Intersections and chance meetings

[marycrawford]

ltlj said interesting things in email about familiar characters migrating from one story into another, and how they can easily change into brand-new characters by acquiring a new world to live in and new problems to solve.



Then I happened to read papersky's entries about writing 'Mansfield Park' as a space opera, which is not as strange as it sounds when you consider that she has just finished a comedy of manners where all the characters are dragons.

papersky talks about how the act of telling the story changes it, and that to her dismay, she now feels sympathy for Mrs. Norris, that horrible grasping petty-minded harridan. (The latter description being mine, you understand, since I still can't stand the woman.)

I'm not even sure I can explain why all this feels like a revelation. I mean, I've read "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and even "Bridget Jones' Diary", so I ought to know that characters can be transplanted and made over, and that writers have been happily borrowing storylines from each other since the dawn of time. But I still feel as though a new door has opened up into the world of Story, and the vistas behind it are wider and stranger than I imagined.

I think I realized all of a sudden that if Mansfield Park as a space opera is possible (and given who's writing it, I'm not in doubt) then anything is possible. And worth trying.

Comments

[ltlj.livejournal.com]

I think this has a lot to do with how you look at character. I tend to think that environment and the circumstances we live in tend to shape us. Like if I grew up in 17th century Europe, or a modern day hut in Ethiopia, I'd be a completely different person, with different goals, different pressures, different skills.

You also see people who don't look at character that way and who see it as immutable. They seem to see all characters as stereotypes and think that the main character must have a heart of gold and be a hero because he is the main character, even though he's really an anti-hero and kills people in cold blood, etc, and they'll come up with fairly bizarre justifications for his behavior. They don't seem to get subtle points of characterization (or big obvious points of characterization) that conflict with the standardized image in their head that they had before they even picked up the story. But there's just not much you can do about them as a writer, except ignore them or you'll go crazy.

I think I wandered off your point a bit, but yeah Mansfield Park has a solid plot and I can see it translating (and transforming) to fit just about any environment.

[marycrawford.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure what my point is, unless it's: "Look! Wow! Isn't this amazing?" /g/

But I definitely concur with the 'I'd be a different person in different circumstances' idea, whether it's applied to real people or fictional characters.

Take Miles Vorkosigan, who is a favorite of mine (from Lois McMaster Bujold's Barrayar books). He's a brilliant military commander, who has driven himself to excel because he feels the need to compensate for severe physical handicaps. Put him on another planet, in another time, and he'd probably still be a hyperactive little git with a big mouth, but he wouldn't end up an Admiral, might not be so competitive or have such issues with his famous father, etcetera.

I don't think I quite understand the mindset of the second group of people you mention. Is it that they fear to identify with someone who isn't a true-blue hero? Or is it about the safety of the familiar, where they don't want to read anything that might upset them or fall outside certain rigid boundaries?

[ltlj.livejournal.com]

Take Miles Vorkosigan, who is a favorite of mine (from Lois McMaster Bujold's Barrayar books).

I love the Miles books. Yeah, he's a good example. It's the pressure of Barrayar's environment and the need for the power to survive it that drives him so far. On another planet like Beta he'd never have developed like that.

I don't think I quite understand the mindset of the second group of people you mention. Is it that they fear to identify with someone who isn't a true-blue hero? Or is it about the safety of the familiar, where they don't want to read anything that might upset them or fall outside certain rigid boundaries?

I'm not sure. I think it's partly that some people don't ever question their assumptions. We had a conversation on a mailing list a while back when someone was talking about people who take as fact the idea that Hercules takes Iolaus for granted and treats him terribly and where on earth they get this idea, since it isn't in the show. Several others jumped in to defend this idea as canon, but when challenged, they couldn't name a single instance from an episode that really illustrated this. The closest anyone could get was "Gladiator" where Hercules goes ahead with the slave plan even though Iolaus thinks it's a bad idea. (I'll grant that that shows Hercules can makes mistakes (and what a boring show it would be if he was perfect) but I don't grant it shows Hercules doesn't value Iolaus.) But despite the discussion, I was left with the impression that nobody's mind had been changed. They preferred to see Iolaus as inadvertently victimized by Hercules and didn't care what had actually occurred on the show.

I also think it's partly the fault of the US educational system that for the most part doesn't teach textual analysis.

[marycrawford.livejournal.com]

It's the pressure of Barrayar's environment and the need for the power to survive it that drives him so far.

Yeah, exactly. The way Mark develops an almost completely different personality from the same genes is proof of that. He's driven to survive too, but in different ways.

We had a conversation on a mailing list a while back when someone was talking about people who take as fact the idea that Hercules takes Iolaus for granted and treats him terribly and where on earth they get this idea, since it isn't in the show.

Huh. I seem to recall this exact same issue occurring in Sentinel fandom, with Blair. Is it the curly hair, or what?

I think you're right: that must be what people want to see. If they want Iolaus to be a victim, that's their thing, but why call it canon? I mean, I don't call slash canon, for crying out loud. (Myth-canon, yes.)

I grant that "Gladiator" shows Hercules' obstinate side, but I actually love how Iolaus reacts, complaining and rolling his eyes but going along with the plan anyway. Come to think of it, the exact same thing that happens in "North", only in reverse, with Hercules tagging along and wondering what the hell Iolaus is dragging him into. So I guess Herc is a victim, too. :-)

I also think it's partly the fault of the US educational system that for the most part doesn't teach textual analysis.

I wonder. We got textual analysis out the wazoo in high school ('why do you think X does this? What does Y symbolize? What are the themes of this novel? Is Z a flat or round character?') and I hated it. I thought it a great way to kill anyone's joy in reading. (Not mine, but still.)

I'm not sure how I feel about it now, since I'm obviously happy to talk about characterization til the cows come home.

[ltlj.livejournal.com]

There's a new Lois Bujold fantasy coming out today too. I'd go to the bookstore, but they probably won't have it until later this week.

Huh. I seem to recall this exact same issue occurring in Sentinel fandom, with Blair. Is it the curly hair, or what?

The shortness maybe? In Star Wars fandom, it was usually poor Luke who got to be abused. (Luke was also girly and delicate, too, oddly unlike the actor who played him in every version of the movies I saw.)


I think you're right: that must be what people want to see. If they want Iolaus to be a victim, that's their thing, but why call it canon? I mean, I don't call slash canon, for crying out loud. (Myth-canon, yes.)

That's what gets me too. I think with the Iolaus-as-victim people they realize somewhere that their interpretation is way off but instead of just admitting that that's the case and they like it that way, they have to justify it. With other people, I think they just like angst and don't care how bad the story is as long as it delivers. I like angst a lot too, but I like angst derived from the canon, or that can be justified by the characterization in some way. Things like sexual jealousy, or Hercules suddenly turning into a total dickweed, or Iolaus being insecure and co-dependent just don't work for me.

I think Liz and I were talking about this not too long ago, of how it takes more time, effort, and thought to come up with a good reason why Iolaus and Hercules would have a problem with their relationship, which is why you don't see many stories that pull this off effectively.