How Not To Start An Urban Fantasy Novel
Jun. 27th, 2013 01:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nevannaOccasionally, 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-28 08:31 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2013-06-28 09:55 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2013-07-01 03:02 am (UTC)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
Date: 2013-07-01 03:04 am (UTC)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
Date: 2013-06-30 11:09 pm (UTC)*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
Date: 2013-06-30 11:21 pm (UTC)But I agree with you that it probably does come down to a difference in preferences and perspectives, and that's fine.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-01 03:13 am (UTC)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
Date: 2013-06-30 11:29 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2013-07-01 03:26 am (UTC)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.