Over at Elizabeth Chadwick's Living the History , there's a nice little article, with some nifty photos(from a "recreated" tournament), about William Marshal. He was an important figure in the "earlier" Middle Ages in England, and his life was quite colorful, among other things. Those interested in medieval history will probably want to read this.
Anne G
Redheaded Neanderlady
This is a photoshopped version of something I found in National Geographic about the time I started researching
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Neandertoddlers?
John Hawks has a two-year-old. And I agree with him --- two year olds are not Neandertals, whatever else they may be. Heck, even Neandertal two year olds probably weren't "Neandertals", though they doubtless wore their parents out! I don't think things have changed that much in 40,000 years. But Harvey Karp, author of a parenting book called The Happiest Toddler On the Block, which came out about four years ago, seems to think otherwise. Really, I don't know why people think later "archaic" humans were all that different from "us", or more "childlike" or whatever. I thought this kind of thinking went out with the 19th century. But apparently I was mistaken, even if, as Dr. Hawks suggests, the guy's parenting advice is perfectly good.
Note: This is a sort of disclaimer. Having parented a two year old myself once upon a time, I can understand the temptation, but no, I repeat: two year olds are not Neandertals!
Anne G
Note: This is a sort of disclaimer. Having parented a two year old myself once upon a time, I can understand the temptation, but no, I repeat: two year olds are not Neandertals!
Anne G
Robert Sawyer on writers and writing types
Robert Sawyer, a science fiction writer I highly respect, has some good definitions of various types of writing. About the only thing I would disagree with him about, is that "literary fiction", which covers a wide variety of "sins" so to speak, tends to be "plotless". My understanding, for whatever it's worth, is that such fiction tends to emphasize character development a lot more than (some) genre fiction. But of course, a lot depends on the writer involved, whether it's "commercial/genre" or "literary".
Anne G
Anne G
Monday, February 4, 2008
writing in the present tense --- again
Those of you who drop by my blog from time to time may have caught my occasional gripes about the increasing number of authors who write in the present tense. I have long been mystified by this apparently spreading trend, but now I think I know one source of its popularity. The answer is --- screenplays. Just last week, I was killing time in a local Borders Book Store, and found the script of a screenplay that had been adapted from some popular novel. Don't ask me which one; I can't remember the title. Just the fact that everything in a screenplay --- like a stage play, only with somewhat different directions --- was written in the present tense!
The reason for this had its beginning about ten or fifteen years ago, when a lot of aspiring writers got the idea that they could make money, and lots of it, by writing screenplays. This just happened to coincide with the widespread adoption of computers and their associated technology; there is now screenplay-writing software on the market. Previously, most "present tense" writing seems to have been confined to some of the more "extreme" literary novels. Now this technique seems to be proliferating everywhere.
Before I get into a more serious critique of this phenomenon, I would like to point out that the venue of a novel or short story is somewhat different from that of a play or a movie. Plenty of stage plays have been "translated" into film, but even that takes some "rearrangement", since, unlike a staged play(for better or worse), the action is continuous; it isn't broken up by intermissions between acts or obvious scene changes. The action simply flows from one scene to another, or so it seems to the moviegoer. "Translating" the written word and fitting it into a film script is even more of a leap; it takes longer to read a sentence than it does to watch actors performing an action on screen. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of these particular media. They are simply different ways of telling a story. But anyone who works with these things has to take the differences into account. I've seen some very good adaptations of novels into film; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and all of the Lord of the Rings films are good examples. But seeing these books "translated" into film is a very different kind of experience than actually reading them. And, siginficantly, both C.S.Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both wrote in past tense.
Now one might object that these authors are an "older genration" that never thought of writing any other way. They would be correct, of course. But you could also argue that any narrative is a retelling of past events, even if the past events being retold are about the reactions, say, of people who witnessed the destruction of the World Trade Center by al-Qaida operatives. In other words, the kind of "you are there" immediacy present tense suggests is at best a device to "get you there".
This works in certain situations; it might work well if the writer is trying to recreate the reactions of those who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, as opposed to the reactions of those who smashed their aircraft into them, or US Muslims who didn't know what to think, for example. It also works well in some books aimed at "young adults", especially if it's about contemporary problems, or purporting to be someone's diary. But I'm not sure a "you are there" technique works quite so well in fiction that is set in some past historical period, yet I've seen an increasing number of authors using this technique, presumably imitating the "immediacy" of a screenplay.
For one thing, it takes a really good writer to pull this off in a compelling way. I haven't, so far, at least, seen any writers who are completely able to do this, with a few partial exceptions. One of them was a novel about a young girl who is thought to be dead, but is really in a coma. While in a comatose state, she starts to become an angel, and does all kinds of things, including influencing the terrorist who threw the bomb that supposedly killed her. Here, a present-tense narrative actually works quite well; the girl is a spirit floating about the city where she was bombed.
But then, a number of historical writers are jumping onto the "present tense" bandwagon. Some of them are trying to be more "literary" than "genre". Others just seem to want to "make history real" by using "screenplay" techniques. What these latter(and perhaps some of the former) writers forget, however, is that narratives from Beowulf onward, were really narrating a slice of the past. In other words, you don't really need this kind of "immediacy" to get people engaged with whatever your character is doing. As long as you, the author adequately describes what the character is doing, with reasonably appropriate motivation, the reader will probably be engaged, if they get past the first few pages(even the first fifty). "Immediacy" is nice, but generally unnecessary in most writing, besides which it can annoy some readers. I can't tell you how many times I've picked up an interesting-looking historical novel, only to put it down because it takes place in some past era, but is written in the present tense. To me, this just gets in the way of the storytelling, and intrudes on the character.
Obviously, the writers who do this, don't feel this way. But I think in the end, writing a book like a screenplay probably won't work as intended in the long run, except, perhaps, in some literary novels and books aimed at young people. Besides, too many writers just don't know what they're doing, but somehow manage to get published anyway. But that's another story, I suppse.
Anne G
The reason for this had its beginning about ten or fifteen years ago, when a lot of aspiring writers got the idea that they could make money, and lots of it, by writing screenplays. This just happened to coincide with the widespread adoption of computers and their associated technology; there is now screenplay-writing software on the market. Previously, most "present tense" writing seems to have been confined to some of the more "extreme" literary novels. Now this technique seems to be proliferating everywhere.
Before I get into a more serious critique of this phenomenon, I would like to point out that the venue of a novel or short story is somewhat different from that of a play or a movie. Plenty of stage plays have been "translated" into film, but even that takes some "rearrangement", since, unlike a staged play(for better or worse), the action is continuous; it isn't broken up by intermissions between acts or obvious scene changes. The action simply flows from one scene to another, or so it seems to the moviegoer. "Translating" the written word and fitting it into a film script is even more of a leap; it takes longer to read a sentence than it does to watch actors performing an action on screen. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of these particular media. They are simply different ways of telling a story. But anyone who works with these things has to take the differences into account. I've seen some very good adaptations of novels into film; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and all of the Lord of the Rings films are good examples. But seeing these books "translated" into film is a very different kind of experience than actually reading them. And, siginficantly, both C.S.Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both wrote in past tense.
Now one might object that these authors are an "older genration" that never thought of writing any other way. They would be correct, of course. But you could also argue that any narrative is a retelling of past events, even if the past events being retold are about the reactions, say, of people who witnessed the destruction of the World Trade Center by al-Qaida operatives. In other words, the kind of "you are there" immediacy present tense suggests is at best a device to "get you there".
This works in certain situations; it might work well if the writer is trying to recreate the reactions of those who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, as opposed to the reactions of those who smashed their aircraft into them, or US Muslims who didn't know what to think, for example. It also works well in some books aimed at "young adults", especially if it's about contemporary problems, or purporting to be someone's diary. But I'm not sure a "you are there" technique works quite so well in fiction that is set in some past historical period, yet I've seen an increasing number of authors using this technique, presumably imitating the "immediacy" of a screenplay.
For one thing, it takes a really good writer to pull this off in a compelling way. I haven't, so far, at least, seen any writers who are completely able to do this, with a few partial exceptions. One of them was a novel about a young girl who is thought to be dead, but is really in a coma. While in a comatose state, she starts to become an angel, and does all kinds of things, including influencing the terrorist who threw the bomb that supposedly killed her. Here, a present-tense narrative actually works quite well; the girl is a spirit floating about the city where she was bombed.
But then, a number of historical writers are jumping onto the "present tense" bandwagon. Some of them are trying to be more "literary" than "genre". Others just seem to want to "make history real" by using "screenplay" techniques. What these latter(and perhaps some of the former) writers forget, however, is that narratives from Beowulf onward, were really narrating a slice of the past. In other words, you don't really need this kind of "immediacy" to get people engaged with whatever your character is doing. As long as you, the author adequately describes what the character is doing, with reasonably appropriate motivation, the reader will probably be engaged, if they get past the first few pages(even the first fifty). "Immediacy" is nice, but generally unnecessary in most writing, besides which it can annoy some readers. I can't tell you how many times I've picked up an interesting-looking historical novel, only to put it down because it takes place in some past era, but is written in the present tense. To me, this just gets in the way of the storytelling, and intrudes on the character.
Obviously, the writers who do this, don't feel this way. But I think in the end, writing a book like a screenplay probably won't work as intended in the long run, except, perhaps, in some literary novels and books aimed at young people. Besides, too many writers just don't know what they're doing, but somehow manage to get published anyway. But that's another story, I suppse.
Anne G
Medieval England was civilized!
Checking around in some of my blog links, I found this fascinating item. It's from Nan Hawthorne's blog about Anglo-Saxon England. About the only thing I might quarrel with, is that the period in question is described as the "Dark Ages". People who study that period shun this characterization, and prefer "Early Middle Ages". The author is also a mystery writer, though I must confess I've neer read her books. OTOH, I think the quiz contained therein, may surprise anybody who wanders in and reads it.
Anne G
Anne G
Getting even more medieval
Just to make up for my absence, enforced by my feeble computer, I'm promoting a link to another medieval site. This one is called The Crispin Guest Blog. Crispin Guest is the hero of a new series of medieval "noir" mysteries. Since his isn't the period I'm working with --- it's late 14th Century England --- I can't verify how accurately the period or the person is portrayed. But a "medieval noir" mystery certainly sounds, well, pretty interesting. And it's good advertising for the series. The author already has two blog entries up, and she just started the blog! Hey, maybe I'll steal that idea, and blog about Illg, Hardwin, et al. But only later on, when my Great Medieval Science Fiction Masterpiece/Epic is closer to completion! I've got lots of work to do on it yet.
Anne G
Anne G
We're getting medieval!
I've been a little slow about blogging lateley. That's because my computer is getting kind of old and cranky, just like a really arthritic old man or woman. Oh well, I've had the thing long enough. Anyway, I've just added a link that's stuffed full of all kinds of medieval novel goodies. Some of them I've read, albeit longer ago than I care to think about. Some of them I merely intend to read. The link has lists of other periods besides medieval, but alas, nothing prehistoric. Well you can't have everything. This wonderful resource for all writing medieval, so to speak, is Historical Novels.info. Should you, gentle reader, decide to visit it, look on the left side at the dropdown menu, and click on "medieval". There you will find a wealth of books for every taste and temperament.
Happy reading,
Anne G
Happy reading,
Anne G
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)