![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
torylltales posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
antishurtugal_rebornPart 1: https://antishurtugal-reborn.dreamwidth.org/262083.html
Part 2: https://antishurtugal-reborn.dreamwidth.org/262772.html
Part 3: https://antishurtugal-reborn.dreamwidth.org/266299.html
Apologies for the long delay between parts, its really hard to get the motivation to listen to Paolini talking about writing, let alone to transcribe his words.
Quick recap, Paolini has spend almost 30 minutes crapping on about himself, while the starry-eyed host sounds like she slowly becomes more and more uncomfortable talking to him.
---
M: Well, what is next on your writing journey?
P: I’m currently finishing up a short prequel novel for my science fiction book, which is [To Sleep], we haven’t announced the title of the prequel novel. And once that’s out of my hair, which just requires a few tweaks, [mumbling] I’m going back to write some more fantasy. I’ve been writing about spaceships and lasers and aliens for about 10 years, and I’m very much looking forward to writing about dragons and swords and castles again.
M: That’s awesome. I can’t wait for these books to be published. I will definitely catch myself up on this series, because after I started Eragon, I’m like you should get on this train, where have I been my whole life?
E: In the newsagency bargain bin where it belongs?
TT: “Just requires a free tweaks” the same way To Sleep just needed a “few tweaks” before publication? Which actually turned into a complete rewrite from scratch, and almost two years delay from the original publication estimate Paolini told his fans?
C: [interrupting laughter]
TT: Paolini has an insufferable habit of talking over and interrupting his interviewers, he does it all the time.
M: So I’ll be following it
C: awesome. Well I hope you enjoy the rest of them, you’ve got some exciting things to read about as you go through the books.
TT: spoiler: there is no excitement to be found.
E: Lot of eyerolling, though.
M: yay, I’m excited!
[mid-podcast advertisement about the teen author boot camp, which included reading some random participant’s short story]
M: So what is one thing we liked about this story?
C: I think the voice is clear and direct, and since it’s first person, that’s helpful for any writer
TT: Wait, are we analysing that random teenager’s micro-story now? There was literally NO lead up or transition to this section of the podcast - they just played a clearly pre-recorded advertisement which included reading the short story, which I skipped, and now we’re elbow-deep in analysis without so much as a segue?
C: That’s often, you know, a suggestion for writers starting out is to try writing in first person because they can give you the voice of the character nice and clearly. What do you think?
M: I think it’s really raw, which I think is [snip] I think there could have been a little more depth.
E: Paolini is of course the perfect guy to talk to about stories having depth. Not. She goes on for a while in this vein, and surprisingly enough Paolini doesn’t interrupt this time and actually lets her finish her thought before saying:
P: I had similar thoughts but I’m gonna articulate it a little differently.
E: Wow that is so unlike you.
P: My thought was that this is a very nice little piece but it’s not actually a story. Nothing really happens or changes.
E: OH MY GOD. Excuse me, I… I just can’t believe he actually said that. HAHAHAHA!
*takes a deep breath, drinks some water, and then resumes laughing like a hyenah for several minutes*
P: So she’s going on the computer, she’s looking at her friends, she’s making an observation about the lives of her friends. And it’s a lovely observation.
E: You would not believe how patronising he sounds right now. And it just gets better.
P: But we don’t have the main character growing or changing or achieving something.
E: *hysterical laughter resumes*
P: ...striving for anything, or, um… becoming something new.
E: Can’t talk. Laughing too hard. I’m gonna throw up at this rate.
P: So I’m not sure if it’s a story. Now some short stories - I say short stories - are not really structured like that because they’re so short they’re more like a picture or a mood piece where we see a moment, we appreciate the moment, and that’s all we really have time for in a page or so or a couple of paragraphs. But a story is commonly defined as-
E: A piece of writing in which things happen? In which case your books are having a hard time qualifying on that level.
TT: this definition of story is naively narrow, and therefore incorrect. Flash fiction and slice-of-life fiction are still stories. It is not necessary for “things to happen” for a story to be a story. That’s like Gloria Tesch claiming that all the writers who were younger than her when they were published “didn’t count” because of some arbitrarily-chosen (by her) page count.
P: ...things happen.
E: Generally said “things” have to actually mean something and go somewhere. Otherwise all you have is so much fluff.
P: Things change.
E: *accordingly plants a large red F on everything this bozo ever wrote*
P: If I were to look at this as a piece of writing from myself, that’s where I would be looking - how does this knowledge of her friends change the main character?
E: Then I would give the main character 10,000 odd meaningless superpowers and introduce a bunch of NPCs to kiss her ass. Mission accomplished.
TT: Point: it’s less than three hundred words of flash fiction, I don’t think it’s meant to be a million-word “epic” doorstop. I don’t even know if it’s meant to be a complete story; it’s more of a sample, for use in critiquing the writer’s style, word choices, use of perspective, and so on. Paolini’s starting on entirely the wrong angle here, criticising it for not being something it’s not trying to be and isn’t meant to be.
E: “As you can see, this apple lacks rind and pith and is the wrong colour to qualify as a good orange.”
P: Or does it inspire her to do something else?
E: NEED MOAR STUPID WISH FULFILLMENT. MUST ADD USELESS DRAGON.
P: And can we see that change?
E: No. Instead we will be repeatedly told the character has changed while being shown that nothing of the sort ever happened.
TT: It’s always fascinating to turn Paolini’s writing advice and questions back on his own work, to see how he practices what he preaches. Spoiler, if you’re new here: he doesn’t.
E: In fact he frequently does the exact opposite.
P: Can we see what she does and where does that lead her? There’s something that used in screenwriting and other writing-
E: Vague as always.
TT: weird binary, “screenwriting and other writing”. That’s literally just saying “writing”. Why single out screenwriting as the exception, and then say “also many other forms of writing?”
And yeah, for narrative fiction, regardless of format and genre, the whole exercise is kind of dependent on “things happening,” and the causal chain of actions and reactions that follow. For poetic or contemplative fiction, however, events and causality are not necessary elements, as such works seek to explore a moment in time, a particular place, or convey an emotion or an internal struggle, or evoke the senses.
TT: And again, we get back to the point that this short snippet of writing is a sample, not a complete story. It’s a couple of minutes to read, at most, which means it couldn’t be much more than two hundred words or so. Like I’ve already commented, Paolini’s focusing on completely the wrong detail to criticise.
E: I think this does a very good job of demonstrating how utterly self-absorbed he is. Everything has to be viewed through the lens of comparing it to what he wants to compare it to (ie his own attempts at writing). He seems utterly incapable of examining anything on its own terms. Which is why his “helpful feedback” is frequently, as in this case, utterly irrelevant and worse than useless.
P: -which is sometimes very useful. Which is to ask yourself “what does my character want”, and that’s what they consciously want, what they tell themselves “I want this, I want that”. And what do they need? And they should be different things.
E: And we’re back to the old familiar theme of parroting writing advice he never followed. For one thing, what the hell did Eragon “want”, and what did he “need”? The stupid brat starred in four massive books without EVER having any clear personal goals or motivations other than serving the plot! And what about Kiragon? She wanted to get married to her robot boyfriend and also to become famous for no effort, except that both of those things were dropped less than a quarter of the way in, after which she spent 99% of her screentime just kind of screwing around and complaining.
What both of those characters actually needed was to learn some humility and compassion so they could grow beyond being the selfish brats they started out as, but that never happened.
God this guy is an idiot.
TT: neither of those questions are relevant to a <300 word slice-of-life flash fiction sample. For a longer narrative piece, sure, but again this just isn’t relevant to the piece we’;re responding to.
P: So as an example, Eragon wants in the first book to avenge something that’s happened to his family and go out into the world to achieve this. But what he needs is to grow up, to become a fully functioning adult. Those are two separate things!
E: … *massages forehead* Eragon. A fully functioning adult. Right. As I’m so fond of saying in the face of these ridiculous claims he keeps making: WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
The kid is still throwing toddler tantrums when he shows up in WormFork and is now in charge of an entire settlement!
You cannot be fucking serious right now.
(He is).
TT: What he needs is a sound thrashing, from someone who isn’t trying to brainwash him into seeking vengeance on behalf of someone he’s never met, based solely on third-party hearsay.
E: Indeed. Eragon never learned to think for himself, which is a pretty goddamn important aspect of growing up and maturing as a person.
P: Um, so, the author here, she could ask herself what her character wants and what she needs, and addressing those two things would I think lead to an interesting place.
E: You know what? Fuck you. Just fuck you right to Hell and back. You condescending little turd.
M: Yeah. Yeah, I agree. But you elaborated it a lot better than I would’ve.
E: It’s amazing just how fast I went from laughing to angry and depressed. But Paolini’s very good at making that happen.
TT: I can forgive Maddie a bit, because she’s (a) a teen without much experience, and (b) hosting him on her show, so she has to play nice regardless.
E: Yeah. That’s half of what makes this bit so dispiriting to listen to. Don’t get me wrong, Maddie - I’m still on your side here.
M: I was like… I had a thought, I was trying to figure out how to follow through and I was just like, my brain wasn’t co-operating-
P: [interrupting, again] You just described writing! [laughs raucously] That’s the best description of writing in general!
E: ...what.
TT: ... no. It really isn’t. It also isn’t funny.
P: [still laughing like this is the funniest thing ever] I had a thought and I was trying to describe it, figure out how to get it out…
*they both keep giggling*
E: I have no idea how this is supposed to be funny.
M: You make a lot of sense!
E: What?! No he doesn’t!
TT: None of this makes sense. This podcast doesn’t make sense. Asking Paolini for writing advice doesn’t make sense. The world is inside out, the world is upside down!
E: Everything is downside-up!
P: I don’t want to discourage, y’know, our young writer here-
E: Too late.
P: I think it’s a lovely start [emphasis on “start” NOT added]
E: You asshole.
P: Um, those are my thoughts and I wouldn’t get discouraged at all.
E: “Even though you’ll never be anywhere near as good as me, the literary genius descending from on high to pass judgement on your amusing little efforts.” God he sounds like a jackass.
M: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I agree. But I think… yeah. Whether she makes changes or not, it’s still an incredible story. But there’s always, like, ways you can improve.
E: Unless you’re already convinced you’re a genius thanks to being perfectly insulated from criticism for your entire ill-deserved career. Bah.
TT: Notice that he doesn’t make any actually substantial comments, he just defaults to his generic_writing_advice_03x script. There’s almost nothing said about the prose, word use, description, the writer’s voice, or anything actually helpful. He says nothing specific to this piece of writing, or actionable by the writer for this particular piece of writing. It’s just generic one-size-fits-all writing advice that you can find on hundreds of blogs and websites on the internet.
He also doesn’t use the sandwich technique, which I thought was interesting - he doesn’t open with a few niceties about things the writer did well, or strengths of the piece, or anything like that. It’s like he had an idea in his head already of the writing advice he was going to say, regardless of what piece of writing was going to be presented to him, and he was so busy rehearsing that in his head that he didn’t really listen to the story being read, and so couldn’t say anything specific about it.
E: I noticed that too. Laziness, or does he share Eragon’s problem of lacking anything resembling an attention span? Either way I really don’t see how his “helpful feedback” is going to be the slightest use to this poor sod he’s supposedly trying to help out. Really, it feels like he’s just stroking his own ego and posturing about how “knowledgeable” he is under the guise of offering advice.
I once had to give editorial feedback on a manuscript which contained some extremely strident political content which I not only disagreed with but found outright offensive. Know what I did? Gritted my teeth, kept my views to myself, and wrote out my feedback as objectively as possible while taking care to look at it from the author’s point of view rather than my own. Because as frustrated as I was by what the guy had written I had the sense to know that “I found your manuscript offensive” was not going to help him improve on what he’d written. Good feedback means keeping your ego and personal views out of it, and judging what’s been written on its own merits rather than basing it on what YOU want it to be.
tl;dr: Paolini still needs to build a bridge and get over himself.
TT: I wouldn't trust any bridge Paolini made.
---
Join us next time in Part 5, for more tears, rage, and histerical laugher. Not from Paolini, from Epistler and me.
For the record, we are not just over half way through the podcast.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-28 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-29 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-29 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-29 09:10 pm (UTC)And again between understanding something and applying it.
What an ego!
Date: 2021-11-29 12:00 pm (UTC)I could take a section from the IC where Eragon is musing over the flaws of the vilains or the qualities of his sidekicks (rarely if ever the other way around) and it would be exactly like
Re: What an ego!
Date: 2021-11-29 09:06 pm (UTC)That's exactly right. It's not constructive, not useful as something the writer can use for improvement, and not even correct. It's just Paolini grandstanding about being a Real Author™ by putting down others to make himself seem wise.
Re: What an ego!
Date: 2021-12-01 10:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-12-01 03:41 am (UTC)Paolini's completely wrong. A story doesn't have to have a character change. Especially microfiction. Just look at Indiana Jones. He starts the same way he came in, and just goes through adventures.
no subject
Date: 2021-12-04 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-01 12:53 pm (UTC)Yes, the first person does give one a nice, cushy seat directly in the mind of their character... however, that's not all it does. It also limits you to describing things that the character can perceive, or at least reasonably know about. For example, in first person, you cannot describe the facial expression of someone your character is dramatically facing away from.
New writers tend to forget about this, and what comes out is a third person omniscient narrative with the wrong pronouns. See Twilight for an inexplicably-published example.
There are, of course, ways to get around this. If a character is explicitly retelling the story from some later point in the future, for example, you can have them say something along the lines of "I didn't know it at the time, but X" or "He told me later that he felt X, but in the moment he hid it well" or "Something felt off, but I couldn't place it; later, I realized that X was missing." Unfortunately, this too can be botched if one tries to use similar tactics in a more "in the moment" narrative, such as with constant "I imagined X" when a character is describing something they cannot reasonably perceive. You might be able to get away with that a little bit if your character is established as creative and imaginative, but do it too much, and too accurately, and you're drifting into third person omniscient again.
First person is a lot harder than it looks and I would not recommend it for beginners.
It’s always fascinating to turn Paolini’s writing advice and questions back on his own work, to see how he practices what he preaches. Spoiler, if you’re new here: he doesn’t.
Because he's never truly engaged with the advice he's gotten, and thus ends up parroting it to people who ask while not following any of it in his own writing.
For one thing, what the hell did Eragon “want”, and what did he “need”?
He wanted... uhh... to avenge Garrow, I guess, that was a thing. For like half a book. I don't know if we can really say that defeating Galbatorix was something Eragon wanted to do, since he was kind of funneled into it by everyone around him. But to do all that he needed to become super mega powerful!
So as an example, Eragon wants in the first book to avenge something that’s happened to his family and go out into the world to achieve this. But what he needs is to grow up, to become a fully functioning adult. Those are two separate things!
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Well, I was spot on with the avenging Garrow bit!
I can forgive Maddie a bit, because she’s (a) a teen without much experience, and (b) hosting him on her show, so she has to play nice regardless.
Yeah... I honestly feel sorry for Maddie. She seems a bit... out of her depth? It's her podcast, she should make the rules! But she's also a teenager, and her guest star is like 40 and at least somewhat famous. The power dynamic here is really skewed, and she doesn't seem particularly well-equipped to deal with that.
He also doesn’t use the sandwich technique, which I thought was interesting - he doesn’t open with a few niceties about things the writer did well, or strengths of the piece, or anything like that. It’s like he had an idea in his head already of the writing advice he was going to say, regardless of what piece of writing was going to be presented to him, and he was so busy rehearsing that in his head that he didn’t really listen to the story being read, and so couldn’t say anything specific about it.
When has Paolini ever demonstrated an ability to actually engage with a piece of writing?
I pointed out in Part 2 that he apparently missed all the depth in The Lord of the Rings, and in Part 3 that he seems only to have skimmed Strunk & White. Plus, back in this post I did a whole deep dive on how he imitates poetic devices without actually understanding their cultural context and significance and how that does (or doesn't) mesh with the details of his world.
All evidence suggests that Paolini is, at least primarily, a surface-level reader. He reads because he likes to experience fun stories, and doesn't really engage with much in the way of deeper meanings and messages. And that's not a bad thing; sometimes deep reading just isn't as fun as letting the author take you for a ride. It is, however, dishonest to engage in surface-level reading and then pretend to have gone deeper.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-01 01:05 pm (UTC)Yeah. I for one have always found it harder to write the other characters with any real depth when I'm in first person, though I'm not sure why. It's probably a combination of factors.
Yeah, the guy he completely forgot about. You know what would have been nice? If he'd visited the guy's grave in book four after going back to Carp Hat and I don't know, left some flowers or something. But nope. He revisits Brom's grave, but not Garrow's. Because screw that guy; he was just some lameass farmer and not a super cool Dragon Rider and whatever.
I feel sorry for her too. She's clearly a nice kid who means well, and I really wish Paolini had treated her with a bit more respect.
Indeed. And I really wish he'd stop pretending.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-01 01:28 pm (UTC)Do you know how often Vanora has thought of Meriel in Consequence? As in, separate scenes where she's explicitly mentioned?
I had a suspicion, so I actually went back and checked... it's almost every damn chapter. She gets two mentions each in Chapter One and Chapter Two, and one each in Chapters Four and Five. The only chapters where she's absent are Chapter Three, where Vanora is kind of preoccupied, and Chapter Six, which is from Serrill's point of view. Meriel only appeared alive in the prologue, and yet she's a consistent presence throughout the fic because her loss affected Vanora deeply.
:(
Date: 2023-11-10 12:40 pm (UTC)Re: :(
Date: 2023-11-11 06:44 am (UTC)Just say the word and I can re-send the link to the document and podcast if it's still online. But you're in charge of transcription on account of me being half deaf (and completely intolerant of Paolini's speaking voice). Yes, I'm playing that card.
Re: :(
Date: 2023-11-11 10:04 am (UTC)Re: :(
Date: 2023-11-11 10:10 am (UTC)So if you regret not finishing it, you can only blame yourself. :P
Re: :(
Date: 2023-11-11 10:16 am (UTC)It's a shame because the transcribing is slow and boring and a pain in the ass but god I found some comedy gold along the way. My favourite is still definitely "I'm a big believer in internal consistency". LOL.
Re: :(
Date: 2023-11-11 11:06 am (UTC)It takes me more than 5 minutes to transcribe one sentence, you can do the same in half the time. It seems logical that you should do the transcription. Unless you want to run it through a speech recognition program and then just edit the mistakes...
Re: :(
Date: 2023-11-11 11:12 am (UTC)