lifeonqueen: (Misc - A Regency lady)
2010-11-02 11:38 pm
Entry tags:

Life Is Too Short to Read Poorly-Researched Fic

Oh, for God's sake - if you're going to write fic set in the 1880s, do some basic bloody research.

Or at least read some Conan Doyle to get a sense for the language and mores of the period. For example, Victorians did not "date" - they paid calls, walked out, attended concerts or evenings at the theatre. If there was a serious prospect of a marriage proposal, they could be referred to as "courting."

Historical fiction isn't about getting the dates right (although I'm very fond of writers who are conscientious in that regard), it's about creating an illusion for your reader of another time and place. Writing historical fiction is every bit as much about universe building as science fiction or fantasy. The difference between a date and a courtship is the difference between the reader imaging your characters meeting for coffee and imagining them taking tea at the Ritz. It's the difference between Han Solo piloting the Millenium Falcon and Han Solo flying a biplane.

Authors need to think about their narrative lexicon and take care before using words related to technology, derived from pop culture or borrowed from other languages to avoid illusion-shattering anachronisms such as Tudor-style cottages on the banks of the Seine or rows of bungalows in the Antebellum South. Likewise, if you're going to make a point of referring to someone's clothing, take five minutes to Google the fashion of the day - there's nothing rebellious about a woman who wears stocking and garters if they were an everyday part of ladies' clothing (showing them to the young gentleman you were walking out with, on the other hand...).
lifeonqueen: (Misc - Stupid Rat Creatures by electricl)
2010-03-22 03:11 am
Entry tags:

Dear Fanfic Writer (Part of a Continuing Series)

If Character A is a trained first responder, shouldn't s/he know that in cases of suspected spinal cord injury you should actually immobilize the neck and keep your victim from moving so they, oh I don't know paralyze themselves?

The whole premise of this fic is that Character B may be paralyzed and Character A is going on about being a trained first responder and yet you have him/her moving someone with suspected spinal injuries without immobilizing their neck and back - because paralyzing our OTL is something we all want to be responsible for.

How many times do I have to say it: GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND. In this case, Google Books excerpts from "Wilderness First Responder" would be your friend.

*headdesk*

eta: found in my archives - "Bad fanfic is a zombie plague that rapes your pets and drinks all your beer.

"*thwuppt*

"Oh, and it also eats your brains."

Still true.
lifeonqueen: (Misc - Sam & Jack)
2010-02-03 06:58 pm

Hump This

Dear STARGATE fanfic that is pissing me off today:

1) An FN P-90 weighs six pounds - 6 - fully loaded (actually about two pounds lighter than the MP5-A5; 3-4 lbs lighter than a standard M-16 and about half the length) - which would be a negligible weight suspended from the four-point sling SG personnel wear. If Carter can carry Teyla, the added weight of the P-90 won't be a problem (hence why real-world police & special operations forces like the gun).

2) This information is available on Wikipedia's P-90 page; it's literally less than 10 seconds work (including load times) to find out the weapon's dimensions. Research - think about doing some. Speaking of which...

3) Carter spent more than 10 years as an SG operator, more often under fire than not. Name one time (in 200+ episodes) she abandoned her weapon while retreating under fire (given that she wears it strapped to her chest).

4) Carter is left caring for a wounded teammate in the middle of a wraith attack and you have her abandon her weapon and field pack - are you kidding me?

Is Carter?

5) This is where I stopped caring reading. Carter is a career military officer, who has more than a decade of combat experience (which would have made her, IRL, one of the most experienced combat veterans in the US military). She is an expert marksman. And because Carter needs to have a less-lethal option, she carries a zat as her personal sidearm. Throwing down with a Wraith in a knife fight when she is fully armed with her P-90 and zat is not cool, it's stupid. Carter would know better* - so should people writing her.

Given her experience, do you think maybe Carter would keep her field pack handy in case she needed to provide first aid, drinking water, extra ammunition, blankets, food - all those things that you need when you suddenly find yourself trapped off-world with injured personnel and Wraith on your ass. So you've either made Carter act the fool by dumping survival gear or by going off-planet with a bunch of useless junk in her field pack. Either way, your fic just jumped the character selachii because Carter would know better (or Amanda Tapping would God-damn well want an explaination why Carter didn't).

Feh.

*A) Never bring a knife to a gunfight. B) Never let your opponent grab you if you can avoid it - jumping on a Wraith's back to stab him in the neck (not how you fight with a knife, btw) definitely puts you in grabby-hands territory.
lifeonqueen: (BSG - Awesome)
2008-01-08 07:30 pm

Class Counts on Queen Street

Those who follow the ever cool, ever useful, ever hysterical romance novel blog Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books know that over the past few days they've discovered a systematic pattern of plagiarism in the works of Cassie Edwards.

They posted what they found (through the work of a third party who found something hinky in the tone of some of the narrative) and the whole thing snowballed from there as more readers got in on the action. I believe the series is now up to five parts, demonstrating habitual plagiarism from secondary sources about Native American life, tribal culture, practices and, I think, flora and fauna of the American West. To be fair to Edwards, she isn't the only author to get hit with this - even Ian McEwan was accused of plagiarizing from the memoir of a WWII nurse-trainee. Quite often in the process of writing, authors will absorb details from real life and spit them out again in prose and the question of what constitutes plagiarism when fact is mixed with fiction is an ongoing debate (see Malcolm Gladwell's "Something Borrowed" from the New Yorker). Personally, I fall down on the "if you use someone else's words, you're copying. If you rewrite someone's words without attributing them, you're copying" side of the line - basically, if my philosophy prof would fail me for it if I did it in an essay I'd handed it, it's plagiarism and it's not on.*

But in the eyes of fellow romance-writer Jennifer Crusie, whether or not Edwards is a plagiarist is not the issue. What's at issue, in Crusie's mind, is whether or not Smart Bitches is being mean to poor old Cassie Edwards. What Crusie wants to know is not whether or not Edwards has been systematically ripping off the work of other authors but whether or not Edwards ran over their dog because we all know that what really counts in the world of journalism, which I submit the Smart Bitches posts are, is whether or not the journalist likes the subject.

Edwards, who writes those buckskin and feathers bodice rippers where a pure-hearted Native American stud brings the joy of good sex to misguided white pioneer women across the Southwestern United States that every girl I know read at least once in high school, is regularly slated on the blog for being, well, not a very good writer. And she isn't, not even by the somewhat bell-curved standards of the genre. Then again, Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books is a blog who's stated raison d'etre is no bullshit reviews of romance novels. My favourite section of their blog (after the semi-weekly round-up of cover art horror perpetrated by romance publishers worldwide) is called "Good Shit vs. Shit to Avoid". My point is that the collected oeuvre of Cassie Edwards is an egregious offence against the canon of English literature but she's hardly the only author who's ever gotten a bad review on their site, even if they did call one of her books the worst book ever and another "the literary equivalent of maggot infested cheese". Smart Bitches is a review site, this is the internet, people say mean things and, seriously, anyone who thinks that the Smart Bitches treatment of Cassie Edwards is unfair have never read an English gossip column because, holy hell, they make Candy and Sarah look like kittens.

Crusie's statement that Edwards "doesn't deserve the constant humiliation this site heaps on her" irrespective of the fact that any humiliation derived from the latest series of posts is entirely down to Edwards own shoddiness in failing to properly attribute her sources or her own outright mendaciousness is boneheaded, logic-free bullshit and, frankly, I'm surprised at Crusie for perpetrating it. How Smart Bitches feel about Cassie Edwards is irrelevant to the issue at hand: either she's a plagiarist or she's not and whether or not anyone thinks Savage Moon is the greatest work of fiction ever or something one would normally expect to find only after it has passed out the working end of a sheep is neither here nor there. Shame, Ms. Crusie, shame.

Luckily for me and the Intertoobz at large, we have Nora Roberts, speaking for the forces of reason and sanity and hot monkey sex with Irish multi-billionaires (if she made Rourke a Scot, I'd probably spontaneously combust):

Reporting isn’t bashing, and very often reporting isn’t nice.

I don’t know Cassie, and would never bash her. But I will bash, again and again, the act of any writer copying another’s work--and calling the work his/her own.

Tolerating it or defending it isn’t standing up for the writer, it’s standing up for the act of copying.

(care of Fandom_Wank)

No love from Queen Street for you, Ms. Crusie. I am officially rededicating the portion of my fiscal planning otherwise reserved under "oooh, does Jennifer Crusie have a new book out I might find cool" to Nora Roberts who is, as Stephen King said, ice cold and continues to be a one classy and stand up lady.

Ms. Roberts, you are made of awesome.

Tip of the hat to the ever linkalicious [livejournal.com profile] cleolinda for the original FW link.

*FWIW, McEwan did acknowledge the bio he cribbed his line about 'daubing Valerian on ringworm' or some such from. Whether or not that constitutes sufficient attribution is an argument that pro- and anti-McEwan critics have been banging on about for six years now (this is England, Tall Poppy Syndrome is definitely a factor). I do not know what, if any, attribution or credit Edwards gives the secondary sources she borrowed from.
lifeonqueen: (BSG - Cranky by Ancarett)
2007-10-27 06:17 am

DO NOT WANT!

I don't care what the Church says, there is a hell and that's where God sends fanfic writers who posit that Kara Thrace finds Lee Adama's attempts to cosset and shelter her "cute." I don't care if it is babyfic, have you ever actually watched the show?

Also, while I'm at it *gag*
lifeonqueen: (BSG - Cranky by Ancarett)
2007-06-13 09:30 pm

For the Last Time...

And why I'm bothering, I'm not sure. Nevertheless, one more time, repeat after me:

Characters in original works are not and can not be considered
"Mary Sues".



Anyone who says otherwise has no fucking idea what they're talking about and therefore are disqualified from participating in any further conversation.

Furthermore, Wesley Crusher is not a valid example of a "Mary Sue" in an original work: Star Trek: The Next Generation is itself a derivative work (which means that WC may be, in fact, a "Mary Sue". This point, however, is not germane at the moment).

To anyone who argues that Starbuck or Elizabeth Swann or whoever is a "Mary Sue" because the character is, in your opinion, flawless, always right, always wins, *cough*a female hero or POV character*cough* - not, of course, that misogyny has anything to do with this discussion (Although note we're discussing "Mary Sues") - I have a single question: Is Superman a "Mary Sue"? Is Batman? What about Luke Skywalker? Aragorn?

And if Starbuck is a "Mary Sue", what the fuck does that make Captain Kirk?

Assholes.
lifeonqueen: (DC - THE DARK FUCKING KNIGHT)
2007-06-13 12:46 am
Entry tags:

So. There.

Bad fanfic is a zombie plague that rapes your pets and drinks all your beer.

*thwuppt*

Oh, and it also eats your brains.
lifeonqueen: (Misc - Rockstar by MirrorandSmoke)
2007-05-14 04:56 pm
Entry tags:

Oh, Irony.

Hee.

I just caught myself squeaking "Dude! Not at work!" to my monitor while reading Grey's Anatomy girlslash. The Irony, she is delicious today.

Nevertheless, I am a rockstar. This thing about change being as good may have some truth to it as, so far, I am enjoying my new portfolio. Not as much as I would enjoy A NEW JOB but it's been interesting. And God knows that's not something I've said about work in a while.

Still, you'd think the interns and especially one Izzie "Your name ain't exactly the best in the hospital" Stevens would know better than to go off canoodling their attendings especially after being chewed out by Dr. Miranda Bailey once already that day... o_O

Writers! Characterization and logic - they matter.
lifeonqueen: (Misc - Too Many Books - theefed from Ele)
2007-04-30 04:20 pm
Entry tags:

Beautifully Written, Too Bad About The Cannibals

I read Cormac McCarthy's The Road over the weekend.

I'm really rather sorry I did.

If you read sci-fi, fantasy, horror or any of the other “disrespected” literary genres, you’ve probably encountered the phenomena of the Big Name Serious Literary Author who is lauded for his or her novel of Big Bold Allegory and Metaphor, often featuring a “stunning” or “gripping” or “chilling” “vision” of humanity’s/America’s/civilization’s future.

For Canadians, I think the best-known example of this is Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, her mid-80s novel about a future American theocracy where fertile women have become chattel, forced to bear the children of an increasingly infertile White Male Christian elite. 20 years later, Atwood’s Feminist call to arms seems rather more prophetic than it did in the late 80s when The Handmaid’s Tale started popping up on the syllabi of high school English classes across Canada but it’s still only a middling novel as these things go - technically proficient but soulless, more interested in agitprop than honest emotion, sopmewhat lacking imaginative scope - Margaret Atwood’s good but she ain’t Phillip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin or even plain ol'William Gibson.

You will, however, find The Handmaid's Tale shelved under “Fiction and Literature” in the bookstore (or library) rather than the “Science Fiction” ghetto with Dick, Leguin, Gibson and so on. If we were all bigger people inside maybe where a certain author’s book is located in the bookstore wouldn’t matter but the fact is that books about werewolves and space aliens and dragons and the future (and especially books about all four) just don't get taken as seriously as your big, heavy, literary, memoirical tome about how your parents were awful and turned you gay (*cough*Anne-Marie*cough*lookingatyou*cough*). And really, that would be something I could live with if not for two things a) I happen to like writing about werewolf space alien dragonriders from the future and despise the self-absorption and navel-gazing and general depressive atmosphere of the contemporary Canadian literary novel (and no, my parents didn't turn me gay, they turned me celibate but that's a story for another day). B) Big, heavy, literary, memoirical tomes about how your parents were awful and turned you gay shelved in "Fiction and Literature" generally sell better than books of equal, if not superior, quality shelved in Sci-Fi/Fantasy, at least partly as a result of how these books are positioned and promoted in store.

So it always burns me when a "serious" author is lauded for taking on traditional genre tropes, such as future distopia or apoca-fic, as if no one has ever written about repressive future theocracies or post-apocalyptic futures before (John Wyndham even got in a two-for-one in The Chrysalids). Which is not to say that this author or that doesn't deserve whatever gold, glory and gaudite's they can get but I'm frustrated when I see rather routine treatments of familiar tropes praised as if these books said something new or particularly noteworthy.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road, I've decided, is such a novel.

(Halfway through writing this post, my employer sent me an e-mail asking me if I my family's emergency survival kit was prepared. This caused much laughter because, seriously, my plan for the apocalypse, should - God forbid - it come, is to die in the first wave, thanks much.)

The Road is technically stunning, the work of a master wordsmith at the height of his expressive powers. McCarthy's prose is spare, driven forward by an "and x and y" construction that recalls Hemingway, punctuated by the odd flash of linguistic dexterity that catches the reader and temporarily lifts the novel above the ponderous, unremitting despair and depravity of its subject matter. The Road is the Great American novel tipped on it's side and trod on until only the most basic, most robust tropes are left: the quintessential American literary pair of father and son and a journey - years after a nuclear apocalypse that is implied but never mentioned, a father and son walk along the road towards the coast.

The Road lacks, in what is likely a deliberate choice, the specificity that is a hallmark of most speculative fiction/sci-fi - we never know what caused the devastation or where, exactly, the road leads except towards the coast. Yet there's something magisterial in McCarthy's confident sweep of his hand across game board of American civilization, leaving nothing behind (presumably anyone asking how any calamity nuclear or otherwise that could reduce the whole of the American continent to ash and leave anyone alive five or six years on is missing the point of McCarthy's grand conceit). All this, McCarthy says, from the Internet to fresh water, is insubstantial, can be taken away, and with it all that makes men not merely civilized but human. And men specifically - make no mistake, McCarthy's apoco-topia is no place for a woman. It is, in fact, a world that no sane woman would choose to live on in: the missing third of his post-nuclear family is nothing more than a faded memory of someone not strong enough (or possibly foolish enough) to make the journey.

Spoilers )

Reading The Road was not a pleasant experience when it wasn't downright vomit inducing. The last time I read a book that nearly made me puke (not including some of the more grisly details of Holocaust) was Cujo, nearly 20 years ago, a rather queasy coincidence because The Road put me in mind of nothing so much as Stephen King's The Stand. Of the two, I prefer The Stand, not only because it's an essentially optimistic work versus McCarthy's pessimism. To be blunt, King is the better storyteller. McCarthy could write concentric rings of gleaming prose around King any day of the week - but King is the greater storyteller, the better psychologist, the more consistently authentic voice. King's characters live between the pages, often even after they're dead, while the denizens of The Road merely exist.

And if McCarthy demonstrates anything in The Road, merely existing is not nearly enough to live for.