I think writers should be allowed to have their darlings, because often it makes for a more interesting story. I mean, we can all easily explain away any of the issues brought up by the OP. I have many times in the past, and I'd do it again if I thought anyone would actually listen. The fact of the matter is is that we have too many people who have an overpowering fetish for meticulous works. But that's not what good writing is about. Some of the best works have featured 'darlings,' and the authors have (correctly) had very screw you attitudes in regards to critical reception.
It's like how Pratchett doesn't use chapters. One critic picked him up on this because apparently the only way to properly write a novel is to use chapters, and a lack of them is one of Pratchett's darlings. So, on the next book, Pratchett uses this quote on the back of his book just to make fun of the guy. This is because everyone who actually reads knows that the imperfections make the work, not the perfection. It's what the author puts of themselves into their story - their passions, their dreams, their ideals. Those are what make for a great story.
Oh, sure. You could feed the OP's fetish and pick through a story to make it clinically meticulous and perfect, but then it would be an effing boring bloody story. That would be like telling Doctor Who's Moffat that he's not allowed to use the Silence or mysteries any more, that he has to wrap everything up quickly, that nothing can be left to speculation. I mean, the Silence and the Weeping Angels are Moffat's darlings, but do they ruin Doctor Who? Do they really? I always felt that the show was better since he took the helm, and his episodes were the best of new Who anyway.
Sometimes it's just painfully apparent to me who does and doesn't read. The OP doesn't read a lot, I think. At least not good stories. Because if you read good tales, told by the best talespinners, then you gain a tolerance for eccentricity - because you understand what a book is. A book is a walk through another person's head. It's seeing things from a different perspective, experiencing worlds that could only exist there, in the mind of the writer. And that's very important. The writer shouldn't have to spell everything out, either.
Quoth Cortez: Mystery is important.
To be honest, I think if any of you had complainers had actually played The Longest Journey (and none of you have) then you'd have complained about it. You'd have complained about the ending, the ambiguity, the mystery, the bizarre puzzles, and you'd have spent so much time complaining that you'd fail to see how beautiful of an experience it is. I just can't understand what it's like to be so shallow, petty, hateful, and bitter that you can't lose yourself in the work of another. That you must critically analyse it rather than living it.
That's really kind of sad. And I feel sorry for you. If you can't just walk through their works, taking in what they've shared, just transporting yourself to their world for a while. Escapism is borne of accepting that a writer's world is never perfect, is frequently strange, and yes, there are darlings present. But that's what the story is about. The story is something that is distinctly the writer's, something that's unique to them, their passion and dreams... and you want to take that away just to make for a clinically perfect story?
This is what I say when I feel that large swathes of BSN have no imagination, that they wouldn't be able to write worth ****. And no, I'm not talking documentaries, here, or 'stories' that do an almost exact historical retelling of something with minor differences. But the kind of imagination it takes to create worlds. The imagination that BioWare has, but you don't.
Retour en haut
