EPTOn January 30 2010 06:16 Mora wrote:
that's a bit of a juvenile approach no?
you can't fathom that a message can best be interpreted from the gleaning of observations vs the ideas being made explicit?
Sometimes interpretation is part of the experience.
that's a bit of a juvenile approach no?
you can't fathom that a message can best be interpreted from the gleaning of observations vs the ideas being made explicit?
Sometimes interpretation is part of the experience.
I found your response very patronizing.
Details are relevant only as they are dramatized, and in my experience, 'interpretation' is a shield for imprecision or lazy dramatization. (Much as 'suspense' or 'surprise' are common excuses for denying necessary information. Though they're occasionally valid.)
Observation requires an observer, who is either the author (BAD!) or a narrator character. For coherency's sake, that narrator character needs to have observed the scene it describes, which inherently puts the narrator in the scene.
You can get around this by making your story be a story that a narrator-character is fabricating themselves, but then you're asking me to judge that story on lowered standards due to its framing.
On January 30 2010 07:41 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It's hard to do a suicide story in a short medium.
It's hard to do a suicide story in a short medium.
A dead character is a finished product. We the audience need to know them fully. A living character is still changing, and we have time to meet them. (Ignore this if the death isn't meant to carry impact. In The Lottery, we don't give a shit about the character who dies... only the manner in which they're killed.)
