From: jwkenne@attglobal.net   
      
   On 2014-11-22 18:57:06 +0000, William Vetter said:   
      
   > John W Kennedy wrote :   
   >> On 2014-11-22 05:04:17 +0000, William Vetter said:   
   >>   
   >>> It happens that J.Pascal formulated :   
   >>>> On Friday, November 21, 2014 5:23:08 PM UTC-7, John F. Eldredge wrote:   
   >>>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:58:36 -0800, William Vetter wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:06:56 PM UTC-5, John F. Eldredge   
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:28:43 -0800, David E. Siegel (siegel@acm.org)   
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:16:04 PM UTC-4, William Vetter   
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 8:53:55 PM UTC-4, J.Pascal wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:45:42 PM UTC-6, William Vetter wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 3:18:46 PM UTC-4, J.Pascal wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> (...)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "You can't use weather to indicate mood" is like saying   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "no more using short words and sentences to heighten a sense   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> of urgency."   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> There is another one they say universally...the character can't   
   >>>>>>>>>>> look in a mirror and describe herself.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The other day I was thinking about that, that there used to be a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> TV show named "Quantum Leap" involving Scott Bakula, where he   
   >>>>>>>>>>> looked in the mirror at the beginning of every episode.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Of course that worked really well in "Quantum Leap" where Bakula   
   >>>>>>>>>> ran around looking just like Bakula but for the story was actually   
   >>>>>>>>>> in other people's bodies so we got to see in a reflection what he   
   >>>>>>>>>> looked like to everyone else.  Sort of like if there are vampires   
   >>>>>>>>>> there's at least one instance of non-reflection required. :)   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But anyhow, the mirror description thing....   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Honest, I think that was a solution to a non-existent problem.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Someone or other decided that a "good" writer in a single POV 3rd   
   >>>>>>>>>> person narrative or 1st person never let anything on the page that   
   >>>>>>>>>> their POV character wouldn't actually think.  So since I already   
   >>>>>>>>>> know that I have blond hair and blue eyes and am 5 feet tall I   
   >>>>>>>>>> would never think about my blond hair and blue eyes.  I might   
   >>>>>>>>>> think about my height if the author asked me to get a bowl from a   
   >>>>>>>>>> high shelf but in order to think about my *hair* I need to be   
   >>>>>>>>>> looking in a mirror fixing it.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I dunno.  Women say, "I hate my hair" all the time.  It's pretty   
   >>>>>>>>> much universal.  And black women have an even bigger thing about the   
   >>>>>>>>> hair relaxer.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Other solutions could be to have someone else say something   
   >>>>>>>>>> like... "Julie, I sure do envy your beautiful blond hair... it   
   >>>>>>>>>> flows like sunshine..."  *Gak*  And besides, this has to happen at   
   >>>>>>>>>> the beginning of the story, and giving me a love-sick stalker just   
   >>>>>>>>>> to describe my looks is even sillier than having me walk past a   
   >>>>>>>>>> mirror.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> A stalker needs to appear frequently in the manuscript, be almost   
   >>>>>>>>> inescapable, or the stalker is not a stalker, just an annoyance.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And I imagine that people started to notice that "the mirror   
   >>>>>>>>>> trick" seemed forced, too, and frequently applied...   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> ...to a wholly made-up problem.  Just describe your POV character   
   >>>>>>>>>> and get it over with.  If a mirror is *appropriate* then use a   
   >>>>>>>>>> mirror. If a love-lorn stalker is *appropriate* use a love-lorn   
   >>>>>>>>>> stalker.  If it doesn't really matter what your POV character   
   >>>>>>>>>> looks like, or what specie they are, or sex... then leave it out.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I think you really need to let reader know if the POV character is   
   >>>>>>>>> an alien quickly.  And probably the gender.  If they think the   
   >>>>>>>>> author is playing games with them, like intentionally hiding that   
   >>>>>>>>> the POV character is a female physician or a male nurse to prove the   
   >>>>>>>>> reader is a sexist, they'll feel their intelligence is being   
   >>>>>>>>> insulted.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> If it is too blatant yes. But it can work. I recently reread _Alien   
   >>>>>>>> Island_   
   >>>>>>>> (1970) by T. L. Sherred, and it is not until page 55 that the gender   
   >>>>>>>> of the PoV character is clearly stated to be female, a point which   
   >>>>>>>> soon becomes important. The character has two often but not   
   >>>>>>>> invariably male occupations: bartender (as a cover) and intelligence   
   >>>>>>>> agent (subordinate). There may have been a few cues, but they were   
   >>>>>>>> too subtle for me to pick up on, and I suspect for most readers. I   
   >>>>>>>> think it worked well in this particular case, and can work if it is   
   >>>>>>>> well done. Of course default gender assumptions were perhaps even   
   >>>>>>>> stronger in 1970 than they are now.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> -DES   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Melissa Scott's novel _The Kindly Ones_ never does reveal the gender of   
   >>>>>>> the protagonist, Trey Maturin, and does so skillfully enough that I   
   >>>>>>> didn't realize that I didn't know his or her gender until the second   
   >>>>>>> time I read the novel.  Maturin is always addressed by name, by title,   
   >>>>>>> or in the second person.  This is the only novel in which Melissa Scott   
   >>>>>>> has done this.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I have never seen this done by professional writers.  What I meant when   
   >>>>>> I originally mentioned this was that, at times, I have seen it in   
   >>>>>> workshop manuscripts that represent perhaps the level of the 75th   
   >>>>>> percentile of the slushpile where some young or inexperienced author has   
   >>>>>> concealed the gender of a POV character in a piece of short fiction, or   
   >>>>>> written almost entirely in character dialog with the purpose of   
   >>>>>> concealing a gender of a physician, so that the physician can be   
   >>>>>> revealed to be a woman in the final paragraph as a sort of twist ending.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Melissa Scott hasn't used the gender-hiding technique in any other   
   >>>>> novels.  I suspect she decided that it wasn't worth the effort to avoid   
   >>>>> ever using a gendered pronoun.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I view it as one of those things like writing in 2nd person or present   
   >>>> tense or with events out of order, or backwards, or without punctuation   
   >>>> *once* just to see if you have the chops to pull it off.   
   >>>>   
   >>> There was another thing like that about 20 years ago where you weren't   
   >>> allowed to use any verb tenses that incorporate the verb to be.  Or   
   >>> something like that.  People called it e-prime, and it was supposed to   
   >>> be, like, really cool.   
   >>   
   >> It was supposed to be something epistemological (and, I suspect,   
   >> Logical Positivist) about not using "to be". They don't seem to have   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)