hard choices...

[lagilman]

This was originally a friends-locked post, then I decided what the hell...


I've done a lot of research and worldbuilding, to get the tone of the WiP right. I know, for example, that there's a way to shape bark into a crude tray, so you're not trying to balance your meal on your knees, around a campfire. And that would be a nice little detail, the kind of color that an epic fantasy novel seems to call out for, the kind of detail that readers of same seem to enjoy. And it would be easy - enjoyable, even - to slip that sort of detail into the book. To detail the meals, the way they travel, sleep, fight, cook, until it's almost as though you're watching, rather than reading.

And that would be good, and satisfying, and fun.

But... the underlying tone of this book has always been more sparse, broad strokes of daily life, with the details focused elsewhere, allowing the reader to assume and presume, rather than spelling it out. To make the reader dig for the meat, a little more. And I know...I know that this could hurt the book. The readers who will come to it, thinking "oh, epic fantasy with horses and magic n' shit" and then discover that the tone is...not that?

I could do the traditional thing. I could do that and nobody would think twice about it, because it would be expected, what the readership prefers. And the book would probably please more people/sell better.  But...

It would change the book.

To clarify off the comments: if I thought this would be a negative change, it wouldn't even be under consideration.  The fact that some of you seem to think I would...huh.

Change isn't bad.  Traditional isn't bad.  It's just a different journey to the same destination.

Comments

[orcaarrow.livejournal.com]

My opinion really isn't worth much as I'm a very poor writer. However, if the situation was reversed and I was asking you for advice I am fairly sure you'd tell me do what was best for the story and let the "proper" readers find and enjoy your work.

[lagilman]

True, but there is also the choice - which once aware of you can't ignore - to write something that is likely to be more commercially viable versus something which is likely to be less commercially viable, without "harming" anything.

It would simply be a different book.


And - since this is how I make my living - the question of commercial viability is not a dirty thing, but merely one aspect of the entire career. :-)

[orcaarrow.livejournal.com]

Commercial viability is not a bad word. Just part of the whole decision. I just don't like the idea of changing the tenor of the book.

Yes, changing the book to make it more commercial isn't a bad thing. But, I suspect you wouldn't like that. I'd continue on with the track you are on.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

As a reader, my first instinct is to say-

Don't change the book.

Especially if doing so wouldn't make you or the book, happy in the long run.

[lagilman]

Nowhere did I say it would't make me happy. i said it would be a different book. If the story worked and readers got the hoped-for reaction to it, it would make me happy. If it did that and made me lots of money, I'd be very happy.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'd also say "write it the way you want to write it."

Not only because you'll be happier with it, but because there's a huge battle being fought on all sides of us to change what is commercially viable in some ways, to make it more diverse, more inclusive, more this that and the other. In order to do that, the gatekeepers of commercial viability need to be aware that there are good works outside the pale of what they are currently prepared to consider. If there are none, they will see no need to change.

I know that if the book doesn't sell it will hurt you, but in this case, with the sort of change you're talking about, I would be willing to bet that it would. And then the frontiers of what is seen as "commercially viable" would have been expanded a bit.

This sounds awfully as if I'm asking you to take one for the team, but I'm really not. I do believe that we're here to tell the stories we want to tell, the way we want to tell them, and it sounds as if you want to tell this story this way. And that should be a factor in determining commercial viability, I think.

[lagilman]

As i said to Liz, I seem to have been unclear in my original musings. "How you want to write it" is what I'm trying to decide - how I want to write it, one journey or the other. Not "Should I do this in a way I don't enjoy."

And you're totally asking me to take one for the team, but that's okay. I understand. :-(

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

In that case, I withdraw the request. Sorry. You shouldn't have to.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

I'd also say write it how you want to write it, but tbh I'm not sure if that's good advice. I sometimes tell people in creative writing classes to ignore everything I say and follow the example of Dan Brown and 50 Shades: the poorer a work is, the more it seems to sell. This is obviously seriously depressing. I don't know what the answer is. A lot of fantasy is quite simply by the numbers, bog standard stuff - but that's what does seem to sell, and as we know, Bob, if it doesn't sell, that's what kills your career, or at least makes it unviable to write. As I said....depressing because I would really like to see something different.

[lagilman]

I seem to have been unclear in my musings. It's not a question of HOW I want to write it, but deciding how I want to write it - for lack of a better split, to go commercial or literary (although neither of those are entirely accurate, it's reasonable shorthand)

I tried to go the route you describe once. The books did well but I was miserable. So yeah, no.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Hey, "the poorer it is the more it sells" is good news for writers like me. I'm obviously just not quite bad enough... :)

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

OK, this makes sense. You may not have been unclear - I may have been reading it wrongly. I do get the split-that-is-not-a-split.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

Its the authors choice but I notice little continuity bumps that put me out of the flow of the story. Like no one ever goes to the bathroom or eats or their horse never poos while on the long journey. If I ever made a journey like some my clothes would be ripe and stand up on their own.

[lagilman]

Heh. I have at least two bathroom stops and a mention of needing to wash hair. That good?

However, I don't go into the specifics of what they use to cleanse themselves, or how often...it's established and then it moves on. And at no point do I take half a page to discuss who makes the soap. *g*

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

Thakyou, that makes it easier...although I do tend to say "well it is fantasy afterall" when little details are omitted....grin.

[djonn]

Interesting problem. I suspect, though, that introducing the phrase "epic fantasy" has confused matters.

It doesn't sound to me as if you're likely to change the voice of your alt-Western to the voice of a traditional epic fantasy (a la Erikson or Jordan/Sanderson or Martin). Westerns have their own language and flavor, and changing the level of detail in the narrative shouldn't -- or at least shouldn't necessarily -- change that flavor. It may make it a slightly different type of Western, but it ought not change the underlying personality of the novel.

OTOH, changing the level of detail does imply a certain change in the character of the narrative voice -- that voice, in relaying the additional information, may take on a different (and perhaps closer) relationship to the characters onstage. If you've been trying to maintain a distant, neutral quality to your narrative voice, that may become trickier as you insert more vivid detail.

I haven't seen/heard enough of the material to make a recommendation one way or the other, except to trust your instincts -- and to keep in mind that "level of detail" is a continuum, not an either/or.

[lagilman]

Why must it be one or the other?

The point of this book, among other things, is to be both, equally. an epic American West fantasy.

(go big or go home, right?)


What I'm dithering over isn't the voice, it's the texture.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in this discussion because I'm chewing over my own version of the epic American West fantasy (IOW, Pacific Northwest). Not only that but besides reading f & sf, reading good quality regional fiction is one of my likes, and I've been wanting to find a good epic American West fantasy to read (besides writing my own). So yeah, vested interest in seeing two of my likes combined well.

When you say sparse, are you perhaps thinking more of a Raymond Carver-esque tone? Or H.L. Davis? The best Western stuff I've read really integrates the natural world into the story as a strong secondary character. Nature isn't tamed; it's a potent and viable threat that could damage or destroy people and their dreams. Most failed American West fantasy I've tried to read lets me down in that area.

You've probably read pretty extensively in the modern literary Western genre already; if not, I can make some recommendations. I think I know the texture you're looking for but I'm not certain about that.

[madrobins]

Part of the reason I rarely read epic fantasy is because of the traditional thing. Me, I'm a big fan of sparse, broad strokes of daily life, and being asked to dig a little. If I want comfort reading, I can do that easily. The chance to read a chewy book that asked my participation is rarer.

[lagilman]

And you are kind of my ideal reader. Can I clone you half a million times?

[madrobins]

If you want. Just don't make me eat dinner with them.

[jamileigh17.livejournal.com]

IMO? It's one of the reasons your Vineart trilogy worked so well. You balanced enough detail to create a vivid world, while not getting mired in the "Look how shiny my research is!" trap of "EPIC" fantasy.

[lagilman]

Alas, the sales were not so well. I mean, it did okay, but it didn't burn up anyone's charts...

And that was actually MORE traditional than what I'm doing here, in some ways. Oops.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

sparse, broad strokes of daily life, with the details focused elsewhere, allowing the reader to assume and presume, rather than spelling it out

For 200 years, nobody has ever known what Elizabeth Bennet *actually looks like.* Fine eyes, that's it. No hair color, hair style, dress style, favorite color, nada.

Why publishers decided that people need things spelled out in minute detail, I don't know.

[lagilman]

Probably because those books sold better, overall.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Grump. Personally, I find massive blorts of exposition to detract from the plot. (Marion Chesney, I'm looking at you.)

[lagilman]

Oh ye of so little faith!

(and that's not what I'm talking about here: not exposition but depth, detail, a sonnet rather than a haiku.)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

As long as it's not "my research: let me show you it." Clancy and Chesney both give me a rash on that score.

[lagilman]

I'm going to take that as a vote of confidence in my abilities, rather than the other way around... :-P

[neadods.livejournal.com]

That is a hearty vote of confidence in your abilities!

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

I'd go with sparse and not so detailed. There's always a time and a place for it, and if the detail disrupts the tone then don't worry about the detail. I don't think all the details are necessary, and while some people would enjoy them, if the tone is different, stay true to the tone.

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

As a reader, I find your books already do a good job of selling me on setting. If this is the book you were reading from on your tour of the west coast, I'd say it does an *excellent* job of selling setting already.

Not that I'll turn it away if you choose to go the epic fantasy style either, but I, personally, don't think it's necessary.

[blazedglory.livejournal.com]

That is a hard choice.

I sometimes flip a coin, faced with decisions of lesser importance. If I don't like the outcome, I do the other thing. But this is not a decision of lesser importance and I don't think that's likely to work.

I'll read the story either way, though at the moment I lean toward the change. I recognize my own tendency to dislike change and actively (somewhat actively) try to look at new things.

[jesskastar.livejournal.com]

I fully recognize that I am 100% not in the biz and thus ignorant. That being said, is this something you could chat over with your editor?

[lagilman]

Probably. In fact, we've discussed things along a similar line already. But this is a decision I need to make, figuring out where on the sliding scale this book falls.

Then he gets to tell me to slide it back a little, up a little, or leave as is. :-)