![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
How Not To Start An Urban Fantasy Novel
Occasionally, my workplace makes advance review copies of books available for the taking. When I picked up an ARC of Charming, by Elliott James, which will be released in September, the back cover told me the following:
On the one hand, I suspected (correctly) that our hero was going to be another variation on the sardonic loner embittered and burdened by his Dark Past, in the Harry Dresden mold. On the other hand, it’s not as if I have any outright objection to characters written in that mold, and there was, and still is, a chance that this book might contain some fun “fairy tale creatures in the modern world” action.
However, the introduction, or “prelude,” contains this passage:
First of all, all of this could just have easily been imparted through narration or dialogue further down the line. Second of all… no, we’ll leave aside the mass mind control for now. It’s just a creepier version of the routine mind-wipes that recur in speculative fiction.
However, there’s a third level of frustration to this introduction, which Rogan of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
baaing_tree very wisely pointed out. When I was ranting about the beginning of this book, I said, “No, it doesn’t sound ridiculous, because I’ve read urban fantasy before.” And Rogan made an even more important point: that, by writing a world that is like ours, but with supernatural creatures, an author is implicitly asking readers to suspend their disbelief, even if those readers are new to the genre. He or she trusts that, by reading this genre in the first place, we have enough imagination to accept this alternate reality. And while it may be a shock to some characters, it's not going to be a shock to us, because of our basic expectations going in.
This particular author, through his narrator, is not only info-dumping something that should be obvious, but addressing readers as if we don’t have enough imagination (or, if we do, it’s been magically inhibited). It’s one thing for a work of speculative fiction to imply that I, as a mundane human being without magical abilities or qualities, am – by nature, design, or both – ignorant, close-minded, and incapable of believing or considering that the supernatural might exist. It’s quite another for a narrator to tell me this, point-blank, to my face.
I did not get past the first two or three chapters of Charming, between the clunky exposition and the paint-by-numbers main character. If, at any point, I decided to continue, it would be either to see if it's worthy of an MST-style sporking, or to find out if the use of mass mind control to keep the populace oblivious is ever going to be challenged or subverted (which rarely happens, even in books that I really like). I would absolutely be willing to modify or withdraw my criticisms if the book ends up going in that, or any other, interesting direction. However, this introduction was not a very promising start: it was unnecessary, clumsy, and condescending, and there are much more effective ways to present a world or endear readers.
What if there was more than one Prince Charming? What if there was a whole line of Charmings going back far into history – each one with a mission to rid the world of evil. And what would happen if one of them is cursed… Meet John Charming. He isn’t your average prince.
On the one hand, I suspected (correctly) that our hero was going to be another variation on the sardonic loner embittered and burdened by his Dark Past, in the Harry Dresden mold. On the other hand, it’s not as if I have any outright objection to characters written in that mold, and there was, and still is, a chance that this book might contain some fun “fairy tale creatures in the modern world” action.
However, the introduction, or “prelude,” contains this passage:
Well, there’s something going on right in front of your face that you can’t see right now, and you’re not going to believe me when I point it out to you. Relax, I’m not going to provide a number where you can leave your credit card information, and you don’t have to join anything. The only reason I’m telling you at all is that at some point in the future, you might have a falling-out with the worldview you’re currently enamored of, and if that happens, what I’m about to tell you will help you make sense of things better.
The supernatural is real. Vampires? Real. Werewolves. Real. Zombies, Ankou, djinn, Boo Hags, banshees, and so on and so on, all real. Well, except for Orcs and Hobbits. Tolkien just made those up.
I know it sounds ridiculous. How could magic really exist in a world with an Internet and forensic science and smart phones and satellites and such and still go undiscovered?
The truth is that the world is under a spell called the Pax Arcana, a compulsion that makes people unable to see, believe, or seriously consider any evidence of the supernatural that is not an immediate threat to their survival.
First of all, all of this could just have easily been imparted through narration or dialogue further down the line. Second of all… no, we’ll leave aside the mass mind control for now. It’s just a creepier version of the routine mind-wipes that recur in speculative fiction.
However, there’s a third level of frustration to this introduction, which Rogan of
baaing_tree very wisely pointed out. When I was ranting about the beginning of this book, I said, “No, it doesn’t sound ridiculous, because I’ve read urban fantasy before.” And Rogan made an even more important point: that, by writing a world that is like ours, but with supernatural creatures, an author is implicitly asking readers to suspend their disbelief, even if those readers are new to the genre. He or she trusts that, by reading this genre in the first place, we have enough imagination to accept this alternate reality. And while it may be a shock to some characters, it's not going to be a shock to us, because of our basic expectations going in.This particular author, through his narrator, is not only info-dumping something that should be obvious, but addressing readers as if we don’t have enough imagination (or, if we do, it’s been magically inhibited). It’s one thing for a work of speculative fiction to imply that I, as a mundane human being without magical abilities or qualities, am – by nature, design, or both – ignorant, close-minded, and incapable of believing or considering that the supernatural might exist. It’s quite another for a narrator to tell me this, point-blank, to my face.
I did not get past the first two or three chapters of Charming, between the clunky exposition and the paint-by-numbers main character. If, at any point, I decided to continue, it would be either to see if it's worthy of an MST-style sporking, or to find out if the use of mass mind control to keep the populace oblivious is ever going to be challenged or subverted (which rarely happens, even in books that I really like). I would absolutely be willing to modify or withdraw my criticisms if the book ends up going in that, or any other, interesting direction. However, this introduction was not a very promising start: it was unnecessary, clumsy, and condescending, and there are much more effective ways to present a world or endear readers.
no subject
If you do manage to get through it I'd be interested to find out how it progresses.
no subject
Magic as a Big Secret isn't at all unusual in urban fantasy. What's more rare is the urban fantasy world explaining how/why magic is a Big Secret. When magic is a Big Secret they tend to either leave it's being a Big Secret in the background, not even having anyone question it, or they acknowledge it simply to assert that that's the way it is. I think it's cool that Elliot James has an explanation for how it's a Big Secret. I can't help wondering if he also has an explanation of why.
If the MC is still processing this new worldview when we as readers join the story, I can imagine that attitude from them (the MC)...
I think the lines, "you’re not going to believe me when I point it out to you," and "...all real. Well, except for Orcs and Hobbits. Tolkien just made those up," imply that the character knows what he's talking about. He's simply explaining things to the reader as someone newly in a position where he can make those explanations to them. His saying, "you’re not going to believe me," and "I know it sounds ridiculous," are about giving "you" as the reader the feeling of how you would react to "The Truth" he's imparting if you were part of his fantasy world. It's all about set up.
no subject
no subject
no subject
COME ONNNN IT'LL BE FUN.
--Rogan
no subject
Okay. I love Harry Dresden, and was beginning to wonder if I should take, "in the Harry Dresden mold," as my cue to stop reading right there.
...all of this could just have easily been imparted through narration or dialogue further down the line.
I think the point to having it up front rather than "further down the line" was to give the reader the feeling they were being let in on the Big Secret from the start, instead of having to figure it out as they went along. Some people will undoubtedly find it far more comforting than having to figure it out as they go along. Given some of them undoubtedly find picking it up later in "narration or dialogue" frustrating. The introduction seems to be written for people who prefer, "Thank God that's out of the way," to "Why the Hell couldn't he have mentioned that sooner?"
It’s just a creepier version of the routine mind-wipes that recur in speculative fiction.
That's not how I see it at all. I see it as providing an actual explanation for how magic in that urban fantasy setting is a Big Secret. While I enjoy a number of urban fantasy stories that never bother to explain how/why normals/mundanes/muggles don't know/can't know about magic, it is nice to hear about an urban fantasy book that actually provides an explanation as to how magic is a Big Secret.
This particular author ... is not only info-dumping something that should be obvious...
Ah, I don't believe it's accurate to say that what the author has info-dumped is "something that should be obvious." It could be an urban fantasy world were magic isn't a Big Secret, or one that doesn't bother to explain how magic is a Big Secret. The author has taken the time to explain upfront that a) his urban fantasy world is one where magic is a Big Secret, and b) it is one in which there is an actual explanation as to how magic is a Big Secret. Neither of those points are ones that a reader should simply know from having, "read urban fantasy before."
...but addressing readers as if we don’t have enough imagination...
And I don't believe he's addressing the readers as if they, "don't have enough imagination." I think he is addressing the readers as if they aren't privy to the exact nature of his world, which they aren't prior to their reading what he has to say about his world. I think it's about knowledge, rather than imagination.
It’s quite another for a narrator to tell me this, point-blank, to my face.
You've already said yourself, "He or she trusts that, by reading this genre in the first place, we have enough imagination to accept this alternate reality." I don't see how the author spelling out how his alternate reality works upfront implies that you lack the imagination to accept it. If anything, I think his bring the reader in on the Big Secret from the beginning, and explaining to them how that secret is kept, are acts of trust. It says, "I don't have to string you along building up to the reveal of the Big Secret, and I can give you the 'how' of the Big Secret upfront, even if I can't give you the 'why.'"
...or to find out if the use of mass mind control to keep the populace oblivious is ever going to be challenged or subverted...
One of the many ways this book sounds intriguing to me, along with it simply being urban fantasy with a leading man in mold I like, is that it raises the question of whether or not he'll get around to why the Pax Arcana is in place. I mean the Pax explains how magic is a Big Secret in his world, but not in and of itself why. Is there a reason for it? Is that reason one that shouldn't be "challenged or subverted?" I definitely find those questions interesting.
no subject
Yes, exactly. And if a reader finds it frustrating to have to figure out things as they go along, rather than having things be clear and up-front, this does not mean that they lack imagination, for the record.
no subject
You're completely right. In interpreting the assumptions that I thought that the author was making, I made some assumptions of my own, and I should not have done so. Thank you for pointing them out.
no subject
I think there's an unwritten rule of urban fantasy (or written, perhaps, somewhere I haven't seen) where you have to make it clear very early both whether or not there's legitimately weird shit in this universe, and, if so, whether or not everyone knows about it. (If it's a horror novel where the main character isn't aware of the existence of the supernatural until much later, then that's a bit different.) That way the reader knows how much disbelief to suspend -- and "oh, they did it with paranormal powers" doesn't just feel like bad writing later.
That said... those four paragraphs were amazingly condescending and wordy. (Maybe in context the protagonist is explaining how the world works to a mundane they don't expect much? Since... saving the author talk down to the reader like that kind of bothers me. "the world you're currently enamored of"? seriously?) I hate to use LKH as a good example for anything, but "Willie McCoy had been a jerk before he died. His being dead didn't changed that." does a much better job of what I think this author is trying to do.
I would love to see you MST this (or other) books! Also, is this a YA book? I can't actually tell.
no subject
If it's written, it definitely isn't widely published since neither of us has ever seen it.
...where you have to make it clear very early both whether or not there's legitimately weird shit in this universe, and, if so, whether or not everyone knows about it.
If there is some sort of rule that exists at all, it's less of a "rule" and more of a "guideline" since there are definitely urban/modern fantasy stories that don't follow the rule.
1) There are urban/modern fantasy stories that never clearly state if what has gone on in them was magic. They run along the line between "urban/modern fantasy" and "magical realism" because they leave "What is magic?" an open question.
2) There are urban/modern fantasy stories that never answer the question of "whether or not everyone knows about it[magic]." That's dependent on how the story is structured, and whether or not the author is given to world building.
a) The story can be focused on a limited number of characters, so that whether or not the whole world knows about magic is beside the point. It might it. It might not.
b) Some urban fantasy is not also modern fantasy because, while it has an urban setting, the setting doesn't mirror the real world. It's in a universe with lots of magic that manages to have it's own unique urban sprawl. It doesn't need to spell out that everyone knows about magic because everyone knowing about magic is a clear given of the world.
That "rule" only applies to urban fantasy stories if those stories a) are going to define magic and rely on magic enough that it's being in them needs to be spelled out, and b) the worlds of the stories are close enough to ours and will be explored enough in the stories that they require establishing whether or not the whole of them know about magic.
Also, even in cases where the "rule" does apply, plenty of writers will admit to a) their world having magic, and b) the magic in their world being, or having been, a Big Secret there without ever bothering to define how or why magic is or was ever a Big Secret there. Elliot James wasn't required by some "rule" to include in his prelude, "Whether or not there's legitimately weird shit in this universe, and, if so, whether or not everyone knows about it," much less how magic is a Big Secret in his universe. His spelling out that there is magic in his universe, magic is a Big Secret in his universe, and how magic is a Big Secret in his universe in the prelude was his choice, and I don't think it was a bad choice to make.
That way the reader knows how much disbelief to suspend...
As I've already said some urban fantasy, "leave 'What is magic?' an open question," urban fantasy stories don't automatically tell readers, "how much disbelief to suspend."
...and "oh, they did it with paranormal powers" doesn't just feel like bad writing later.
1) "...they did it with paranormal powers," isn't specific to urban fantasy stories. Given the use of "paranormal" the story in question could be an urban fantasy one, or modern fantasy one, or modern science fiction one, or modern paranormal romance one, or modern dark fantasy one, or an out right modern horror one. It tends to imply a modern setting because if the setting were earlier or later it would probably refer to the powers being specified in some other way, but...
2) I don't believe that a writer who chooses to take their time introducing "paranormal powers" in their story is necessarily a bad writer. I do believe when and how, or even if, they choose to make the presence of "the paranormal" in their story clearly known is a matter of creative choice.
TBC
no subject
I don't believe that example does "a much better job" of what Elliot James actually did in his prelude. The only thing established by those words is how Anita Blake thinks of Willie McCoy. They don't even establish whether or not there is magic in that world, since they say nothing about how Willie McCoy is still being a jerk while he's dead. It could just be a real world detective story where he's still being a jerk through his will or some other aspect of how people can continue to be jerks after they're dead. Elliot James actually established the presence of magic in his universe, and that knowledge of magic is limited in his universe.
no subject
*Lets out the breath she's been holding.* Thanks. I wasn't sure how tactful I was, I mean I saw your post really late for me rather than really early for me. I just tried to lay out how I was seeing it differently from you, not to make any assumptions about how you were seeing it the way you were. Different strokes for different folks and all of that. O-:)
no subject
But I agree with you that it probably does come down to a difference in preferences and perspectives, and that's fine.
no subject
Thanks, (((((Neva))))).
But I agree with you that it probably does come down to a difference in preferences and perspectives, and that's fine.
Yeah, it's occurred to me that the biggest difference might be coming from how that prelude is written in the first person. It seems like that's making the line between "the audience" and "the reader" blurry for some. The writer and his character might only be speaking to "the audience," but because of the writer's choosing to use the intimacy of first person it seems to be making it easier for some readers to feel like the writer and character are speaking directly to them rather than speaking to an "audience" which is one in his own fantasy world, not out in the real world of the reader.
no subject
Also, despite my actually having a preference for fiction that is really upfront about things (figuring plot twists out is confusing and frustrating to me and just not my purpose for reading at all; I read to get to know characters and feel like I'm hanging out with them, not for plot), I also find this to be bad writing. It's clunky and slow and annoying.
no subject
Oh yeah. I'm not saying it's great writing. I mean the author takes four paragraphs to do something that not only could have been done in one or two, but could have been done without making readers who are identifying with his audience feel condescended to. Taking as long as he does opens him up to getting on people's nerves in a variety of ways, whether he gets on their nerves with his tone and-or with his pace. He's no Shakespeare.
no subject
Thanks!
And if a reader finds it frustrating to have to figure out things as they go along, rather than having things be clear and up-front, this does not mean that they lack imagination, for the record.
Oh yeah! If I implied that an upfront preference shows a lack of imagination, it wasn't my intention. I meant to say that I didn't see imagination as being at issue. I figured the writer trusting in the readers imagination could still be relied on. I didn't think that was what was at issue.
no subject
Anyway, this comment was mostly regarding Neva's original post, I just replied to your comment to share that I totally agree with what you said and elaborate a bit on why. There is nothing in what you said that implied that to me, no worries.
no subject
No problem! I just wanted to be sure that if I'd been unclear I clarified.
...I just replied to your comment to share that I totally agree with what you said and elaborate a bit on why.
Cool. I appreciate that you elaborated a bit on why. 0-:)
There is nothing in what you said that implied that to me, no worries.
Thanks! :D