marbleglove (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
marbleglove) wrote2009-02-21 07:37 pm
marbleglove) wrote2009-02-21 07:37 pm
Entry tags:
Narration
Okay, this is a just a brief rant about my problems with narrators, either in books or real life, describing something or someone with adjectives but no examples, or worse, contradictory examples.
For instance, I love Robert Heinlein's books, they're a great deal of fun, but you have to remember always that he was born in 1907 and his female characters are rather dreadful and better off ignored. They are described in the narration as being brave and brilliant and then shown to make major mistakes and cower behind the hero. It's not that I mind having wimpy characters appear in books (although they're not my favorite) as long as they are acknowledged as being wimpy. It's way too condescending to say that oh, this character is so brilliant because she's capable of understanding 90% of what the hero is saying, or oh, she's so brave because at least she didn't faint while the hero was fighting the monster. Urgh.
In real life it happens too. I met a woman the other day who described herself as being very honest and straightforward. "What you see is what you get." My first reaction was that that is a completely meaningless sentence in the context. A person telling you that they are trustworthy either is or is not, but their word on the matter can't really be the deciding issue. Given that she had brought up the issue of her trustworthiness, I then had to hold it in question: was she trustworthy? Plus, she wore make-up. My only real issue with make-up is the time it takes to apply but it's hardly an example of what you see being what you get.
More and more, I wish narrators, both in books and in conversation, would stick to describing events or places, letting actions or even recounted events reveal character rather than attempting to simply state character as if it were fact. Because really, all that does is make me doubt it and I do occasionally try to curb my cynicism.
For instance, I love Robert Heinlein's books, they're a great deal of fun, but you have to remember always that he was born in 1907 and his female characters are rather dreadful and better off ignored. They are described in the narration as being brave and brilliant and then shown to make major mistakes and cower behind the hero. It's not that I mind having wimpy characters appear in books (although they're not my favorite) as long as they are acknowledged as being wimpy. It's way too condescending to say that oh, this character is so brilliant because she's capable of understanding 90% of what the hero is saying, or oh, she's so brave because at least she didn't faint while the hero was fighting the monster. Urgh.
In real life it happens too. I met a woman the other day who described herself as being very honest and straightforward. "What you see is what you get." My first reaction was that that is a completely meaningless sentence in the context. A person telling you that they are trustworthy either is or is not, but their word on the matter can't really be the deciding issue. Given that she had brought up the issue of her trustworthiness, I then had to hold it in question: was she trustworthy? Plus, she wore make-up. My only real issue with make-up is the time it takes to apply but it's hardly an example of what you see being what you get.
More and more, I wish narrators, both in books and in conversation, would stick to describing events or places, letting actions or even recounted events reveal character rather than attempting to simply state character as if it were fact. Because really, all that does is make me doubt it and I do occasionally try to curb my cynicism.