Magna Carta I & II
Magna Carta I
i.e. What makes a good novel
- sarcasm
- witty characters
- characters who know what they are after
- a bad guy or organization
- fast cars
- random or entirely fictional settings
- little description (i.e. NOT Tolkein)
- plot that moves and can be read easily at night what I start to get tired (i.e. CS Lewis); or can be read while one is working on an assembly line and has a miraculous space of 30 seconds in which to do nothing between whatever is being assembled (not that I would know anything about this, haha)
- Dialogue that has a purpose/shows something
- Animals that talk, and some that don’t
- A dark forest
- Not taking itself too seriously
- Not eternally long
- Not just a bunch of people moving around and talking without purpose
- A quest
- A bookish character
- Good friends with lots of evil enemies
- An ending that is either happy, or an ending where everyone dies
- A governess without parents
- A secret
Magna Carta II
i.e. What makes a bad novel
- unnecessary length
- a main character with no feelings and who reacts to little (i.e. the main character in ‘Forever’ by Peter Hamill)
- boring women characters
- overly ambitious woman characters
- the idea that there has to be one really good looking woman character
- ones that could almost be true and make you wonder if they were or not and it the ‘real’ stuff in the novel is as ‘real’ as it’s portrayed to be (i.e. Angels and Demons by Dan Brown)
- lots of swearing
- sex with no point (i.e. the Notebook)
- characters you can’t pin a song to or relate to in any way
- tons of description
- too much action and movement (like if ‘Armageddon’ would be turned into a book)
- a non-compelling plot
- apathetic characters that don’t want anything
- teenage girls
- lack of revealing conversation
posted by Lindsey Charlton @ 7:27 PM
4 Comments:
Yay, talking animals! Yay, witty characters!
And characters who know what they want--that's key. Too many pointless things happen in stories due to the absence of motives.
I think it can work for a character not to know what he/she wants. We see that in life all the time: people who do things because they're told or because it's what "they've always done." Or they might say, "I did it because I felt like it" without being able to explain themselves. What's important is that the author has a good idea of the "why" and that the readers aren't totally stumped.
Or maybe not. Any thoughts?
I think someone broke the code for your lists. :(
No, I made them kinda small for some dumb reason, and I bulleted them instead of numbered them.
Yeah, I see what you're saying, Rich...I guess the important thing is that someone knows what the character wants (most importantly the author), even if it isn't the character itself.
On a simpler note, though, the smallest motives of each character should be driven by something. He wants a sandwich because he's hungry, he wants to play baseball really bad because whatever, as long as there is a 'because' for everything...even if it will be revealed later.
That was very verbose of me, haha
I agree, Lindsey. And just you watch: I'll surpass your verbosity!
Knowing even the smallest of motives is part of what makes writing such a complex, human-centered activity. It's my sense that authors (good as well as bad ones) don't get enough credit for this type of work. It's also my sense that many amateur writers--including myself--have illusions about how easy it is to write a novel. So they begin, but once they start depicting their characters in conversation, making decisions, etc., they realize how much logic it requires. That's been my experience, at least.
Which is why I need practice. Practice, practice, practice...
Post a Comment
<< Home