I read all the entries. I keep reading them as they appear.
Most of them are quite interesting, sometimes surprising, and most of all, almost all of them are technically excellent.
I recall how hard it was to cast my vote on one single entry when I was asked, when all contestants were asked (by Jason) to name one, just one for the 'Reader's Choice' Award. I have my favourites now and choosing will be tough again.
Stories I like strike a chord within me. I marvel at the story AND the way it is told.
Because the way is just as much important.
I don't think there's any doubt that bad writing makes any *insert adjective here (heartbreaking/clever/intelligent/surprising/warming/charming)* story bad/dull/uninteresting/hard-to-chew.
Yet, there are stories where writing is brilliant, and a complete galore of technical skills are displayed. The WAY the story is told gets into one's mind and lingers within. It makes you think, it gets under your skin. That is right, except that the premise and the characters are sick.
No, I don't wish to re-run my whinges about disgusting characters and subjects. I did that part a while ago here.
I'm into a more general thing now: I happen to believe that we are wired for the need to feel catharsis when reading. A climax, a solution. To see the bad punished, to be left with something that eases any pain that had been created, to see the 'good' remain happy after all, and so on.
At the same time I'd like to point out that ambiguity is quite fine with me and it is almost a must in some of the genres.
Rotten characters, evil actions, a no-winner-no-hope situation DOES have an effect on the reader. In most of the times, the effect can be a bigger one than that of a reassuring and calm story. I think most of us are mischievous like that.
So, what's up with that?
You've been exposed and experienced a shock/terror. It reached your guts for sure. The experience is strong. Is this called a 'great' experience? Do we really, really NEED for SUCH experiences?
While most writers want to get the attention of the readers, to really shake them, I do think the WAY writers achieve his/her goal matters.
Do you know the saying that translates to something like: 'the objective endorses the method'.
I think this is one of the biggest lies in history.
6 megjegyzés:
Wow. Good post. I like that you put so much thought into your vote and have stated your likes and dislikes so articulately.
I want to vote, but with NaNoWriMo I'm not sure I have the time to read all the entries.
Strugglingwriter,
oh yes I read them and re-read some of them once or twice again to get a better picture.
The more I read the more I appreciate Jason's work...It is really hard to decide!
I see how NaNo interferes with reading all the entries, yes, that must be difficult.
I already have more than 5 I like very much.
And I have not yet read entries above number 43.
I like your use of the word "whinges." It's a British term, rarely used in the
States, but conveys more meaning than "whines."
I both agree and disagree with the following:
"While most writers want to get the attention of the readers, to really shake them, I do think the WAY writers achieve his/her goal matters.
"Do you know the saying that translates to something like: 'the objective endorses the method'.
"I think this is one of the biggest lies in history."
I haven't read any of the stories you mention, but I have a feeling I know what kind of "shock" you're refering to--mainly the kind of graphic violence that's so common in popular fiction. And if that's the case, I agree. But sometimes it's necessary to shock readers. Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" is pretty shocking, at least when read for the first time. But it's surely the truest of war novels.
Sometimes shock can work the wrong way--Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" to tell of the plight of packinghouse workers. But Americans weren't shocked at that, but at the story of unsanitary food production. Sinclair said something like, "I aimed for America's heart, and hit her in the stomach."
Steve,
re:whinge
It must be in the phonetics. When I write English, I usually hear the words as well.
Re: shock - is it necessary?
Yes, there are reasons to have a need to shock, I agree. But the means the writer uses to achieve that shock is important just as well.
To shock the reader just for the sake of shocking is useless.
Also, I tend to feel that there is a fine line between necessary and unnecessary evil in stories.
The American version of the saying is, "the ends justifies the means". Yes, it is incorrect, and most of the cases I can think of in which people say it are to state that it's wrong.
Thank you Paca, for the American version!
Megjegyzés küldése