval-style knights and castles without patriarchy?

 

[ScipioSmith]

No one, but that's your choice. I've written a setting based on a mixture of the Roman Empire and Victorian England, but with a greater degree of gender egalitarianism, because half of the story is about a young woman from the respectable working class at court, and I wanted to focus on class politics without diluting it with a lot of gender politics. But I don't agree that there is anything inherently wrong with making different choices if your interests lie in a different direction.