amanuensis1: (Default)
amanuensis1 ([personal profile] amanuensis1) wrote2011-09-17 10:44 am
Entry tags:

Meta, distilled.

Meta-revelation:

A couple of weeks ago I picked up Red Glove by Holly Black, and all through the book I was delighted at how little exposition the book throws at the reader. The book treats the reader like an intelligent creature who can infer from context, as it drops hints at events past and assumes the reader has plenty of imagination to invent the conversations these characters might have had, the details of the lives they've lived before they arrived at these stages in their conflicts. It uses unfamiliar jargon and doesn't stop the action to explain it, since context is plenty. It was one of the first books in a long time that hasn't pinged my annoyance button with tedious blocks of exposition, and I was delighted.

Of course, once I finished it, I discovered it was the second book in a series. *facepalm*

Except, as I lifted my face outta my palm, it made me realize: this is how I like my fiction. How I like to read it and how I like to write it. Where the worldbuilding comes as it comes. Free of dense exposition blocks. Showing the unfamiliar in its context. Assuming the reader can use her brain.

No one style is going to please everyone, but here's my new personal writing maxim: write like it's the second book.

[identity profile] lobelia321.livejournal.com 2011-09-18 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Yay, I like the maxim! Your post reminded me a lot of my first reading of William Gibson which was Neuromancer. I flailed about in delight for the first 50 pages at least, having no clue but swimming along through the texture and the language and slowly noting it all come together until, wham, another opaque thing was introduced and the process started over again. It was a fantastic reading experience. I was then hooked on W. Gibson and read all the other books he'd published at that time, and found out that even though Neuromancer was the FIRST in a trilogy, he'd written lots of short stories set in the same universe with lots more exposition.

So, yes: the maxim holds!

[identity profile] amanuensis1.livejournal.com 2011-10-23 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)
W. Gibson does an amazing job with this! I read Pattern Recognition a few years ago and thought, wow, he's still got it, no wonder I love his stuff even when his plots go a little blurry on me.

[identity profile] lobelia321.livejournal.com 2011-10-24 09:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I find W. Gibson patchy. Pattern Recognition was nice but others I couldn't finish and can't even remember their titles. But then I heard him on Desert Island Discs and he was an absolute darling and I forgave him every crappy novel he's ever written because, basically, he de man.