Character building through details

I think it works well and is a better way than simply describing her characteristics.

I accept that the description of her arms and armour is important at an early stage or you could fall into the trap of E E (Doc) Smith's Lensman stories where a new weapon is invented everytime things get difficult.

I have the impression of her as being rather like a sergeant I met who fought in the Falklands War. After his first contact with the opposition he carried a battlefield souvenir weapon because it was much less sensitive to abuse than his personal weapon and he could get ammunition for it whenever they overran an enemy position. The fact that the ammo was heavier and bulkier was irrelevant - there was always more of it over the next hill.

I think she has logical reasons for her choices and will use those arms effectively.

Og

Liar said:

Yep, I had that too. Jader is very much alive and a fully realized charcter. But the problem is that in my head is a character slightly off course from the one Colly had in mind. Not by much, but enough to perhaps make actions and choices later in the story seem like out-of-character for me. This is a classic dilemma for any storyteller, and I'm not 100% sure that my intepretation is a direct result of Colly's way of describing her, but it might be.

Click to expand...

thanks Liar, for the imput. If you have the time, is there something specific I did here that lead you in the direction you found yourself going?

oggbashan said:

I think it works well and is a better way than simply describing her characteristics.

I accept that the description of her arms and armour is important at an early stage or you could fall into the trap of E E (Doc) Smith's Lensman stories where a new weapon is invented everytime things get difficult.

I have the impression of her as being rather like a sergeant I met who fought in the Falklands War. After his first contact with the opposition he carried a battlefield souvenir weapon because it was much less sensitive to abuse than his personal weapon and he could get ammunition for it whenever they overran an enemy position. The fact that the ammo was heavier and bulkier was irrelevant - there was always more of it over the next hill.

I think she has logical reasons for her choices and will use those arms effectively.

Og

Click to expand...

thanks Oggs

One problem with my Sci-fi world is that I have created a force where my officers tend to be more like NCO's than officers. At least, in the ranks of those on active combat duty. they still depend on the NCO's, but I haven't really gotten comfortable enough with my writing to try and tell a tory with the dual conflict of an alien menace and an oficer who isn't as seasoned as his NCO's. I know those have the greatest possibilites for story telling, just haven't worked up to being ready to try it yet.



Edited to Add: The idea of her having taken the weapon off her dead Sergant is a direct theft from world war II Marine accounts of fighting in the pacific. Everyone wanted a tommy gun and they passed from man to man as their current owners were killed. there weren't enough issued and at times they were less useful than a Gerand, but for the kind of close in fighting the Japanese favored, especially at night, they were often the difference makers. Men cherished them.

Colleen Thomas said:

Edited to Add: The idea of her having taken the weapon off her dead Sergant is a direct theft from world war II Marine accounts of fighting in the pacific. Everyone wanted a tommy gun and they passed from man to man as their current owners were killed. there weren't enough issued and at times they were less useful than a Gerand, but for the kind of close in fighting the Japanese favored, especially at night, they were often the difference makers. Men cherished them.

Click to expand...

I would have expected the BAR to be more desirable than the Tommy gun.

The Australians fighting the Japanese in New Guinea used Bren guns fired from the hip - difficult unless you are fit and strong. The Owen submachine gun, designed and made in Australia, was meant for close quarters jungle fighting and in its time was superb. No one bothered to souvenir Japanese small arms.

The Bren and the Owen were much more rugged and reliable in poor conditions than the Tommy Gun which was delicate by comparison (and prone to jamming!).

Og

oggbashan said:

I would have expected the BAR to be more desirable than the Tommy gun.

The Australians fighting the Japanese in New Guinea used Bren guns fired from the hip - difficult unless you are fit and strong. The Owen submachine gun, designed and made in Australia, was meant for close quarters jungle fighting and in its time was superb. No one bothered to souvenir Japanese small arms.

The Bren and the Owen were much more rugged and reliable in poor conditions than the Tommy Gun which was delicate by comparison (and prone to jamming!).

Og

Click to expand...

The BAR was heavy and long barreled. Every guy loved the BAR man in his unit, but for the close in stuff, most wanted a tommy gun. There was also considerable demand for .45 pistols.

Japanese arms were for the most part crappy. I have read that many units, especially those on long range recon or pen tossed their M-16's and grabbed an ak-47 as soon as they could during vietnam.

Colly, in the interest of getting some response from a non-writer who is very into the SF genre and who could be counted on to give a response uncolored by prior knowledge of your style, I took advantage of my brother-in-law's presence. Here is what he had to say...


After reading the passage, I did feel as though I had gotten to know the character as intended. Jade is probably young (early to mid 20s) and very competent. I believe she is a squad leader or higher who rose to her position thru ability and experience as well as attrition. She probably is very popular with her people and there is probably a good bit of manuvering to be assigned to her squad, both because she is popular but more importantly, she keeps her people alive. She believes in giving an objective/order and allowing her people to figure out how to get it done, no micromanaging.

The bit about the nanoservos sold me on the older armor as well as showing Jade as a "belt & suspenders" type. You never know what your going to need or when, until it comes and smacks you in the face. The bit about the dicontinued weapon is a subtle reference most people can relate to, a good idea shot down by bureaucracy out of touch with reality and never bothering to consult with the (soldiers) who are.

The detail on the armor and weapons I would assume would come fairly early on in the story and I would also assume that there would be additional fleshing out sprinkled thru the story to help both the story line and the character along

I hope that gives you a perspective from a purely reader POV...

Belegon said:

Colly, in the interest of getting some response from a non-writer who is very into the SF genre and who could be counted on to give a response uncolored by prior knowledge of your style, I took advantage of my brother-in-law's presence. Here is what he had to say...


After reading the passage, I did feel as though I had gotten to know the character as intended. Jade is probably young (early to mid 20s) and very competent. I believe she is a squad leader or higher who rose to her position thru ability and experience as well as attrition. She probably is very popular with her people and there is probably a good bit of manuvering to be assigned to her squad, both because she is popular but more importantly, she keeps her people alive. She believes in giving an objective/order and allowing her people to figure out how to get it done, no micromanaging.

The bit about the nanoservos sold me on the older armor as well as showing Jade as a "belt & suspenders" type. You never know what your going to need or when, until it comes and smacks you in the face. The bit about the dicontinued weapon is a subtle reference most people can relate to, a good idea shot down by bureaucracy out of touch with reality and never bothering to consult with the (soldiers) who are.

The detail on the armor and weapons I would assume would come fairly early on in the story and I would also assume that there would be additional fleshing out sprinkled thru the story to help both the story line and the character along

I hope that gives you a perspective from a purely reader POV...

Click to expand...

Bel, I owe you a big one

thanks for taking the time to do that for me. All the input has been great and I appreciate everyone for their views and ideas. I really appreciate this one, since it's disconnected from knowing me or more about my style

*HUGS*

Colleen Thomas said:

First and foremost, I don't mind using lists. If that is the best way I see of getting the points across.

Click to expand...

You may not mind, but your reader will. If you've got to have a list make it no more than three things. This is a golden rule in speech making. It also applies to written work.

I don't start with the assumption women are any less capable than men, so your take really came out of left field, so to speak.

Click to expand...

I can't say what assumptions you make but I can generalise about the feelings and assumptions of probably 3/4 of any readership. Girls are not as good as boys. The way that I personally grew out of that propoganda was to substitute. Some people are not as good at some things as other people, be they girl, boy or neutral.

Many of the details you see as making her "as good as a man" are actually there as set up for future events down the plot line. The servos, for example, don't make her as strong as any guy, they make her superhumanly powerful, for very short bursts. Unless you know a fellow who can tear his way through a ships bulhead with his bare hands. Her suit dosen't make her tougher than men, it makes her tougher than her squadmates, both male & female etc.

Click to expand...

I have no objections (and I hope no deep seated feelings of superiority inculcated by societal propoganda) to women being the equal of men, I'm saying that that's what I saw in your excerpt, that that is what you put there.

Within the framework of the future story, events that occur make no sense, unless you understand her Armor is fundamentally different than that worn by her toopers. If I have to stop, as each event occurs, and tell you why it's different, her armor and weapon begins to feel like a deaux ex machina excuse.

Click to expand...

Which is almost exactly the same point that I was attempting to highlight. It makes no nevermind where you put the explanations they still come out as excuses (as you put it). Whether that's an excuse for being less than manlike or less than godlike is beside the point. The woman herself becomes indistinguishable from any other grunt save for the armour.

I felt, that putting the information ahead of the events, strengthened the idea that newer is not always better, rather than giving it piece meal and having it become a story focused on the armor and weapon.

Click to expand...

And it seems to me that (given only this excerpt) that the armour is the entire point of the whole thing. Piecemeal gives an opportunity to blend seamlessly and in a timely or current need to know fashion, without distracting from where the focus of any good work (in my opinion) comes, that is, character and relationships.

I don't think you read as much military history as I do, so you are probably not as keenly aware as I am of many innovative things that were supposed to be better for whatever reason, but proved in the crucible of combat to be far inferior to the older implement they replaced.

Click to expand...

I really don't need to read up much on military history to know that a centuries old cast iron skillet is much better for making pancakes than a cheap mass produced aluminium frying pan, or that there are many more parts in a fuel injection system that can go awry than in a simple mechanical linkage carburretor or that expensive leather boots will last much longer and be infinitely more repairable than a pair of $400 dollar nike trainers.

This too is a perspective I would never have had if you hadn't spoke up and I really appreciate the input

Click to expand...

I really didn't want to get into all this because it takes much more reading into the piece than of the piece. OK I didn't really answer your original question properly.

Yes, you (I mean you Colly) can deliver character from what and how they use equipment, resources and situations but there is a trap to fall into which is that a person can be defined by these items rather than as themselves. It's a difficult line to follow, you didn't fall into the trap but the temptation is there which it seems had you stray away from the person to leave them a bit nebulous in my view.

Sorry, I'm going to talk ordnance here.

The BAR, although rather nice, was kind of a neither fish nor fowl weapon. Too heavy to be an assault rifle, and not enough firepower to be a machine gun.

The Germans had the best of both in WWII.

They had the only assault rifle, the Stürmgehwher 44. The AK 47 is pretty much a straight knock off of that weapon.

And they had the MG 42, which I think is the best machine gun ever made.

And Colleen, I've heard the same thing about troops dropping their M-16s and using AK 47s instead. I gather the M-16 was a wonderful weapon on a range but too delicate for actual combat. The AK 47 is very, very reliable, and when your life is on the line, you want something that will shoot when you need it.

As one combat vet I read said, nobody was ever found dead next to a disassembled AK.

OK, I'll stop now. I know discussing this sort of thing makes people a little nervous.

rgraham666 said:

Sorry, I'm going to talk ordnance here.

The BAR, although rather nice, was kind of a neither fish nor fowl weapon. Too heavy to be an assault rifle, and not enough firepower to be a machine gun.

The Germans had the best of both in WWII.

They had the only assault rifle, the Stürmgehwher 44. The AK 47 is pretty much a straight knock off of that weapon.

And they had the MG 42, which I think is the best machine gun ever made.

And Colleen, I've heard the same thing about troops dropping their M-16s and using AK 47s instead. I gather the M-16 was a wonderful weapon on a range but too delicate for actual combat. The AK 47 is very, very reliable, and when your life is on the line, you want something that will shoot when you need it.

As one combat vet I read said, nobody was ever found dead next to a disassembled AK.

OK, I'll stop now. I know discussing this sort of thing makes people a little nervous.

Click to expand...

Hi RG,

As a side note to this thread, I agree with what you said.
Having fired both and the M16 extensively, I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that the M16 is quite possibly the worst piece of shit ever adopted by any group for any reason. It may have a very high rate of fire for supersonic rounds but it is difficult to hit the broad side of a barn on single shot and it's sights are worse than your average cracker jack toy gun. that is when it actually fires with out jamming.

Hugo

hugo_sam said:

Hi RG,

As a side note to this thread, I agree with what you said.
Having fired both and the M16 extensively, I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that the M16 is quite possibly the worst piece of shit ever adopted by any group for any reason. It may have a very high rate of fire for supersonic rounds but it is difficult to hit the broad side of a barn on single shot and it's sights are worse than your average cracker jack toy gun. that is when it actually fires with out jamming.

Hugo

Click to expand...

Don't get me started.

The M-16 is, in my opinion, too typical of the armaments designed these days. A wonderful piece of modern technology, but designed for the lab and not combat.

Crap, now I'm philosophizing like mad. Conflict has been a major interest for me, for most of my life.

gauchecritic said:

The writing is as close to a list as you can come without using shorter sentences and you know you shouldn't write lists.

Click to expand...

gauchecritic said:

You may not mind, but your reader will. If you've got to have a list make it no more than three things. This is a golden rule in speech making. It also applies to written work.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Gauche - you know I respect you and your writing, but I must take arms against this. Not simply the question of lists, that is, but against the idea that the rules of writing are straighforward yes/no things that work this way. I think it most unreasonable to suggest that a rule such as this could possibly be true for enough different genres, styles, character situations, or audiences to have any real meaning. I submit, as exhibits for the defense:

Christina Rossetti, "Goblin Market":

Morning and evening
Maids heard the goblins cry:
"Come buy our orchard fruits,
Come buy, come buy:
Apples and quinces,
Lemons and oranges,
Plump unpecked cherries-
Melons and raspberries,
Bloom-down-cheeked peaches,
Swart-headed mulberries,
Wild free-born cranberries,
Crab-apples, dewberries,
Pine-apples, blackberries,
Apricots, strawberries--
All ripe together
In summer weather--
Morns that pass by,
Fair eves that fly;
Come buy, come buy ... "

Click to expand...

Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray:

This taste enthralled him for years, and, indeed, may be said never to have left him. He would often spend a whole day settling and resettling in their cases the various stones that he had collected, such as the olive-green chrysoberyl that turns red by lamplight, the cymophane with its wire-like line of silver, the pistachio-coloured peridot, rose-pink and wine-yellow topazes, carbuncles of fiery scarlet with tremulous four-rayed stars, flame-red cinnamon-stones, orange and violet spinels, and amethysts with their alternate layers of ruby and sapphire.

Click to expand...

Salman Rushdie, "The Prophet's Hair":

All around him in his study was the evidence of his collector's mania. There were enormous class cases full of impaled butterflies from Gulmarg, three dozen scale models in various medals of the legendary cannon Zamzama, innumerable swords, a Naga spear, ninety-four terracotta camels of the sort sold on railway station platforms, many samovars, and a whole zoology of tiny sandalwood animals, which had originally been cared to serve as children's bathtime toys.

Click to expand...

William Shakespeare, MacBeth:

3RD WITCH: Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
of the ravined salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digged i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat and slips of yew
Slivered in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tatar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our caldron.
ALL: Double, double toil and trouble,
Fire burn and caldron bubble.

Click to expand...

And, of course, Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels:

(I told the Houyhnhnm) ... I was commander of the ship, and had about fifty YAHOOS under me, many of which died at sea, and I was forced to supply them by others picked out from several nations; that our ship was twice in danger of being sunk, the first time by a great storm, and the second by striking against a rock." Here my master interposed, by asking me, "how I could persuade strangers, out of different countries, to venture with me, after the losses I had sustained, and the hazards I had run?" I said, "they were fellows of desperate fortunes, forced to fly from the places of their birth on account of their poverty or their crimes. Some were undone by lawsuits; others spent all they had in drinking, whoring, and gaming; others fled for treason; many for murder, theft, poisoning, robbery, perjury, forgery, coining false money, for committing rapes, or sodomy; for flying from their colours, or deserting to the enemy; and most of them had broken prison; none of these durst return to their native countries, for fear of being hanged, or of starving in a jail; and therefore they were under the necessity of seeking a livelihood in other places."

Click to expand...

Now I must ask: does a wise man place himself in opposition to Dean Swift? He's more a terror than the rest together.

Shanglan

I was just about to leave. Where the hell did this beautiful thread come from? Keep it bumped!!!

BlackShanglan said:

Sorry, Gauche - you know I respect you and your writing, but I must take arms against this. Not simply the question of lists, that is, but against the idea that the rules of writing are straighforward yes/no things that work this way. I think it most unreasonable to suggest that a rule such as this could possibly be true for enough different genres, styles, character situations, or audiences to have any real meaning. I submit, as exhibits for the defense:

Christina Rossetti, "Goblin Market":



Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray:



Salman Rushdie, "The Prophet's Hair":



William Shakespeare, MacBeth:



And, of course, Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels:



Now I must ask: does a wise man place himself in opposition to Dean Swift? He's more a terror than the rest together.

Shanglan

Click to expand...

I'm not as learned as Shang, but I do know the only people who have ever made mention of me using a list technique are other writers. I've been giged for writing abou tlesbians, for not including guys, for being a man hater, for dreadful dialogue, for writing too much, and a host of other failings, but not once has a reader thought to smackme for using lists in a story.

Ooh, ooh. Arguements with the horsey. How I've longed for, dreamed of, and anticipated this moment. (three to a list: more effective).

I did say it came close to a list without actually being one, or as near as makes no nevermind.

Ok, in sci-fi I can put up with an explanatory list when each part is necessary to define others. Time travel: quantum mechanics: cyclotrons: television colour guns: x-rays and cellular communication by photons.

But with most lists (poetry doesn't count as you well know you sneaky beast) it is almost always a better idea to break up any string of otherwise unconnected words with at least a sidebar, as Wilde and Swift do for the most part, until they have got you ready for the single connection collection towards the end.

And Rushdie doesn't even come close to the previous two.

Colly did break up the list in this fashion, which I did mention and which saved it from actually being a straight list.

Which was my initial point. If you (or Colly) can't accept that there is a sense of 'girls are so as good as boys' then the near, quasi or semi list is just me being personally pedantic.

The piece in and of itself reads like a litany of defence of the female sex against ingrained sexism, just or unjust.


DOWN WITH LISTS. (not Liszt, lists. I have nothing against Frans or France, it's a lovely country and I'd love to go again)

CharleyH said:

I was just about to leave. Where the hell did this beautiful thread come from? Keep it bumped!!!

Click to expand...

Blame shang

I wouldn't have thought to submit it as a thread if the horsey hadn't made mention of it in a pm and given me something to chew on.

gauchecritic said:

Ooh, ooh. Arguements with the horsey. How I've longed for, dreamed of, and anticipated this moment.

Click to expand...

If only I'd known. I think myself a reasonably considerate animal at most times; if I'd realized that you so longed to cross swords, I'd have obliged you sooner.

(three to a list: more effective).

Click to expand...

Or in this case, needlessly verbose and repetitious. But I shan't take any more jabs; I only took that one because you yourself nominated the phrase as an example.

I don't personally agree on the three issue. That is, I understand the reason why three might resonate nicely in some circumstances, but I think its application too limited to make an arbitrary rule of it. Fortunately, so do you. At least, that's how it seems to me in reviewing your claims. My previous post made this statement:

I think it most unreasonable to suggest that a rule such as this could possibly be true for enough different genres, styles, character situations, or audiences to have any real meaning.

Click to expand...

Your post states:

Ok, in sci-fi I can put up with an explanatory list when each part is necessary to define others. Time travel: quantum mechanics: cyclotrons: television colour guns: x-rays and cellular communication by photons.

Click to expand...

So we've ruled out any list in which parts help to define other parts. Then we have:

... poetry doesn't count as you well know you sneaky beast

Click to expand...

Why poetry shouldn't count, I'm not at all clear. Or rather, I suppose, I don't see why prose should "count" as being prohibited from lists when poetry doesn't. Surely it can't be rhyme or meter that you'll cite to justify this exclusion, as lists are just as present in Eliot's "empty bottles, sandwich papers, / Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends" as in Rossetti's lovely orchards. Why shouldn't poetry count? And is drama not counted either, or is Mr. Shakespeare standing uncontested? If we're ruling out drama, why are we doing so?

At any rate, there's more:

... it is almost always a better idea to break up any string of otherwise unconnected words with at least a sidebar, as Wilde and Swift do for the most part, until they have got you ready for the single connection collection towards the end.

Click to expand...

This appears to suggest that lists of more than three words are also allowed for "related" words (as opposed to your "unrelated"), for lists that contain short descriptions or asides rather than individual words (at least for some of the items), and lists that are simply single words, but that follow lists that have intervening words.

If we are then to define the ground remaining to this prohibition against lists, it would be appear to be this: that one ought not to create lists of more than three completely unrelated items consisting only of single-word entries not prefaced by a related or connected list that contains longer-than-single-word items by way of preparation, unless one is creating a list in which some elements define each other, or one is writing in verse, verse libre, or blank verse, or one is creating a drama. One should also, while penning this rule, ardently hope that a mischievious horse does not whisper the words "Shem the Pen Man" in one's ear while nudging the collected works of James Joyce in one's direction.

I suppose that one could call that a rule of sorts. However, I'd observe that this:

I think it most unreasonable to suggest that a rule such as this could possibly be true for enough different genres, styles, character situations, or audiences to have any real meaning.

Click to expand...

... says roughly the same thing and has the advantage of brevity.

After the list discussion, there is this:

Which was my initial point. If you (or Colly) can't accept that there is a sense of 'girls are so as good as boys' then the near, quasi or semi list is just me being personally pedantic.

The piece in and of itself reads like a litany of defence of the female sex against ingrained sexism, just or unjust.

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused on which was the initial point, but am reading this to mean that it's the issue you deal with for the bulk of this quotation. I'm sure that you have excellent reasons for believing it. I don't see it myself, but it doesn't trouble me that you do. I'm sure that Colly's weighing up all of the many contributions on the thread; one of the pleasures of posting on Lit is seeing how very differently individuals can read the same material.

As for me, I didn't choose to debate the issue because I saw no reason to do so. I feel that you're quite entitled to your opinion on that matter, as anyone is when developing an individual interpretation of a piece of literature. It would be a dull world if we went about trying to browbeat each other out of our own readings of a text. I don't see the text the way you do, but your reading does no harm to my own and takes nothing from it. I don't see any reason to try to persuade you to read it differently.

I disagreed with you on the issue of the rules of writing, and there I did choose to argue, but that's because that is a different type of debate and opinion. Your thoughts on what Colly's story contain are your thoughts; they tell us what you think, individually, and are limited to you. The rules of writing, however, are a broader issue that affect all of us as authors, and so I think them worth debating a bit. They are communal property, or a socially derived code if you like, and thus something in which we all have a stake. For that reason, I'm happy to supply you with as many more examples of lists as you can possibly bear.

Shanglan

Ok, I'd skim the passage until I found the action [just to prove I'm not diplomatic ] I'm not there to be blown away by literary lists [urgh - didn't even know there was a fangly word for it] but to be entertained. I admit I don't do much character building in my own stories, because they are based on cliches.

She's comes across as: concise, meticulous, apparently knows her shit, doesn't make emotional attachments, would rather masturbate to the image of a gun then a partner [or with a gun? ] plays by the rules if the rules are logical, not popular with authority because she would say what she means & bluntly, but considered fair and loyal and reliable by her comrades. I want you to show me why she isn't a cliche character. Give me a reason for the 8 paragraphs on armour and weaponry.

Yes, I think there is a hint of "I'm as good as the boys" or "girls can play with guns too". I think the sexiest thing is for a female not to lose her feminity when competiting is what is thought to be a male arena - that she isn't afraid to own her sexuality. To me this is lost in this passage [and probably what you meant to do], but it is something I want to see there.

This should be in the SDC forum!

*burp*

The number one problem with lists is that like dialogue in a porn movie, readers tend to skip them.

The last time I checked no one here was at the level of Shakespeare, Swift, or Wilde.

By all means, try to make me read your list. The truth is one out of a thousand porns I actually enjoy the dialogue and plot so I fast-forward the sex.

Sincerely,
ElSl

Exceptions that proof rules.

BlackShanglan said:

I don't personally agree on the three issue. That is, I understand the reason why three might resonate nicely in some circumstances, but I think its application too limited to make an arbitrary rule of it. Fortunately, so do you. At least, that's how it seems to me in reviewing your claims.

Click to expand...

I didn't invent it, I merely bear it in mind and remind others when it seems appropo.

I'll take a moment here to explain my reasoning about the three rule and its natural effectiveness:

Go knock on someone's door. How many times do you knock. Not once. twice is peremptory and four times is reserved for when you knock again.
A few years ago (I don't know if it's still extant) the international (mechanical) signal for requiring aid when lost or needing help was to make any loud noise, (whistle, hitting a tree trunk, shouting) repeatedly, in threes.
The legend of third light for a cigarette being unlucky.
Over here betting only pays out on the first three horses past the finishing line.
And when throwing The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. (bottom of page)

Why poetry shouldn't count, I'm not at all clear. Or rather, I suppose, I don't see why prose should "count" as being prohibited from lists when poetry doesn't. Surely it can't be rhyme or meter that you'll cite to justify this exclusion, as lists are just as present in Eliot's "empty bottles, sandwich papers, / Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends" as in Rossetti's lovely orchards. Why shouldn't poetry count? And is drama not counted either, or is Mr. Shakespeare standing uncontested? If we're ruling out drama, why are we doing so?

Click to expand...

Classical poetry has its own rules and considerations, which make it exempt from or exceptional to prose. And yes, one of the reasons could quite easily be that being poetry it is often a matter of rhythm and cadence which forms a large part of why it is a poem.
Willem wrote poems which were drama, in iambic pentameter, as well you know, following the eons long tradition of The Saga.
The list, in drama, or work read out to an audience follows the rule of speech making and rarely occurs except for specific reasons. (e.g the above scene from The Holy Grail.)

This appears to suggest that lists of more than three words are also allowed for "related" words (as opposed to your "unrelated"), for lists that contain short descriptions or asides rather than individual words (at least for some of the items), and lists that are simply single words, but that follow lists that have intervening words.

Click to expand...

The related and unrelated distinction was that the link between those 'unrelated' were largely limited to their common denominator, which is quite often the character (or narrator) that delivers them.

If we are then to define the ground remaining to this prohibition against lists, it would be appear to be this: that one ought not to create lists of more than three completely unrelated items consisting only of single-word entries not prefaced by a related or connected list that contains longer-than-single-word items by way of preparation, unless one is creating a list in which some elements define each other, or one is writing in verse, verse libre, or blank verse, or one is creating a drama. One should also, while penning this rule, ardently hope that a mischievious horse does not whisper the words "Shem the Pen Man" in one's ear while nudging the collected works of James Joyce in one's direction.

Click to expand...

And isn't that what rules are about? Rules don't define themselves they define and are defined by whatever it is that they seek to limit. They are also there to try your patience, be proofed and/or bent/broken/ignored and to give you something to aim at. Much like matchsticks in a urinal.

I disagreed with you on the issue of the rules of writing, and there I did choose to argue, but that's because that is a different type of debate and opinion. Your thoughts on what Colly's story contain are your thoughts; they tell us what you think, individually, and are limited to you. The rules of writing, however, are a broader issue that affect all of us as authors, and so I think them worth debating a bit. They are communal property, or a socially derived code if you like, and thus something in which we all have a stake. For that reason, I'm happy to supply you with as many more examples of lists as you can possibly bear.

Shanglan

Click to expand...

Now, I'm not going to set myself up as a person of any great learning, nor indeed to compare myself to anyone that has gone through a university degree in psychology (I'm limited to one term of child psychology for any kind of formal education) but it seems that you have called my interpretation invalid (I may be wrong but it's what I read) and by extension invalidate any or all psychological 'opinion' as being exclusive to their originator without any application to their 'subject'. (If none write "None")

no offence has been taken or tendered in any of the above remarks)

And finally. I will say, that rules are for the ruled. And being unruly is generally a good idea.

wishfulthinking said:

Ok, I'd skim the passage until I found the action [just to prove I'm not diplomatic ] I'm not there to be blown away by literary lists [urgh - didn't even know there was a fangly word for it] but to be entertained. I admit I don't do much character building in my own stories, because they are based on cliches.

She's comes across as: concise, meticulous, apparently knows her shit, doesn't make emotional attachments, would rather masturbate to the image of a gun then a partner [or with a gun? ] plays by the rules if the rules are logical, not popular with authority because she would say what she means & bluntly, but considered fair and loyal and reliable by her comrades. I want you to show me why she isn't a cliche character. Give me a reason for the 8 paragraphs on armour and weaponry.

Yes, I think there is a hint of "I'm as good as the boys" or "girls can play with guns too". I think the sexiest thing is for a female not to lose her feminity when competiting is what is thought to be a male arena - that she isn't afraid to own her sexuality. To me this is lost in this passage [and probably what you meant to do], but it is something I want to see there.

Click to expand...

I should probably remind folks that next to Oggs, I'm probably one of the most long winded writers at lit

This isn't all that is done to develop her character, simply one of the techniques I tried to use. As for action, the passages are sandwiched between the sounding of general uarters and Jade loading into a drop ship. Her sexuality has already been given cursory address in a telly kind of way and will be addressed subsequntly through (ugh) dialogue.

As for reasons, unrelated to trying to show her character, if you skim the passage, you will not understand why the climactic part of the action sequence goes as it does. That sequence draws almost exclusively on these passages to explain what happens and I don't rehash any of it. So if I am inducing people to not read the posted passages I am really sabotageing my own work. At least a far as internal continuity and the action portion of the work goes. I'm not going to fall into the deaux ex machina pattern of just suddenly telling a reader why her armor is diferent and why it makes a difference everytime something comes up where it has bearing. I hate it when authors do it to me. It absolutely destroys my enjoyment of a piece when the protag has a batman utility belt kind ofluck and just happens to have every particular piece of weaponry needed for each close call.

I don't see the girls ar better than boys connotation at all, but that may be a personal blindness. Or it may be that I am simply more familiar with the world I am writing Jade in and in that world, gender considerations are not a part of the military.

I am getting the impression this technique works much better for those who read a lot of Sci-fi/milfic than it does for others?

Colleen Thomas said:

I should probably remind folks that next to Oggs, I'm probably one of the most long winded writers at lit

...I am getting the impression this technique works much better for those who read a lot of Sci-fi/milfic than it does for others?

Click to expand...

But with my 50 word stories, I'm diversifying.

Your final question - Yes. How you set the scene and explain the world in which the characters live is significant in those genres. The fans expect explanation and consistency and will read a fair amount of description to get a feel for the environment in which the characters act.

I found that boring with one of my 'worlds' and after the first chapter I banished the explanatory matter to an appendix.

If you don't explain and let the reader learn as they go the surprises can get out of hand e.g Heinlein's Glory Road where the hero keeps being startled by a new creature or situation. Heinlein did it well but it is not a good example to follow.

Og

gauchecritic said:

I didn't invent it, I merely bear it in mind and remind others when it seems appropo.

Click to expand...

This leads me naturally to the question of who did invent this rule, or rather where it was that you came by it. It also leads me to your own comments on questioning rules, which on the whole I think even more valid here. If this is a rule that - and I don't really see that you've claimed otherwise - hardly ever applies in any meaningful way, why repeat it simply because "it's a rule"? On what divine authority does this thing rest?

In asking that question, I should add, I'm asking about this rule as applies to writing. Your points here:

Go knock on someone's door. How many times do you knock. Not once. twice is peremptory and four times is reserved for when you knock again.
A few years ago (I don't know if it's still extant) the international (mechanical) signal for requiring aid when lost or needing help was to make any loud noise, (whistle, hitting a tree trunk, shouting) repeatedly, in threes.
The legend of third light for a cigarette being unlucky.
Over here betting only pays out on the first three horses past the finishing line.
And when throwing The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. (bottom of page)

Click to expand...

... are indeed correct, but none of them has any direct bearing on the written word. That humans often do things in threes is not sufficient reason for all things in all contexts to be regulated by trinities, and that's the extension you are assuming if you suggest that the popularity of three in other contexts means that it ought to rule lists in writing. One might also observe that, as Umberto Ecco has pointed out, every number from one to ten has a structural or mystical value to many cultures, and has equally good reasons for it. Five, for example, is the number of classical senses and the number of digits on hands and feet. Two is the number of sexes and evokes the essential binary antithesis of so much of life - hot/cold, day/night, youth/age, etc. Nine for three times three, very popular in Irish literature (as are three, seven, and twelve), and so on and so forth. That a number is commonly seen is not a reason to arbitrarily dictate sentence structure around it.

Classical poetry has its own rules and considerations, which make it exempt from or exceptional to prose. And yes, one of the reasons could quite easily be that being poetry it is often a matter of rhythm and cadence which forms a large part of why it is a poem.

Click to expand...

That is precisely why I supplied you with the quotation from "The Wasteland" - in free verse,with no meter or rhyme to prevent the Holy Trinity from operating. But here, too, I think that your logic is eating its own tail. If poetry is more concerned with rhythm and cadence rather than less, and if your argument is - as it appears to be - that the "three rule" is about rhythm and pattern, than surely it ought to hold more true for poetry rather than less. This claim also suggests that prose is not and should not be attentive to rhythm and cadence, something that I think many writers of prose would dispute.

Willem wrote poems which were drama, in iambic pentameter, as well you know, following the eons long tradition of The Saga.

Click to expand...

If we are here discussing the Edda and similar Icelandic sagas, these were composed before the French variations of cadence and stress pattern that we now call "meter" moved north. They were composed on the Anglo-Saxon model of balanced, caesura-split alliterative lines. There, I will agree, groups of three may face more problems, both because the typically four-stress lines could conceivably present difficulties in rhythm - although I'm not convinced it's a serious difficulty - and because Christianty and its intense focus on the trinity had not yet come to dominate the culture. However, it's not clear to me that Shakespeare owes any direct debt to them metrically, as there is no sign that any text of them was available to him or that he was capable of reading Old English. If we're talking more generally about the saga as the heroic cycle, I don't see that that applies in any meaningful way to the questions of cadence and rhythm, as it's a description of events and narrative patterns.

In any case, Shakespeare's plays in blank verse present the same problem as poetry does. If they are structured around a rhythm and a cadence, and if your claims about this list rule are about pattern and rhythm, they clearly ought to hold to it more strongly, not less. For that matter, we ought to be taking Mr. Shakespeare to task for his use of iambic pentameter. According to the logic presented for justifying lists of three, surely then his lines should also be groups of three - three iambs per line, or iambic trimeter.

The list, in drama, or work read out to an audience follows the rule of speech making and rarely occurs except for specific reasons. (e.g the above scene from The Holy Grail.)

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, one is George Bernard Shaw:

From Mrs. Warren's Profession:

VIVIE: ... I dont even know arithmetic well. Outside mathematics, lawn-tennis, eating, sleeping, cycling, and walking, I'm a more ignorant barbarian than any woman could possibly be who hadnt gone in for the tripos.

<...>

MRS. WARREN: ... The other two were only half sisters: undersized, ugly, starved looking, hard working, poor honest creatures: Liz and I would have half-murdered them if mother hadnt half-murdered us to keep our hands off them.

Click to expand...

Or possibly Oscar Wilde:

From The Importance of Being Earnest:

JACK: <Very irritably> How extremely kind of you, Lady Bracknell! I have also in my possession, you will be pleased to hear, certificates of Miss Cardew's birth, baptism, whooping cough, registration, vaccination, confirmation, and the measles; both the German and the English variety.

Click to expand...

Must I go on? I certainly can. We cannot call a thing a rule when it applies so rarely, and this alleged rule finds the ground cut out from under it at every possible opportunity. That the rule of three can at times be a useful pattern, I do not deny, but there is a great deal of difference between an occasionally useful rhetorical or structural element and a rule - just as there is, one might add, considerable difference between speech-making and the composition of literary works, and between one type of speech-making and another. One hardly expects to see the same rules in effect at a funeral oration as one does over a conference table.

Mind you, you've narrowed the range yourself to a point at which the rule becomes not only thinly applicable, but non-existent. For we have this:

The related and unrelated distinction was that the link between those 'unrelated' were largely limited to their common denominator, which is quite often the character (or narrator) that delivers them.

Click to expand...

Do first allow me to apologize for changing your "unconnected" to "unrelated"; it's very kind of you not to rate me for it, although I think we agree here that the intended meaning is the same. That said, if one allows that that connection can be as broad and simple as anything more specific than the character delivering the list - say, for instance, the setting in which they occur, the feelings they evoke, the functions they serve, etc. - one has to ask what list could possible be described as unrelated, or unconnected if you like. When would someone offer a list with no more connecting principle than that the random words are all spoken by the same character? This is carte blanche for all lists, and a good thing too; all is as it should be.

And isn't that what rules are about? Rules don't define themselves they define and are defined by whatever it is that they seek to limit. They are also there to try your patience, be proofed and/or bent/broken/ignored and to give you something to aim at. Much like matchsticks in a urinal.

Click to expand...

Possibly - although it seems very odd to me to insist upon a rule that appears to have no actual application simply "because it is a rule" - especially as I have yet to see whose rule this is, or on whose authority I am meant to reject all lists of greater than three (unrelated) (single word) (not in poetry despite poetry's focus on pattern and cadence) (not in verse drama) (yes in non-verse drama, except no one follows this rule) (not when the words are used to define each other) (not when connected by any sort of theme or purpose) words. However, let me address this question, which I think germane and more the real issue:

Why is the horse dedicating an absurd quantity of time to this issue?

It is because the horse is quite passionate on the topic of structure and form, and because the horse is quite passionate on the topic of good writing. It is because the horse believes that truly good writing comes from knowing, yes, the rules - and more importantly, from knowing the specific effects of fine differences in language, structure, and meaning, differences faint and fugitive enough to derive no benefit whatesoever from the imposition of simplistic, formulaic, and ham-fisted "rules" that not only attempt to outlaw useful expressions, but that - most importantly - teach writers to blind themselves to the real effect of their work.

Take, for example, the rule "thou shalt not use passive voice." It's utter nonsense. That is, it's nonsense as written. There are many cases in which passive voice is thoroughly appropriate. Why else would the construction exist? It's not ungrammatical, and it would be damned peculiar for the language to have a whole grammatically correct construction that was never, ever to be used.

So why is that rule taught? It's taught to novice writers because many of them misuse passive voice by applying it too frequently, and because it's simpler to say "never use passive voice" than to communicate the real issue, to wit: "Passive voice is a special construction that emphasizes the object rather than the subject of an action. It can blunt the action of the sentence by adding extra words and moving the acting subject to the back, but it can be useful if one wishes to direct the reader's attention to the object as a matter of style and emphasis. Like all tools of emphasis, it must be used sparingly to have any effect; the greater the frequency of emphatic devices, the less the individual power of each device."

That's a complex thought. It's much simpler to say "never use passive voice." It is also quite wrong. Not only does it deny authors the occasional useful application of the construction, but it teaches them to ignore the fine differences in emphasis and meaning that the structure creates and instead to repeat, mechanically and without understanding, a "rule" whose only virtue is that it's easy to teach. This actively discourages writers from examining their own use of the language; it teaches them to ignore all the strength, beauty, and power of which it is capable, its supple intricacies and ineffable grace, in favor of rote little formulas designed to hammer annoying habits out of fifteen-year-olds. The problem with all stylistic flaws is not that they never have a place in good writing; it is that they are used without direction or understanding of their effect. The solution to this is not to tell people to ignore all of the delightful variations of language in favor of using a few safe, stolid formulas; the solution is to instill in them a real, deep, and passionate understanding of each grace and flourish, and to give them mastery thereof. Certainly, this must be the goal of anyone seriously wishing to be a writer.

And so with our lists. The real point, as you observe in your post, is that the number three has some resonance with people. Its common usage in other contexts can be an aid to the writer if s/he recognizes its ability to signal completion, balance, and a pleasing number of options: enough to choose from, not too many to remember. That's a fine thing, and it can work very nicely as a tool of emphasis. It's especially useful at the end of a sentence, where it can help give a good, solid sense of closure. However, other numbers and structures also have their resonance and power in their cadence and order. In the first quote from Shaw, for instance, one might argue that the intended effect of the list is to wear us out. We're exhausted just listening to Vivie's list of her energetic hobbies, and that's in keeping with the character. Jack's list, on the other hand, might be seen as an amusing mixture of irritation and punctiliousness; he's peeved at Lady Bracknell and is feeding her a sharp, swift, overpoweringly thorough list of facts to shut her up. In either case, it would have served no purpose to cut the list down; its very length is part of the meaning of the passage.

And so with Wilde, in the earlier post, who wished to communicate opulence and luxury. And so with Shakespeare, who wished to catch the rhythm of incantation. So with Rossetti, with her images of replete sensuality and temptation, and with Rushdie and his attention to the dense, cluttered, and ultimately insane mania of the collector. None of these aims could have been met effectively with a list of three, because its structure - while useful for some things - is not a "rule" or a panacea. It is one structure of many possible. The goal of the writer is not to reduce this marvellous and stunning range of possiblities to a single rule easily remembered and repeated, but to embrace that baffling but divine profusion and select from it the single best and most perfect embodiment of the purpose, passion, and meaning of the line.

And so with Ms. Thomas. Her desire is to embody a meticulous, thorough individual who gives great care to her preparations for battle. She's the sort of person who checks every catch, every meter, every load, every sight. She leaves absolutely nothing to chance. Such a character could not possibly complete her checks in three items; more importantly, the feel of the character - the real nature of her personality - would not be conveyed by a short, balanced, closed structure. The form must fit the message, and in this case imposingly a three-item list limit would not only fail to improve the work, but would move it away from the most effective embodiment of its meaning.

Now, that said, we've the other issue. Let me see if I can satisfy you upon that account, but first allow me to address what I think is the most important element of all discussion between us:

no offence has been taken or tendered in any of the above remarks)

Click to expand...

In this we are entirely in accord. I am quite enjoying the discussion - both of form/lists and of interpretations - and would be most unhappy if I had in any way offended you. I think our intent to be the same.

As for the issue:

Now, I'm not going to set myself up as a person of any great learning, nor indeed to compare myself to anyone that has gone through a university degree in psychology (I'm limited to one term of child psychology for any kind of formal education) but it seems that you have called my interpretation invalid ...

Click to expand...

Not at all intended. I don't agree with it, but I feel that there is ample room in the world for interpretations with which I do not agree. If you'd said that Ms. Thomas's story appeared to be a narrative about a young man employed in the demolition of giraffe houses, I would call your reading invalid - that is, thoroughly unsupported by the text. What you've presented is a reading that one can derive from the text, but with which I do not agree.

... and by extension invalidate any or all psychological 'opinion' as being exclusive to their originator without any application to their 'subject'.

Click to expand...

This is slightly more difficult to answer because I'm not certain that I'm reading what you intend in the word "psychological." If you're speaking of psychoanalytical literary analysis, my answer would tend one way; if you're speaking of personal internal reaction to the text on the part of the reader, I might lean another. I'm deeply worried that the only way to deal with this is to talk about both, as I think I've already set a new record for length of a single Lit post. I shall make an attempt to address both in a more broad answer in hopes that you will not perish before you reach the end of this.

I believe that a text has many significant acting elements. I believe that the author, the text, the reader, and the cultural and historical contexts of the author, text, and reader, all play an important role in the construction of meaning in a text. Each has value when interpreting the work, and each can lead us in different directions. I don't feel that a reader-centric view of the text is "invalid"; that's why I chose not to argue with you about your reading of Ms. Thomas's work. I accept the validity of your reading and recognize that some readers will see the work in that way.

That said, I also recognize that differences in reader perception of a text present interesting questions about the text itself. Is there one "correct" reading? Is there, as Brooks posits, an "ideal" reader who will read the text in a single way, or are there mutiple meanings for multiple readers that follow a range of more or less accessible or publically purveyable meanings? Personally, I don't care for approaches that suggest that there is a single proper way to read a text. The difficulty I have with any theory that posits, explicitly or by implication, a single "ideal" reader who will read the text "correctly" is that that "ideal" reader inevitably looks quite a lot like whoever is making the theory. This is especially ridiculous when we consider how unlikely it is that that "ideal" reader is the same for every text, especially when s/he is quite different from, say, the author, or the audience for whom the piece was originally written. Thus I think that any reasonable approach to literature must allow the possibilty of multiple readings that can be reasonably derived from the text.

That said, these readings diverge precisely because they are to some extent internal in the reader. They derive from the reader's experiences, expectations, habits of thoughts, preferences and interests. I think that wishfulthinking put this quite neatly in her post:

wishfulthinking said:

Yes, I think there is a hint of "I'm as good as the boys" or "girls can play with guns too". I think the sexiest thing is for a female not to lose her feminity when competiting is what is thought to be a male arena - that she isn't afraid to own her sexuality. To me this is lost in this passage [and probably what you meant to do], but it is something I want to see there.

Click to expand...

She catches very nicely at the end of this precisely the difference in her reading and the author's reading and construction: she wants to see something different than Ms. Thomas does. Ms. Thomas is content - as wishfulthinking, as the reader, recognizes - to have a female character who does not possess traditional elements of femininity and female sexuality. Wishfulthinking recognizes this - "probably what you meant to do" - but observes that personally, she likes those elements and wants to see characters who act that way. Her goals are different, and her desires are different.

Hence, her reading of the text is different. It's not invalid; she can easily cite support from the text to show where the author creates the impression of a woman who does not possess traditional elements of femininity. What's personal to this reading is how one feels about such characters. Some people feel that gender roles are largely or wholly socially constructed; such people are likely to see this character as a coherent and sensible image of what a woman in those circumstances would be like. They're likely to see her as a tough, pragmatic soldier, and not to see this as being in conflict with her gender. Others feel that there are qualities inherent to the female sex regardless of socialization; such people are likely to be unhappy with the lack of such characteristics, and to see this either as sad, or annoying, or silly, or defensive. The point, I think, is that in either case, the dispute is not within the text, but in how the individual views gender. The interpretations are both valid in the sense that they can be supported from the text and communicated to other readers without having to supply the life history of the reader to support an intensely individual reading. They differ, but they differ based on how the reader feels about that shared textual experience.

Thus, my - as I feared - extremely lengthy reply. I believe that there are valid and invalid readings of a text based on the text as such. I believe that there are also personal readings of a text based on internal assumptions and belief structures of the reader. Personally differing readings can be valid or invalid; in this case, I think we're discussing two valid responses to the text that differ on a personal level. Because I see no reason that all persons should come to a text with the same assumptions - in fact, I think that that would be a wretched state of affairs - I see no reason to attempt to argue you out of your reading of Ms. Thompson's text. I don't agree with you, but I don't dismiss your reading as invalid either. Rather, I recognize that we are not (on this point, at least) in dispute as to what the text says on its most basic level; we simply don't make the same assumptions about gender, and so do not interpret the elements of the text in the same fashion.

But what else would one expect from an epicene horse?

All the best -

Shanglan

Colleen Thomas said:

This isn't all that is done to develop her character, simply one of the techniques I tried to use. As for action, the passages are sandwiched between the sounding of general uarters and Jade loading into a drop ship. Her sexuality has already been given cursory address in a telly kind of way and will be addressed subsequntly through (ugh) dialogue.

Click to expand...

If that's so, (Which I didn't know from your first post) then these passages ought to be just fine!