From: mdhangton@gmail.com   
      
   J.Pascal formulated the question :   
   > On Saturday, November 29, 2014 4:25:10 PM UTC-7, William Vetter wrote:   
   >> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote :   
   >>> On 11/29/14, 4:54 PM, William Vetter wrote:   
   >>>> Michelle Bottorff was thinking very hard :   
   >>>>> J.Pascal  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> A relatively "big" author (I remember who but I'm going to mangle the   
   >>>>>> quote so I probably ought not say that so and so said this exactly) once   
   >>>>>> explained that if the purpose is emotional engagement and emotional   
   >>>>>> response that negative emotions are the easiest to manipulate.  That   
   >>>>>> "happy" is actually, artistically, more difficult to do well.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I find it way easier to annoy people than to make their day, for sure.   
   >>>>>>> rueful::   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Do you think _Romeo and Juliet_ sucks?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> 	Yep. As RAH said, "Even the immortal Will had his off-days."   
   >>   
   >> Unless I'm mistaken, he wrote more tradgedies than comedies.   
   >   
   > So did the Greeks.   
   >   
   > There's such a thing as prevailing convention.  If the audience expects   
   > everything to go poorly for the hero until he repents and god is lowered by   
   > wires to fix it all, then that's what you've got to give them.   
      
   Homer didn't do that.   
   >   
   > Sometimes "good" becomes whatever adheres to the correct moral message (ie.,   
   > complaints that Interstellar didn't have the correct "protect the planet   
   > we've got" message,) or "good" becomes whatever *doesn't* appeal to the hoi   
   > polloi.  Sometimes the right ending is determined by culture and fashion.   
   > Sarah Hoyt has explained that, for whatever reason, the proper ending of a   
   > Portuguese romance is that the bull fighter dies and the lady mourns him   
   > tragically forever.   
   >   
   > My opinion... we've had a fair amount of movement toward valuing depressing   
   > science fiction stories over fun ones... the hoi polloi aversion thing,   
   > maybe... or maybe it's still related to the genre's 1990's "we are SO writing   
   > literature" tantrum... which might be the same thing.  And while I'm NOT   
   > saying, just for myself mind you, that anything "literary" must be bad, that   
   > in the end tragedy and depressive fatalism is actually easier to do than a   
   > really good triumph done well.   
      
   I've read this a few times.  I think when somebody reads it, they tend   
   to project their notion of "fun" on the argument.  It's hard to think   
   of an example that would be general...maybe a lot of people like space   
   operas, but editors generally refuse to buy them.   
      
   The other assumption that seems to be in this argument is that the   
   literary genre is pretty much dense, a chore to read, involves themes   
   of self-destruction, hopelessness.  I don't think that this is   
   generally true.   
   >   
   > Sort of related to that are all of the "don't do this" writing lists.  And a   
   > lot of them are downright silly and (ought to be) self-evidently bogus, such   
   > as not writing yourself as the hero of an adventure.  Or all of the "must   
   > nots" that amount to "this was done twice and worked brilliantly - you must   
   > never do it again."   
   >   
   I've seen manuscripts in workshops...Hitler is a Ghandi to the Jews in   
   an alternate history...a man's dick gets chopped off at the   
   climax...setting resembles a video game like Doom...me & my buddies go   
   into state forest with our AR-14s and a case of Pabst to hunt   
   Bigfoot...   
   The lists don't help--they still do what they want.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)