Espenson on writing
Oct. 22nd, 2006 11:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
franceslievensMy tardiness in keeping up with blogs can be seen in the fact that I'm about to comment on a more-than-one-week-old post by Jane Espenson. Namely the one in which she talks about appearances. May I say I'm jealous at her way of stating the obvious in a clear and entertaining way? Espenson isn't simply talking about characterisations. She's encouraging aspiring writers to make good use of that human trait known as stereotyping. When we see, hear, touch or read only part of the story, the human mind tends to fill in the gaps, and take those made-up personality parts for real. When writing you don't need that much exposure to tell your readers something about a character. And you can make good use of the stereotypes by sending your readers' minds off in the wrong direction. (An idea Jane Espenson didn't even hint at, but she does have the habit of expanding on only one idea per blog post. I on the other hand have such a high regard of my audience, that I let the stream of consciousness flow and presume you all have learned how to swim in it.)
By stating the obvious, Jane Espenson did peel open some eyelids on this side of the ocean. To be more precise: my eyelids. We try to fight the constant use of stereotypes? We need those stereotypes. Not only to be able to enjoy a book or a random tv-series, but also because we can make quick judgements through them. And because its scientific counterpart of probabilities is so counterintuitive. Is the probabibility of winning the lottery for a second time lower than the probability of winning the lottery? No, every time you play, your chances are the same, whether you've won once, twice or thirty times. Then comes the tricky part. Is it less likely to win the lottery three times than it is to win it only once? To that question I do not know the answer. My intuition says yes, but the numbers might say something else altogether.
It's the same thing with humans. When you see a tall dark woman, well dressed, smoking a cigarette, you expect her to talk in a soft, low, husky voice. But what are the odds? Isn't she as likely to talk with a cheerful, high soprano? She is, and the thing with writing is that sometimes you lead your reader in the right direction, and sometimes you show him that these are only stereotypes and that they can be turned around anytime you want. Just like in the real world.
It is in the real world that our mind wanders from one stimulus to the next thought. Have you noticed how Jane Espenson always takes some random fact, explores it a little and then suddenly starts talking business, giving opinions and advice? Her style reminds me of Phil K. Dick's Yancy (as in the short story "The Mold of Yancy").
By stating the obvious, Jane Espenson did peel open some eyelids on this side of the ocean. To be more precise: my eyelids. We try to fight the constant use of stereotypes? We need those stereotypes. Not only to be able to enjoy a book or a random tv-series, but also because we can make quick judgements through them. And because its scientific counterpart of probabilities is so counterintuitive. Is the probabibility of winning the lottery for a second time lower than the probability of winning the lottery? No, every time you play, your chances are the same, whether you've won once, twice or thirty times. Then comes the tricky part. Is it less likely to win the lottery three times than it is to win it only once? To that question I do not know the answer. My intuition says yes, but the numbers might say something else altogether.
It's the same thing with humans. When you see a tall dark woman, well dressed, smoking a cigarette, you expect her to talk in a soft, low, husky voice. But what are the odds? Isn't she as likely to talk with a cheerful, high soprano? She is, and the thing with writing is that sometimes you lead your reader in the right direction, and sometimes you show him that these are only stereotypes and that they can be turned around anytime you want. Just like in the real world.
It is in the real world that our mind wanders from one stimulus to the next thought. Have you noticed how Jane Espenson always takes some random fact, explores it a little and then suddenly starts talking business, giving opinions and advice? Her style reminds me of Phil K. Dick's Yancy (as in the short story "The Mold of Yancy").
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-23 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-23 06:48 pm (UTC)Well, isn't she a linguist? I love it when people joke in their area. I myself have a soft spot for logic and philosophy related jokes. (And it's the bf who's a logician, not me!)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-23 06:43 pm (UTC)Yeah, stereotypes - you can't really do without them, but on the other hand they can be really rather harmful, if you don't realize them for what they are and are prepared to be surprised. At the same time, without stereotypes you could end up in really dangerous situations.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-23 06:49 pm (UTC)