Saturday, and more gold than a Terry’s factory. I missed the tight one, but saw the swimming that was a walk and the cycling that made the rest of the field look like they were using stabilisers.
I did the obligatory trip to Sainsbury’s and watch the afternoons sport whilst building a monitoring dashboard for the Q2 financial stretch management.
Cooked Paella for tea, using a chilli and tomato salsa as a base, which gave it a peppery kick, as usual, cooked too much, but that just means I have a meal for Belle in the fridge for the week. I also tried a Pink Port, which is bland beyond belief, don’t go there!
And now to the really heart of today musings, we watched a BBC4 series on fantasy writing this evening, and it raised some questions in my mind.
Firstly, why do people read? The program suggested a simplistic escapism, where children and adults alike imagine themselves as the characters. The history of the genre is interesting, but the patronising view of the academics and authors is sickening.
So what do I think makes for good fantasy? I need to believe in the characters, they need to be created, and be credible, but I don’t need and don’t really have the patience for long back ground developments. The stories that effect me most are those where the characters have attributes that I would like to have, those that react in a way that I would like to act, or they carry me into a time in history that appeals.
Secondly the map. I don’t need a map, why does anyone need a map? A map is an excuse for not having imagination (or maybe just thinking differently). I can view the landscape through the authors words, I can sense the time it takes to travel and how hard it could be. I want someone to be able to create a world in words, without the need of pictures. If a picture can paint a thousand words, then it is either a lazy or limited author who resorts to that cheap visionation.
This brings us on to the third issue; Tolkien, a literary genius, or a deep academic, who really only wrote for himself. I think his trilogy is to long and to full of unnecessary detail. I don’t need to read elfish, to follow a map, or endure 4 pages of song, in fact it creates a staccato experience that just does not work for me. Don’t get me wrong, I like the story, but it is not a book I would ever read again.
That I guess leads to one of my failings, I am often told by my wife that the bible is more than Jesus Christ Superstar. I like hearing words, images being painted in my imagination without having to trawl through a mess of words, lost out of time. I am not stupid, I know what is real and what is fantasy, but I can also discern where words are being used to keep down the masses, to spin a web so complex that the insecure believe there are those that are better because they understand those that should lead. Complexity in words is the domain of the oppressors, true creators are able to create a world that anyone can visit. If you need a PHD in philosophy to understand someone’s writing then the author has failed.
I would therefore put Tim Rice, and Benny and Bjorn before Tolkien and C.S.Lewis. I would put Gemmel ahead of Eddings, for me accessibility is the key, I don’t want to work at a story, I work during the day, a story should be a pleasure. It must take me away from the issues of the day, and create a world and a set of characters that I want to get back too.
I don’t normally ask for the opinion of others, as I really just write this for myself, but if there is anyone out there then I would be interested in your thoughts. I know you will have difference reading habits and interests, so what are your answers these questions:
If you only every read the bible, would you ever question Gods treatment of Judas?
If you need maps to picture where a charter is, what does that map give you that the words don’t?
And finally, what is the difference between books and songs?
I did the obligatory trip to Sainsbury’s and watch the afternoons sport whilst building a monitoring dashboard for the Q2 financial stretch management.
Cooked Paella for tea, using a chilli and tomato salsa as a base, which gave it a peppery kick, as usual, cooked too much, but that just means I have a meal for Belle in the fridge for the week. I also tried a Pink Port, which is bland beyond belief, don’t go there!
And now to the really heart of today musings, we watched a BBC4 series on fantasy writing this evening, and it raised some questions in my mind.
Firstly, why do people read? The program suggested a simplistic escapism, where children and adults alike imagine themselves as the characters. The history of the genre is interesting, but the patronising view of the academics and authors is sickening.
So what do I think makes for good fantasy? I need to believe in the characters, they need to be created, and be credible, but I don’t need and don’t really have the patience for long back ground developments. The stories that effect me most are those where the characters have attributes that I would like to have, those that react in a way that I would like to act, or they carry me into a time in history that appeals.
Secondly the map. I don’t need a map, why does anyone need a map? A map is an excuse for not having imagination (or maybe just thinking differently). I can view the landscape through the authors words, I can sense the time it takes to travel and how hard it could be. I want someone to be able to create a world in words, without the need of pictures. If a picture can paint a thousand words, then it is either a lazy or limited author who resorts to that cheap visionation.
This brings us on to the third issue; Tolkien, a literary genius, or a deep academic, who really only wrote for himself. I think his trilogy is to long and to full of unnecessary detail. I don’t need to read elfish, to follow a map, or endure 4 pages of song, in fact it creates a staccato experience that just does not work for me. Don’t get me wrong, I like the story, but it is not a book I would ever read again.
That I guess leads to one of my failings, I am often told by my wife that the bible is more than Jesus Christ Superstar. I like hearing words, images being painted in my imagination without having to trawl through a mess of words, lost out of time. I am not stupid, I know what is real and what is fantasy, but I can also discern where words are being used to keep down the masses, to spin a web so complex that the insecure believe there are those that are better because they understand those that should lead. Complexity in words is the domain of the oppressors, true creators are able to create a world that anyone can visit. If you need a PHD in philosophy to understand someone’s writing then the author has failed.
I would therefore put Tim Rice, and Benny and Bjorn before Tolkien and C.S.Lewis. I would put Gemmel ahead of Eddings, for me accessibility is the key, I don’t want to work at a story, I work during the day, a story should be a pleasure. It must take me away from the issues of the day, and create a world and a set of characters that I want to get back too.
I don’t normally ask for the opinion of others, as I really just write this for myself, but if there is anyone out there then I would be interested in your thoughts. I know you will have difference reading habits and interests, so what are your answers these questions:
If you only every read the bible, would you ever question Gods treatment of Judas?
If you need maps to picture where a charter is, what does that map give you that the words don’t?
And finally, what is the difference between books and songs?
No comments:
Post a Comment