Subject: -indignant huff-
Author:
Posted on: 2012-09-09 01:30:00 UTC
I will not make it a long bio! (Even if my stories do tend to be on the lengthier side.)
It will be exactly as long as it needs to be without irritating any PGs. -blows raspberry at you-
So, I am an avid writer of stuff. Most of it is fantasy stuff, but I'm willing to tamper elsewhere if I feel up to it.
Many of my stories, written, finished or hanging, are ridiculous, nonsensical and just plain impractical, all for the sake of comedy value.
However, there is one thing that I try and enforce in most of my work: a steep avoidance of really popular tropes listed on TV Tropes.
Like, for example, Katanas Are Just Awesome, wherein having a Latasha makes you instantly the greatest character in the story. I went out of my way to make katanas sucky and impractical if I can.
My big question is: is my tendency to veer away from popular cliches a bad move on my part, akin to botching a continuum and writing Mary Sues?
I still plan to follow this trend of mine, but I want to see how people respond to it is all.
Yes, it's another clarification question, but as I fear I will not be able to last the four months I initially planned to wait before asking for Permission, I'd like to understand things as clearly as I can. (On a side note, my eyeballs are sore from reading so much...)
So I know non-mission stories about our agents are fine - and look to be just as entertaining to write as missions - but I see on the wiki that it's "recommend[ed that I] write a few missions first."
Which is completely understandable. Better to practice the harder stuff before you rest for a while on your laurels. I was just wondering if I could introduce my first agent pair - I'm fairly certain I know who they will be - to the readers and to each other by means of a prelude story. You know, something like, 'Okay, we've just wandered into HQ, gone through all the training, been assigned, great, but why is -she- my partner?' It wouldn't be long (probably) but I thought it might be a fun way to introduce the two all around.
Any thoughts or pointers?
But I thought most (or at least many) permissions pieces were essentially a short bit to introduce the agents. I know mine is...
Of course you're the best person to ask! Everyone is, I think - the wider the range of opinions, the better idea I'll have of what everyone as a whole will think when I make a decision!
-hugs? Y/N-
If they are, it'll make it loads easier on me when I go for Permission. I can work with character intros and preludes.
As for Kitty, she may choose to go a different route and make it like one long character bio, who knows.
I will not make it a long bio! (Even if my stories do tend to be on the lengthier side.)
It will be exactly as long as it needs to be without irritating any PGs. -blows raspberry at you-
... that we might be irritated by things which are exactly as long as they need to be?
hS
...How long is too long? I know the bio should be brief - no trouble with that - but is there a specific word-limit on the writing sample?
Just keep it short enough that we can remember what happened at the beginning by the time we reach the end. But not so short that we can remember what happens at the end by the time we reach the beginning. Violation of causality is one of our Big No-No flags.
(In authors. In characters it's fine)
hS
KittyNoodles is old! Her heart can't take that kind of panic!
-fit of hysterical giggles-
But seriously, thankies for the information. I'll try to keep it at a reasonable (and neither boring nor mind-boggling)length - and maybe I'll even see if I can hunt down some other writing samples, to get a more solid grasp of a good length!
KittyNoodles is exactly one year older than Teh Specs, who is exactly one year younger than KittyNoodles.
That's not old, you whiner.
Hence the hysterical giggling, yes?
Iunno.
One reason for that recommendation is that, well, we're here to read about PPC Agents: fitting someone into that slot without writing missions about them is a tricky thing to do. I've actually got several stories with no missions in them - and heaps of characters who've never had documented missions - but that's because I'm very clever (or something like that). The 'Wandering around HQ lookin' at the stuff' type of story has been done a lot (usually as interludes), and you need something special to make it work - which, again, usually means your agents go on missions beforehand.
That said, a prelude with their meetup is a common thing to do (my page is full of them - Narto and Lou have one, and Dafydd and Selene used to have two!) - and from what I've seen, it often serves as a Permission writing sample. It lets people (PGs, really) see your agents, your writing style, and your understanding of the PPC all in one swell foop - and, as you say, it introduces them for readers of your entire catalogue, too.
But be careful. "Hey, I'm your partner, and we have IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES which oh, hey, you like the same music as me and we are now chums forever" has been done a lot (going back to Agent Jay Thorntree, actually), and while most people won't remember them all, it's always best to create something unique...
hS
Ah! I hadn't even considered making it my writing sample! Thank you very much, friend! -bows, waits, and then stands back up-
I did not fall over...
Yes, I will avoid the 'WE HATE EACH OTHER but, ooh! You like [insert whatever it is] too! BFFs!' I find it a bit...done. Funny, but done. It'll probably take these two several missions to start getting along (or at least to get past the 'You are an annoyance I must endure' phase) because I want to challenge myself with gradual characterization. -happy squeak-
If it were me doing the character introductions, I would write out from a point like, "I just got placed in my department, and the Flower up front told me I have a partner waiting to be assigned," and then see if I could branch off from there.
Probably the best way to do tropes is to try not to let them influence you one way or the other, and just make absolutely certain to keep a firm grip on the logic of your universe. For example, if you can think of reasons why a katana would be impractical, (Such as, most people have guns, they'll just shoot you when you pull it on them, you can't take it through an airport, few people know how to use one properly, it can't be concealed) then don't use katanas in that setting. It can still be funny, if, say, despite all that, someone does use a katana well, if someone delivers a funny lecture on why they're impractical, or if someone who swears by them gets shot by the practical gunman instead.
Now there's an idea.
Actually, in my comedy story (read: blatant ignoring of all probabilities and physical capabilities for the sake of humor while blaming it all on a wormhole or something) about a space-faring band of mercenaries, one of the smarter crew members is a Guinea pig testing a prototype lightsaber/katana hybrid out. Its downside is that due to an enormous energy draw to keep the magnetically-charged laser blade stabilized, it overheats within a matter of five hours, and its battery only holds charge for about a day.
So, in a sense, I'm kind of already employing this option - just in the most outlandish method possible.
Good advice!
They shouldn't dictate your writing style. As you said in your post, you decided to defy "Katanas Are Just Awesome" by nerfing significantly downplaying the efficiency of this weapon.
The question you have to ask yourself is: is this really necessary? Katanas are very sturdy and reliable weapons in real life, so there is really no need to exaggerate their weaknesses. The weapon just needs to have a plausible explanation to be in the story, that's all.
The same concept should apply to whatever you're writing. You should be able to write a logical, solid plot with convincing and relatable characters without worrying about tripping over overused tropes. Do not think in terms of defying tropes, because it's painfully obvious to the reader when you do so.
I suggest you have a look at Tropes Are Tools. I found it to be quite helpful.
Besides, the only reason katanas are so cool is that they're Japanese and that their blade is curved.
Thanks for the protip, man. That helps a bunch.
As for the katana bit - I admit to being a sword nut of sorts, but I've never really been all that into katanas. Is that REALLY the only reason people say they're cool? I sure hope not...
... such as, for instance, me... they tend to break down into a few types.
-Broadswords. Big, clumsy things used for hacking strokes by men in heavy armour.
--Laser swords & lightsabers. Used the same as the above, only substituting robes for armour.
-Fencing swords. Pointy, wiggly things with no blade and no chance of hurting anyone.
-Scimitars. Hulking great curved swords (often with a notch out of them!) used by people in turbans.
-Katanas. Sleek, elegant things that can take a man's arms off before he gets his broadsword unsheathed.
Yes, that's a bit of an exaggerated simplification, but it's pretty much the popular view.
Personal note: I would make the following changes to the above list:
-Fencing swords may include some with actual blades, which are basically western katanas.
-The Roman-style gladius stabbing sword is a distinct prospect from the broadsword.
-It is possible to move a broadsword (using the term horribly incorrectly to cover everything) fast. :P
But that's because I read the wrong things (specifically a fencer's LJ, various Roman-era books, and Michael Crichton's Timeline). I would, however, look things up before writing them... which many wouldn't bother.
So. Katanas are cool because they're elegant, pretty much.
hS
Also, modern sport fencing foils do hurt, especially when you're me and decide to take up fencing in college with no idea of anything besides pointing the tip at the target and keeping your feet in the right place. I used to get tiny eraser-sized bruises all over my body, and epee will give you some nasty welts. This, and many more reasons, are why I no longer fence. I'm a wuss.
The rest of your list made me laugh. My approach to swords has always been "I don't know much about them except the names," but even I know it's ludicrous to give say, a fencer a broadsword and expect them to know what to do with it.
I dunno, I think part of the katanas being cool is because so many people are obsessed with japan. If they came from, say, India, they wouldn't be considered as cool.
Fencing and kendo are rough if you go in completely unaware. I don't practice either, but I know what they're like.
And with Skyrim hot on Japan's tail in terms of popularity, you can imagine a lot of the swords in that game are considered pretty near as well.
I admit, I am part of this bandwagon - Travels of a Wandering Adventurer uses weaponry and settings similar to Skyrim's way of doing things.
On a side note, you know what's fun? Taking standards from RPG games - potions heal you, mages have MP bars - and putting logic to them.
I had a situation where potions only worked to a certain degree, and the wounds had to be properly doctored first. Potions were more like a healing salve that you would rub on the wound.
It was good fun.
Yeah, that's about the size of it, huh?
It really kind of makes sword nuts, like me, agitated to learn that people just can not find it in themselves to stop and truly appreciate the blade as it should be.
But, them's the breaks.
If you want my rendition of a similar list, it goes a bit like:
1. Broadswords were basically big slabs of metal that, in early days, were more like warhammers than actual weapons of fleash-rending
2. Katanas, sabers, and the like were your standard warswords for officers or well-attuned fighters who didn't need two edges on their blade, or were horsemen who needed a weapon for lopping heads off on the saddle
3. Daiklaves, Zweihanders, Claymores, Dai-katanas and the like were swords for heavier infantry, meant to tear through baddies by substituting speed for weight + inertia that ended up being nigh-unstoppable when you got going.
As I'm not the most studied in blades myself, despite my nuttiness, this list is understandably flawed.
Also, don't change the general quality of a thing just to avoid cliches. Unless you mean that katanas are impractical because everyone else fights with nukes, there should still be respect for what the original quality of the thing is.
It's not that I'm trying to destroy the quality and truth behind the tropes - I'm just trying to write them in a realistic manner is all.
But I understand what you mean. I still have a character (so far) that prefers a katana over other weaponry, and is quite fluent with it.
Another hard point for me is always managing cast members. My ongoing blog story, Travels of a Wandering Adventurer, follows the life of young Ethan Brynn and the friends he meets along the way, but already I'm starting to see several Sue traits coming out in the characters of Ethan, Kraig Lescarr, and the aged Samuel Brynn. Since there are so many characters that I will be focusing on in the future, how do I prevent from the cast becoming an army of Sues by mistake?
Make sure no character is the best at what they do. Make them take a while to learn most things - not, -snap- 'And now I can heal broken arms!'
Give each character equal attention and focus when it is at all possible. Give each character equal (and decent) description.
DO NOT have everyone else automatically like or despise your character within the first three minutes - grumbling or chirping that they dis/like the character is one thing, but give them solid reasons for it.
Have your characters face real consequences and make them survive/overcome/learn from these consequences in realistic ways. This is also a good way to evolve your character, as most people most certainly learn and change after every mistake or success, no matter how big or small.
That''s all I've got. Anyone else have any thoughts?
I'm going to admit this now: I'm going to have to rewrite chapter five when I'm able to. It's teetering dangerously on the verge of ripping off Sarn Ford if I keep going. (Bad enough I've already listed the Court of Tolbarath as "an army of Rangers, hunters and woodsmen".)
Also, I forgot the subject title. Sorry.