Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Supermikhail]

Erm. I think I've got it quite clearly. I mean I think I've grasped the meaning after about the fourth rereading of the article.

ergodic = work + path. You have to perform some work to get to the next sequence on the path of the story. Like, to use tarot cards to get to chapter 2... Well, according to the definition it doesn't have to be that much work - only so you don't just flip pages. So CYOA must be a sub-genre of ergodic literature. It's no wonder that, as it requires the least possible amount of effort and its ergodism appeals to... something in us, it's the most popular sub-genre of ergodic literature. At least I think it must be, although I haven't done any research.

[Capntastic]

It basically means a story that requires more than a simple linear reading to progress through.  Dictionary of the Khazars can be read front to back, or front to back, as it's three sets of dictionaries wiyh different definitions for the same events and people.  You can also choose to read each of the three dictionary's accounts of the same thing one after another, or simply jump from one to another. 

Through that and similar methods, the same text is traversed in different ways, and different experiences are had by the different inviduals reading it.  A book that has encoded passages, or something like a phone app book that lets you read different passages relating to different characters depending on what direction you've been heading in the last hour, etc, could all similarly be variables outside of the writer's 'control'.

Anyways, Servant Corps, if you ever decide to come back and post in this thread, I'd like you to respond to the challenges to your assertions people have offered up- assuming you were looking for an actual discussion of the issue.

[Caz]

In most stories, the Writer is God. What this mean is that, whatever the writer wants to happen in his story, it happens in his story. If the writer wants an asteroid to hit Earth, it will. If the writer wants the main character to sleep with everyone else, he/she will. And so forth.

That's fine...except when you, the reader, read the story the writer wrote. Knowing that "Writer is God" makes the story seems...pointless.

Is there a way to limit the omnipotence of writers then? To make it so that the writers is not in control of the story, thereby making the story more compelling to read (since you know the writer isn't responsible for the course of the plot)?

....Wuh? I don't understand this at all. How does it make it any more or less real? I'd even say that it's down to the skill of the writer to make things believable, but still... what? If someone chose what story to write down, it means less to you? You know that the laws of physics dictate your actions and existence too, right? How would a story chose at random from an alternate universe mean anything more? The distinction is completely arbitrary, imo. Your brain might be melted.

[LordBucket]

Wow, I don''t know what the artist was trying to portray,
but in the end it looked like he was just bagging atheism.

Personally to me it looked like he lost control of the story. His characters had enough force of personality that he couldn't decide their actions for them. They decided.

Knowing that "Writer is God" makes the story seems...pointless. You know everything that happened only happened because the writer wanted it to happen. None of the characters deserve or "earned" anything that happened to them; none of the characters is responsible for their actions or their reactions.

Create a character with a definite personality, with beliefs and feelings and motivations...and then allow that character to act as they choose. Don't decide for them. Be a channel for them. Don't plan how the story will go. Don't decide on an ending. Simply create circumstances for your character, and watch to see how they react.

[Servant Corps]

Anyways, Servant Corps, if you ever decide to come back and post in this thread, I'd like you to respond to the challenges to your assertions people have offered up- assuming you were looking for an actual discussion of the issue.

I was more interested in how to limit omnipotence and the responses to the question...which I found more useful than my own ideas and beliefs.

But if you insist...even if a story is well-crafted, logical, interesting, entertaining, etc., you know that there was a reason why the author decided that X, Y, and Z happened. As one advocate said:

When I read a novel, I know that everything is happening for some reason that the author had because they're trying to make a point.

The problem comes when you disagree with the reason the author had for making the story as he did. If the author had no control over his story, he can throw his hands and claim ignorance, he has an alibi. But if the author is omnipotent, then everything can be questioned and thrown into disrepute by an angry mob who hate why you written what you did, and want you to make "changes" to said story...

The entire reason I made this topic was due to an argument on another forum over a video game story in one of the "Drake" games. In that story, Drake's girlfriend was hit by a grenade and thus could not help Drake in a boss battle. Everybody knew that the person who wrote the plot intended for Drake's girlfriend to be hit by a grenade...they only disagreed on why[1] and how to "fix" this plot so that it is not offensive and removes that random grenade. One person argued for revising the story so that Drake's girlfriend ran out of ammo and decided to run away to get more ammo, or that Drake's girlfriend found a new enemy and ran away from Drake to fight the new enemy while Drake fights the final boss.

(None of the people debating it were fans of Drake or Drake's girlfriend; they wanted to discuss positive and negative portrayals of women in video games and find ways to ensure positive portayals and prevent negatives ones. It was generally agreed in the thread that the grenade being thrown at Drake's girlfriend is a negative portrayal, the debate was centered over why it was negative.)

So much literary criticism and debate over a simple grenade can do much to make this episode look very ridiculous and pointless--even if the grenade scene was well-written, the fact that we knew the author had that grenade thrown at Drake's girlfriend and that it caused this long argument over the fate of fictional characters...really makes me loathe this scene.

And it won't be limited to just grenades. Anything written by the author can be potentially attacked and dismantled by a horde of critics who dislike what the author has written and demand for massive changes in the plot to "fix" his story; the ensuring debate between pro-change folks and anti-change folks will ruin everything that makes the story enjoyable and readable in the first place. I'm all in favor of good writing, but I feel that keeping the idea of author omnipotence leaves your work vulnerable to being dogpiled and torn apart by critics. Making writers less omnipotent might protect you from these allegations; I hope.

[1]The debate generally centered around "Did the author wanted to develop Drake some more because Drake is the main character or did the author wanted to cast Drake's girlfriend in the traditional role of a woman needing to be rescued?" Honestly, debating over what the author meant by a story is appealing to me, so I don't find this argument bad per se, but I did find the ensuring argument of how to 'fix' the story...sorta disturbing.

[Fenrir]

It seems to me that the problem does not lie with the author. It lies with the critics. I really do not think that artists should be at pains to prevent silly arguments.

e: edit for tone

[Capntastic]

I've never played any of the Drake's game but you're really putting the cart before the horse in trying to defend your assertion that anything happening in fiction is just the writer willing it so, and the following result is that anything happening in a story is pointless.  You've yet to actually indicate that a writer 'creating' a story nullifies the impact of a story any more than a painter painting a picture makes the picture pointless.

In case you don't want to go back to page 1, here are my challenges to your original points:

I disagree with your premise on a few points, and because I have Holiday obligations I can't currently expand on them to my liking.  Suffice it to say, for now, until I can sink my teeth into this discussion, that a writer who makes 'whatever' happen for 'any reason' is a bad writer, and a good writer that doesn't betray their own craft will be selecting the choices and words that make the most 'sense' and have the most correct, desired 'impact'.

Your premise is along the lines of saying that all paintings are pointless because the painter can decide the subject, the paints they use, the brushstrokes, the lighting, etc.  While one might make the point that all art is 'pointless', this would be denying the truth that there is value in art, and this value is derived from a handful of attributes, both in what the artist instills and what the viewer/reader extracts from it.

If your argument is that 'well it's made up, ergo null', this is wrecked by the fact that a story can have consistent tone, themes, characterization, all of which could be used to convey a point, be entertaining, etc.  Verisimilitude is but one aspect of a piece's value, and a skilful writer can achieve internal logic and consistency even in the most abstract fantasy works (like Michael Moorcock's Cornelius Quartet).

But, to cut away at the 'Writer is god' argument at the Gordian root, yes a writer is free to put whatever they want down.  This does not in of itself make the work good.  It reveals that the writer is, if they make these missteps in their own subject matter, that they are not familiar with what they are creating. And, if it is not good, and they are not able to perceive all factors going into the work, then it is not the work of 'a god'.

I'll even simplify them, in good faith, so you can tackle them one at a time:

1:  A writer choosing a particular course of action for a character, or a turn of events effecting or not effecting them, though it may be of their own will, does not inherently nullify the impact of the story.  Therefor:  Even if the writer chooses every single event from the viewpoint of an overseeing 'god' placing pieces together, it can still have inherent artistic or creative value.

2:  Yes a bad writer can go 'an asteroid hit earth and jeff sexman saved all of the women with his muscles' and have some sort of incoherent power fantasy, and that may be bad writing, but a good writer is going to have characters with some amount of consistency and articulation, events that follow internal logic, etc.  That is part of writing, just as a person skilled at painting can convey particular scenes or imagery, with or without stark realism.  Therefor: A writer who is skilled will often be constrained by the internal logic or tone or themes of their work, and be working to achieve those goals rather than simply pulling pieces together randomly.  Their omniscience is reduced by these constraints that come about simply from making a story with coherency.

3:  A writer that is bad may not realize what they are doing, they may have the 'hero' do things that are, to them, heroic, such as murdering burglars.  A person with more scope may realize that murdering people for stealing is actually a terrible thing. A writer may encode things into the story that they do not intend, or fail to encode things into the story that they do intend. Therefor: What the writer has put down is not, in fact, 'true' within the context of the story.  How, in this case, in which what the writer sets out to achieve is so disparate from the actual result, can one say that the writer is omnipotent?

[Servant Corps]

I've never played any of the Drake's game but you're really putting the cart before the horse in trying to defend your assertion that anything happening in fiction is just the writer willing it so, and the following result is that anything happening in a story is pointless.  You've yet to actually indicate that a writer 'creating' a story nullifies the impact of a story any more than a painter painting a picture makes the picture pointless.

It doesn't nullify the impact of the story, but it does illustrate everything that happens in the story can be blamed on the writer...especially everything you don't like. It doesn't matter if the writer is good or not, if you don't like what the writer wrote, you can blame it on the writer wanting that event to happen, and the resulting argument over why the author chose that one specific thing to happen...that nullifies the story.

That being said however...

3:  A writer that is bad may not realize what they are doing, they may have the 'hero' do things that are, to them, heroic, such as murdering burglars.  A person with more scope may realize that murdering people for stealing is actually a terrible thing. A writer may encode things into the story that they do not intend, or fail to encode things into the story that they do intend. Therefor: What the writer has put down is not, in fact, 'true' within the context of the story.  How, in this case, in which what the writer sets out to achieve is so disparate from the actual result, can one say that the writer is omnipotent?

is an successful counter to my point and I will admit defeat here. I agree with you.

I should point out that I was more interested in finding ways to limit omnipotence than I was in arguing whether reducing omnipotence is actually a good idea or not.

[xRDVx]

You have a point in that the author can be blamed for everything. However, a good story will make sense within the world. And a good critic will not question the reasons bad things happen as long as there is a reasonable explanation as to why they happened, that is, it makes sense.

I've walked through some stories, and I didn't like this one aspect of it. Instead of blaming the author and wanting him/her to "fix" it, I eventually came to accept it because I liked the story; I understand why it was done that way; and if that one aspect changed the story wouldn't be as good as it was. Either that, or stop reading it.

Now, on topic: want to limit omnipotence? Lay out the rules for your world, set up the characters, the back-story and then run it from there. That way you'd be just using logic for character response (and effectively giving them life), and the only thing on your hands would be the situations they get in. See here the sixth rule. If you mix that with basing their response to who they are, where they are, etc., then you'd probably get a good story AND you would be fulfilling the idea of not being "god". Except that you throw at them what situation you want from those that you can pick (not imagine, because you have to make sure it's believable. Nothing like running from dragon in a forest to suddenly be in an awkward situation in some random helicopter while a dwarf is pulling a lever).


--

Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to convey.

[Funk]

plots give to plot holes, bad writers dont fix them the right way i.e. in a way that will make sense within the world, thay use deus ex machinas and bad Chekhov's Guns in short i feels wrong.

[Capntastic]

What do you mean bad Chekhov's Guns? 

[Digital Hellhound]

Probably ones where it's clear it's just been added afterwards, ie when the writer realizes he's in a dead end and needs to include a Chekhov's Gun earlier in the work, but just kinda half-heartedly throws a sentence there.

[Capntastic]

That's just poor writing, and Chekhov's gun is more of an abstract concept about the role of characterizing a setting or scene or general details in a coherent manner than it is a technique one can abuse.

But yes, bad writers tend to have an immensely thick cargo cult mentality.

[Monkeyfacedprickleback]

What I don't understand Is how can you blame The author for creating a story. What you seem to driving at is that every novel ever written should be open source with anyone who reads it to be able to change or edit as they see fit. I have read books in which the "hero"has raped his savior and in which the "villian" is worthy of nothing but respect. These stories were compeling Because THe author could go 'Well this guy has been impotentfor years and now he's not, so over come by lust blah blah blah'... I am of the firm opinion that any book that makes you think "This Is WRONG. This should not be! these two idiot children/Naive girl/ Mysterious stranger are obviously in love/ In danger/ Going to betray the good guys/" so on and so forth is a good book. Writing is a form of art, and the purpose of most good art is to evoke a emotional or intellectual response. When I read Lord fouls bane I Hated the protagagonist for half the book, But this was because the author wrote in a good character who was mistreated badly. Similarly When I read The Seawolf while I knew that Wolf Larsen was the villian I couldn't help but feel admiration for him despite his cruelty, For his character was portrayed as convincingly determined, Courages, smart, daring, and tough as nails.

However If you really must find a way to subvert the authourity of the authour then as was previously suggested Base the book off research off the real world.
For exampleMoby Dick or, the Whale Is not only a excellent work of fiction but a definitive guide on whaling. The book is considered to be accurate on every aspect of whaling in the time period of writing.

While I can emphasize with you on everthing in a book going according to the will of the writer, There is no way to, as a reader alter or change the story. Somethime I wish that the book could end without my favorite character dying or without moby dick destroying the Pequod, But ultimatelywe who read book and watch tv are nothing more then Viewers, Unable to change the written word of the author. If you find this unbearable, Write fan fiction, or write your own book or as was said earlier in this thread Play a game in which you can affect the outcome yourself.

[Glowcat]

@OP

I'm trying to understand your view but I can't help but feel that you're blaming a story for being a story. All characters are by their nature figments of the author's imagination and therefore their thought process is his or hers (with the believability of those actions being tied to how well the author can "roleplay" each character, the number of authors, or the presence of dissociative identity disorder). Stories are meant to mimic reality in a way that speaks to the human experience, and as a form of art they will always be open to subjective interpretation and criticism such as the feminist discussion you have taken issue with. For many people, this ability to return a story to reality and discuss issues under a different light is wherein the appeal lies.

While Max's post might have seemed facetious, he's rather spot on that what you're trying to create is more akin to reality, not necessarily ours, than a story. I suppose Dwarf Fortress itself, or any procedurally generated simulation, would be your best avenue of pursuit. Sometimes a sequence of events can tell a story on its own.