She says she knows she can't give them gifts; they're not Real real. But they matter to her, and it may well feel like they make their own story decisions, as Katherine Kurtz said of hers, and many other writers have said of their characters. We build models of other people in our minds; writers build models of fictional people in their minds, and the models may feel like they have their own life, their own integrity.
Though she's more explicitly saying that she doesn't want the emotional response she and readers would get from killing the characters; they're not casually disposable, to her. Like Sherlock Holmes wasn't to his fans, or many other popular characters to theirs.
As for "Anne Ricing herself in the foot"... I don't know, it seemed a pretty sensible rant to me. She's not calling them fools for hating or badmouthing her books, just wondering why they bother, and being a bit smug about sales.
I'm not sure where egotism or lack of respect was demonstrated. Or where she has any problem. So the books she writes now don't appeal to a lot of the people who liked the first books -- she likes writing them, lots of people enjoy reading them, she's not calling people idiots for not liking the later books, what's the problem?
The fact that she once admitted to adding more sex scenes for the sake of it because a lot of her long-time fans (who are not nessacarily prudes) who are/were complaining about how her series was going downhill says a lot, in my opinion.
...they're not casually disposable, to her. Like Sherlock Holmes wasn't to his fans, or many other popular characters to theirs.
The difference was that Holmes was disposable to his creator/writer, if not casually so (but then, Holmes wasn't Doyle's Mary Sue...).
Also, IIRR, Tarzan was supposed to be retired after the fourth or fifth book, but Burroughs brought him out of retirement (as seen in one of the B. Custer books) with ill grace. I suppose at least he didn't write himself into the books, Hitchcock-like, to moan about what a damn pain in the posterior they were, unlike Agatha Christie. And Burroughs, remember, had the sense to set up two series right at the start of his career, so the possibility of boredom was less to begin with.
I suppose at least he didn't write himself into the books, Hitchcock-like, to moan about what a damn pain in the posterior they were, unlike Agatha Christie.
Wasn't the Christie analogue basically comic relief, used to poke fun at herself? I mean, the complaint that comes to mind is Ariadne Oliver commenting that before one starts a long series about a Finnish detective, it is a good idea to actually research Finland.
Ariadne Oliver commenting that before one starts a long series about a Finnish detective, it is a good idea to actually research Finland.
Spot on. I remember Sven (was it? whatever his name was) as Swedish, but there you are. Her complaint was, as I recall, that she wishes she hadn't made him Swedish because she knows nothing about Sweden (or Finland...). So, yes, you're just Nicollising the way of expressing it.
More generally, 'comic relief' was part of it; I recall her leaving apple cores all over the place.
There's really no point in drawing the attention of writers of long fantasy series to this example and expecting them to follow it, is there? Any more than drawing, etc. to the fact that Christie's books all come in at under 200 pages.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2006-12-31 11:03 pm
no subject
She says she knows she can't give them gifts; they're not Real real. But they matter to her, and it may well feel like they make their own story decisions, as Katherine Kurtz said of hers, and many other writers have said of their characters. We build models of other people in our minds; writers build models of fictional people in their minds, and the models may feel like they have their own life, their own integrity.
Though she's more explicitly saying that she doesn't want the emotional response she and readers would get from killing the characters; they're not casually disposable, to her. Like Sherlock Holmes wasn't to his fans, or many other popular characters to theirs.
As for "Anne Ricing herself in the foot"... I don't know, it seemed a pretty sensible rant to me. She's not calling them fools for hating or badmouthing her books, just wondering why they bother, and being a bit smug about sales.
So
Re: So
Re: So
no subject
The difference was that Holmes was disposable to his creator/writer, if not casually so (but then, Holmes wasn't Doyle's Mary Sue...).
Also, IIRR, Tarzan was supposed to be retired after the fourth or fifth book, but Burroughs brought him out of retirement (as seen in one of the B. Custer books) with ill grace. I suppose at least he didn't write himself into the books, Hitchcock-like, to moan about what a damn pain in the posterior they were, unlike Agatha Christie. And Burroughs, remember, had the sense to set up two series right at the start of his career, so the possibility of boredom was less to begin with.
no subject
Wasn't the Christie analogue basically comic relief, used to poke fun at herself? I mean, the complaint that comes to mind is Ariadne Oliver commenting that before one starts a long series about a Finnish detective, it is a good idea to actually research Finland.
no subject
Spot on. I remember Sven (was it? whatever his name was) as Swedish, but there you are. Her complaint was, as I recall, that she wishes she hadn't made him Swedish because she knows nothing about Sweden (or Finland...). So, yes, you're just Nicollising the way of expressing it.
More generally, 'comic relief' was part of it; I recall her leaving apple cores all over the place.
There's really no point in drawing the attention of writers of long fantasy series to this example and expecting them to follow it, is there? Any more than drawing, etc. to the fact that Christie's books all come in at under 200 pages.