Have been working on WIP each day, but there hasn't been much to mull over about it. My brain is not working very well. It's just one of those times where real life puts a damper on your writing brain. I'm not going to fret about it, just keep working anyway, even if some days I don't get much done.
I was thinking about the movie The Other Boleyn Girl. I haven't read the book and don't want to, because I hated the movie. The main reason I hated it was that--well, there were two main reasons I hated it, and they were related. One was that the movie went far out of its way to present Mary Boleyn as the sweet, docile, modest (blonde) heroine to Anne's greedy, bossy, strident, power-hungry (brunette) bitch. This bugged me historically, because Mary has always been seen as somewhat of a slutty ho. If, in reality, she wasn't, I still don't know where they got the characterization they gave her in that movie. It looked to me like they made it up as a lesson.
Because the other main reason I hated it was that the movie played like a morality tale against women stepping outside their modest obedient background roles in life, and trying to make power grabs like the men did. To me, the movie even seemed to imply that you deserved to be raped if you were a woman who wasn't meek. If you were a nice quiet girl, your lovers would be gentle with you. I don't even want to get into how much that movie p*ssed me off.
No, the question is--this is what I've been thinking about--why does the movie come off this way (to me, at least)? Why does it not come off as a kind of horror story where we see how awful it was to be female back then? All the pieces are there to make the viewer cringe with sympathy for both women, rather than leaving with the lesson that the good girl got everything she wanted, while the bad girl got her head chopped off. What is missing that would have made this about women being controlled and suppressed, rather than about girls getting their just deserts from guys?
Was it simply that the control and suppression had to be remarked on at some point?
Hmm, I'm thinking of that scene in Titanic where Rose's mother is tightening her corset and says something about how women's choices suck, so get used to it. Could something that small have changed the subtext? No. There are other scenes in Titanic that add to that one to make the point, like the little girl being made to sit up and hold her napkin nicely on her lap, and Rose's fiance ordering her meal for her and throwing her cigarette away. And maybe Molly Brown's character was meant to point out to the reader that the status quo isn't what you're supposed to believe.
So maybe that's the deal. You have to have something to show that the movie's status quo isn't right, or isn't normal, or is harmful, or...something.
Or...maybe if you have a scene where the choices are laid out for the characters, and their reasoning, and goals. Like if Anne and Mary had each said what they wanted and what they were willing to do to get it--no, that wouldn't work. That would just play up the differences between them. It wouldn't set the world around them in a questionable light. In fact, I think the movie might have actually had a scene like that.
And now I'm thinking Kristen Scott Thomas might have had a scene that added context, but the scene was so early on and so short that I can't remember if she did or not. All I remember is that her character had depth but was only around for about two seconds.
Maybe the problem is that the movie had no sense of theme. At least, I hope the good/bad girl theme wasn't a deliberate one. Maybe this was a story that had characterization and plot, but without theme, those two aspects ended up imposing a theme that the filmmakers didn't intend.
Well, I dunno. I wish I could come to some stronger conclusions about it, because I think that'd help my former GN.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Yesterday I finally got chapter 4 to where I felt it might be on the verge of meaning something. Enough that, today, I want to move on--but to where?
It feels like things may be starting to simmer underneath that could possibly rise to the top and drive the story to move on its own. If they are indeed there, I've got to handle the scenes almost tentatively to be able to tease them out. I can't just dig around and tug them out and plop them down like a slab of meat I'm going to cut into manageable pieces. That would kill them, at this point.
Again, I find myself confused by the difference between plot-driven and character-driven. Maybe part of the problem is that sometimes when you look at a story and decide which is which, the story's already been written and is a finished book, while I'm looking at a work-barely-in-progress*. And I see that here in this chapter, one character's personality sets up X to happen, and things will ensue from that. That ought to count as character-driven--but it sure doesn't feel like it. It feels like sheer plot. Events hang on it. That makes it plot, right?
But almost as a side note, other personality traits from other characters are surfacing. These character traits feel like they could provide the meat that dictates the arc of the whole book and what specifically needs to happen at the end, to tie the book up the way I know it wants to be tied. That feels character-driven, to me. I'm not sure what the difference is. One's from the head. The other seems already there, and my job is to discover and develop it. I dunno.
So anyway, that's why I don't know where to start today. Maybe I'll begin by de-grossifying the dead body in chapter 5. It must be done, after all. Then I'll see what's what.
*using the term "progress" very loosely.
It feels like things may be starting to simmer underneath that could possibly rise to the top and drive the story to move on its own. If they are indeed there, I've got to handle the scenes almost tentatively to be able to tease them out. I can't just dig around and tug them out and plop them down like a slab of meat I'm going to cut into manageable pieces. That would kill them, at this point.
Again, I find myself confused by the difference between plot-driven and character-driven. Maybe part of the problem is that sometimes when you look at a story and decide which is which, the story's already been written and is a finished book, while I'm looking at a work-barely-in-progress*. And I see that here in this chapter, one character's personality sets up X to happen, and things will ensue from that. That ought to count as character-driven--but it sure doesn't feel like it. It feels like sheer plot. Events hang on it. That makes it plot, right?
But almost as a side note, other personality traits from other characters are surfacing. These character traits feel like they could provide the meat that dictates the arc of the whole book and what specifically needs to happen at the end, to tie the book up the way I know it wants to be tied. That feels character-driven, to me. I'm not sure what the difference is. One's from the head. The other seems already there, and my job is to discover and develop it. I dunno.
So anyway, that's why I don't know where to start today. Maybe I'll begin by de-grossifying the dead body in chapter 5. It must be done, after all. Then I'll see what's what.
*using the term "progress" very loosely.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Note to self re: Chap. 4
Don't undercut by softening the scene--stick with hatred and dislike, and leave the reader on that note.
Softening can come later, and will probably add layers to the characters.
Softening can come later, and will probably add layers to the characters.
Once again I'm treading water in a chapter, trying to figure out what to do. I feel like I'm swimming in a big old pool of stuff. Stuff to move the story forward. Stuff the reader needs to know. Stuff the characters do. Stuff they say. Stuff I want to say. Stuff that's just fun to write. Stuff that clarifies. Stuff that evokes.
All this stuff can't be here. Some of it has to go. The scenes have to be tight and move quickly.
One thing I noticed about the latest Harry Potter movie was that they really whipped through some of the plot points in order to get them all in. If you missed one line of dialog--sometimes even just a couple of words--that was it. You wouldn't know why the characters did such-and-such or why thus-and-so ensued. They gave you exactly one chance to catch on and keep up.
That's what a chapter needs to be like, IMO. In a book, you can stop and reread a line if you think you missed something.
Okay, back to work. Sigh.
All this stuff can't be here. Some of it has to go. The scenes have to be tight and move quickly.
One thing I noticed about the latest Harry Potter movie was that they really whipped through some of the plot points in order to get them all in. If you missed one line of dialog--sometimes even just a couple of words--that was it. You wouldn't know why the characters did such-and-such or why thus-and-so ensued. They gave you exactly one chance to catch on and keep up.
That's what a chapter needs to be like, IMO. In a book, you can stop and reread a line if you think you missed something.
Okay, back to work. Sigh.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Toyed with a small section in Chapter 4, which has gotten way too long again and will have to be cut back down sometime. Then I moved to the later scene that relates to 4, and tidied a few pieces there. Next, I pulled 2000-3000 words from a very old version of the ms and stuck them in the vicinity of the later scene. Last, I trimmed those 2-3K words down to around 1000. So I may be set up to move on now. It's all very messy, but the main thing is that I've got everyone mad at each other, so I hope the story will take off on its own, just a little, for a while. If I can keep a strong emotional conflict going, I won't worry so much about what's coming up and whether it's going to make sense as a book.
Maria Edgeworth pt. 2
Okay, now, the other line of thought I had from this came from Louisa May Alcott. I saw the Edgeworth story title "Lazy Laurence" and recognized it right away as a chapter title from Little Women. This didn't surprise me, because the Alcotts were all about educating kids to be virtuous. Reading Edgeworth stories would have been right up their alley. But then, in looking up Maria Edgeworth, I saw that she'd also written a story called "The Purple Jar,"* which Wikipedia says was in The Parent's Assistant, but wasn't in the version I saw online. Wikipedia also said that Purple Jar got a mention in Eight Cousins, and I was like, Oh!--it's that reference I never understood. (I think it might be the scene where Rose is opening all the boxes her uncle brought her from his travels, but I don't feel like checking right now.)
The interesting thing to me is that in Eight Cousins, Rose complains about the mother in "Purple Jar"'s methods of moral instruction. So I finally read the story for myself, and the mom is clearly all about teaching her daughter a lesson, and to me it seems very much along the lines of an Alcott-type lesson. The little girl wants to buy a purple jar she sees in an apothecary window. Her shoes are falling apart, though, and mom and daughter are on their way to a cobblers to get her some new ones. The mom, rather than telling the kid to quit nagging because they're not buying anything except what they came for, tells her daughter she can choose: the purple jar, or new shoes. If the little girl chooses the purple jar, there will be no new shoes till next month. Well, the kid wants the jar. Mom warns the little girl that she ought to at least look at the purple jar first, to make sure it's a good choice. The kid says no, I know I want that jar. So they buy it and have it wrapped up and sent to their house.
It turns out the jar is really clear glass, and what makes it purple is this stinky apothecary goo inside, that must be poured out. The little girl's shoes fall to shreds and her dad won't let her go cool places with him because her shoes are ugly and poor-looking. The lesson is...well, I'm not sure if it's look carefully before you buy, or buy necessities before purple jars. Anyway, the point is that the whole story was about the mom letting her child learn this lesson for herself in a very Alcott-ish way (to be more specific, a very Bronson Alcott-ish way, from what I can see).
So, in Eight Cousins, Rose says she doesn't like that mom. Immediately I thought of two things, both from Little Men, both with an Alcott-ish tinge to them. One was where the professor punishes a boy for lying. the professor punishes the boy by handing the kid a ruler and telling him to hit the professor with it, because the professor has failed at teaching the kid not to be a liar. Basically, he says, "You punish me as you see fit." Luckily, the kid is not the type to take advantage. He does the minimum only when forced, then bursts into tears. (Can you see doing this in schools today? Good g*d.)
The other thing was the story the professor tells the liar before he "punishes" him. He recounts a fond, loving memory of the time his grandmother caught him lying (when he was a boy), and cut off the tip of his tongue with scissors. This made him speak very slowly till his tongue healed, thus allowing him time to consider his words carefully, as well as the truth behind them. The professor is profoundly grateful to his sainted grandmother for doing this.
So the lady that wrote all this is also the one whose character doesn't care for the way the mom in "Purple Jar" teaches kids lessons.
What boggles my mind about all this is the idea of trying to write a truly historical novel for kids or for YA, as far as characterization and attitudes. Nobody would believe it. And what do you think would happen if your ms had positive-role-model parent-figure characters who acted in any of the above ways?
*You can read this online, too, but I'm tired of messing with links. Just google to find it, if you're interested.
The interesting thing to me is that in Eight Cousins, Rose complains about the mother in "Purple Jar"'s methods of moral instruction. So I finally read the story for myself, and the mom is clearly all about teaching her daughter a lesson, and to me it seems very much along the lines of an Alcott-type lesson. The little girl wants to buy a purple jar she sees in an apothecary window. Her shoes are falling apart, though, and mom and daughter are on their way to a cobblers to get her some new ones. The mom, rather than telling the kid to quit nagging because they're not buying anything except what they came for, tells her daughter she can choose: the purple jar, or new shoes. If the little girl chooses the purple jar, there will be no new shoes till next month. Well, the kid wants the jar. Mom warns the little girl that she ought to at least look at the purple jar first, to make sure it's a good choice. The kid says no, I know I want that jar. So they buy it and have it wrapped up and sent to their house.
It turns out the jar is really clear glass, and what makes it purple is this stinky apothecary goo inside, that must be poured out. The little girl's shoes fall to shreds and her dad won't let her go cool places with him because her shoes are ugly and poor-looking. The lesson is...well, I'm not sure if it's look carefully before you buy, or buy necessities before purple jars. Anyway, the point is that the whole story was about the mom letting her child learn this lesson for herself in a very Alcott-ish way (to be more specific, a very Bronson Alcott-ish way, from what I can see).
So, in Eight Cousins, Rose says she doesn't like that mom. Immediately I thought of two things, both from Little Men, both with an Alcott-ish tinge to them. One was where the professor punishes a boy for lying. the professor punishes the boy by handing the kid a ruler and telling him to hit the professor with it, because the professor has failed at teaching the kid not to be a liar. Basically, he says, "You punish me as you see fit." Luckily, the kid is not the type to take advantage. He does the minimum only when forced, then bursts into tears. (Can you see doing this in schools today? Good g*d.)
The other thing was the story the professor tells the liar before he "punishes" him. He recounts a fond, loving memory of the time his grandmother caught him lying (when he was a boy), and cut off the tip of his tongue with scissors. This made him speak very slowly till his tongue healed, thus allowing him time to consider his words carefully, as well as the truth behind them. The professor is profoundly grateful to his sainted grandmother for doing this.
So the lady that wrote all this is also the one whose character doesn't care for the way the mom in "Purple Jar" teaches kids lessons.
What boggles my mind about all this is the idea of trying to write a truly historical novel for kids or for YA, as far as characterization and attitudes. Nobody would believe it. And what do you think would happen if your ms had positive-role-model parent-figure characters who acted in any of the above ways?
*You can read this online, too, but I'm tired of messing with links. Just google to find it, if you're interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)