 Writing Shadowrun stories, Any tips? |
  |
 Dec 5 2004, 07:31 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802  |
The term Mary Sue specifically applies to fanfiction characters, though people misuse it to apply to published works. Arguably one could apply it to people writing for someone else's world. Which, as it turns out, you later agree with, I just want to clarify that the above is a misuse of the term rather than a weakness of the term itself. ~J |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Dec 5 2004, 07:36 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,353 Joined: 5-June 02 Member No.: 2,840 |
What I'm wondering is why it's so unacceptable for fanfiction authors to do the same thing some fiction authors do. I mean, the published fiction world has their Ryan Mercurys and such; what's wrong with fanfiction authors doing the same thing? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2004, 07:50 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Because while it may not be a Mary Sue, a Ryan Mercury is still bad writing. Not so bad that there aren't things that can make up for it, but in general, the quality of fanfiction is far lower than the quality of published writing and thus less capable of making up for a Ryan Mercury/Mary Sue.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2004, 07:51 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 24-February 03 From: The Containment Zone Member No.: 4,151 |
Because it is bad writing, frankly. Very few people enjoy reading stories where the main character is the bestest person ever in every way (or nearly so). Ask people which Shadowrun novels are their favorites on Dumpshock and the answer is hardly ever the Ryan Mercury books -- it's Burning Bright, 2XS, Night's Pawn, etc, which are stories where the main character is someone you can relate to. Most people, I would hazard to guess, read the Ryan Mercury books because they wanted to find out what happened with Dunkelzahn, not because they found the character of Ryan Mercury particularly compelling. Think about your favorite books and movies. How many of them have characters who are perfect and have it all? Characters like that don't give much room for character development, which is part of what makes a story a good one. If everything in your book is over the top, especially when people are expecting something more gritty, you're going to stretch people's suspension of disbelief to the breaking point, which is when they throw the book against the wall in disbelief. Pulpy superhero characters are okay in Superman comics from the 50s -- but that's not what people are looking for when they read a Sherlock Holmes mystery, or a cyberpunk novel. The suggestions that Ed Simons had about characters before were good ones. Make them human -- not superhuman. They may have magic powers and cyberware, but they are still people. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2004, 08:38 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
In other words, who watches the Tomb Raiser movies for the compelling characters? :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2004, 08:57 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Err, that's what I said. A lot of other people who throw the term around use it as such, not me. Again, more often than not they use it a as a thinly-veiled insult at a character or franchise they simply don't like.
No, it applies to a specific type of character in a specific type of story. It originated from fan-fiction but it doesn't belong solely there. The only difference from fan-fiction and "real" fiction is that one is published and one is thrown up on the web or the like. If a character and story is a Mary Sue in a work of fan-fiction, it doesn't spontaneously transform into a non-Mary Sue if it gets published. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Dec 5 2004, 11:20 PM
Post
#32
|
|
Guests |
I think it basically comes down to two things:
1. Read fiction. Some non-fiction could work, too (e.g., Mark Bowden's books), but generally read other people's work just to get an appreciation of what you like, and what you want to write. For example, do you want to write something that reads like a Robert Crais novel (i.e., something you can read cover-to-cover in less than 24 hours, but which is interesting and fun to read) or do you want to write something like To the Hermitage, which is considerably... different (funny as hell, though). Personally, I like both and I've written stories in the vein of both..I've also written crap that reads like an Andy McNab novel, which is just boring. 2. Write, and let people read it. I have written enough SR material and fiction to fill a small room--99% of it is stuff no one will ever see, mainly because it was discarded over the last 12 or so years. But it's not until you get constructive criticism from people that it can really be good. You can write the greatest piece of SR fiction ever on your first try, but... the chances of that are about as likely as winning a Pulitzer for said work. And it's a lot more satisfying to know people are actually reading your work, and giving you compliments or help in making it better. Another post along a similar vein. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2004, 11:31 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,353 Joined: 5-June 02 Member No.: 2,840 |
See, I'm not writing a full book; it's more like a series of short stories chronicling the 6 years Helios has spent hunting the undead. It's not an ongoing, connected plot, but a series of self-contained stories.
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Dec 5 2004, 11:34 PM
Post
#34
|
|
Guests |
Then just start writing. If you publish it here or somewhere else, I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2004, 11:47 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724 |
Cronicles in short story form have been popular for centuries.
Many authors start ideas out there. Sherlock Holmes was started out that way in the newspaper. Just write them, place them on a website, and tell us when they're up the first time and we'll all check in and read. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 11:42 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I actually kind of enjoy that. That's the reason I liked the Soldier of Fortune computer games so much. Because even though it *is* easy to die you still get the overwhelming impression that John Mullins is a superhuman whirlwind of incarnate death crawling from the jungles of Vietnam and walking out onto the world with a boonie hat and a beltful of Soviet F1 frag grenades. I suppose, however, that you could argue that his in-game persona was already well "developed" as a character by the interviews that the real person has given. The super-character mode of story is *only* annoying if the main character is so stupid that you are offended to keep reading about him or her. But, if you actually *like* the main character, you'll never get tired of hearing about how he or she cleans out 5 houses in a row all by his or herself. EDIT: I think that's why the uber-character in fanfiction is so annoying. Because the uber-character is meaningless in the context of fanfiction that is supposed to be about another set of characters and an already-established world. But I would argue that the uber-character annoyance value would already be greatly reduced if the character is an original character in an original setting or world that does not draw upon already established characters very much. My biggest tip for the aspiring Shadowrun writer? I say keep it in the 80s! Leather jackets, elves with mullets, Japanese nuthugging, improbably effective martial arts and excessive lipservice to zen mental states. These factors would keep me coming back to a Shadowrun story time and time again. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2004, 12:40 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600 |
My biggest tip to any aspiring SR writer would be sex scenes. Lots and lots of explicit sex scenes (some to think of it, this may be why none of my Good Morning, Miami scripts were never accepted).
Actually, I wouldn't worry too much about getting advice. You can't please anyone trying to please everyone, but if you try to please someone... that usually doesn't work out too well either. Screw everybody, and write what you want. And include lots of sex scenes, please. Like between a street sam, a sasquatch and a duck. Cuz thats hot. (Or, keeping in mind your concept, a vampiric duck. Its all good.) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2004, 01:29 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,751 Joined: 8-August 03 From: Neighbor of the Beast Member No.: 5,375 |
Did you eat paint chips as a child? You completely forgot sex with the dikoted AVS ally spirit. tsk, tsk...
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2004, 01:31 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I think this is the key to the 'Mary Sue' issue. Introducing a character who is the be-all-and-end-all of everything into an already established cast, like the Star Trek crew is the basis for the complaint. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2004, 02:46 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 29-September 02 Member No.: 3,348 |
What works in making a good computer game isn't neccessarily what works in making a good story. (Much like what works in making a good movie isn't neccessarily what works in making a good roleplaying session.) If the main character achieves his successes without having to work for them, the story lacks conflict and is boring. If all Pac Man did was run around eating dots and nothing in the game could possibly harm him, that would make for a boring game and no one would have ever played it. That doesn't say the main character can't be powerful, but for all that power the readers should be concerned that he could fail, even if only in part. Superb warrior that he is, Conan loses one of his greatest loves to a monster even though he kills the creature and he has lost battles and been captured more than once. Superb intellect that he is, Sherlock Holmes was outwitted by Irene Adler and not all criminals are brought to justice. He isn't even the smartest character in his setting. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2004, 06:10 AM
Post
#41
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Hmm, you know, a lot of people say that, and it sounds very sensible, but I'm not sure that it's actually correct. Because I've found myself reacting better to stories where the main character was more godlike and reacting less enthusiastically where the main character had weak points. Let me relate the specific example I'm thinking of. I'm a big fan of 1980s ninja movies. However, I like American Ninja 2 (with the more godlike hero) a lot better than American Ninja 3 (with the more fallible hero). In American Ninja 2, the main character is played by Michael Dudikoff. You *know* that Dudikoff is never going to lose a fight. In the beginning of the movie he gets attacked by squads of ninja who use a variety of snares, team tactics, and weapons to try and defeat him, but he gets out of all them with a flowing and brutal ease. ("They fought like professionals; the blond one could almost be a ninja!") Later on throughout the course of the film Dudikoff defeats armies of ninjas and thugs alike using moves in the fight scenes taken from classical jujutsu and it's fun and cool because you know that everyone who assaults him is going to get their limbs broken. (Obviously, it's supposed to be "ninjutsu", but the moves written into the fight scenes are actually textbook classical jujutsu.) What is more righeously awesome than a guy wearing boots, blue jeans, and an 80s jean jacket completely ruining everyone's day by throwing them and then breaking their limbs? In American Ninja 3, the main character, a different main character, is played by David Bradley. If you watch American Ninja 3 right after American Ninja 2, you notice that Bradley has to struggle with the ninjas he battles much longer than Dudikoff did. Bradley is always struggling, never in a position of clear bone-breaking classical jujutsu dominance. To add insult to injury, he actually gets captured and injected with a hokey new virus. It is only in the final 2 minutes of the film that he is able to meditate and summon his supreme ninja powers (which apparently Dudikoff's character was already plugged into and didn't need to actually call on to succeed) which both make the virus go away and make him able to effortlessly defeat the final ninjas and the bad guy. Also, for the entire time in American Ninja 3, Bradley is actually being decieved and manipulated by this kunoichi who uses disguises to fool him and make him think his sensei has been captured when he really hasn't. Meanwhile, Steve James reprises his role as karateka Steve Jackson from the first two American Ninja movies and continues to destroy ninja ass as usual. Never in the film is there any doubt that Steves James will completely take down anyone so foolish as to challenge him, and as a result you like his scenes much better than you like Bradley's scenes. His bulging muscles and hammed up kiais make him much more an appealing of a character than the comparatively wussy-looking Bradley who seems to actually be a less formidable opponent. And American Ninja 2 is by far the more enjoyable film. You kick back, relax, and watch Dudikoff's exploding classical jujutsu death. When you watch American Ninja 3, you're like, "Damn, Bradley is an impuslive, easily manipulated-wuss. Look at how that ninja just floored him." You wonder why he's so special or so great that he gets to be the main character because he's like the second wussiest named character in the film. So, I would argue that even if a character is infallible, if he is a cool or appealing character for some reason, you could still like the character more than you could a fallible but somewhat capable character. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 8 2004, 06:18 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Arrgghh ... Pirates rule matey.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2004, 12:03 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600 |
Perhaps we should aim higher than writing a story that rivals the awesome power of the American Ninja franchise.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2004, 12:39 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Ahh, the innocent words of one untraveled in the worlds of fanfiction (I was a volunteer editor on a few different large fanfic lists, so I feel I have more than the usual exposure to these things). That's one of the things about Mary Sues. They are neither cool nor appealing (especially not as much as the author seems to think they are). The original cast now occupies supporting roles, existing mostly to just fawn over the M-S. No matter what their capabilities were, it is now the M-S who comes up with all the brillant plans. They become great friends with the character's that the author likes, and stomp all over the ones they don't. They become the center of the action, and don't suffer from any meaningful flaws (the usual is that if something goes wrong, usually something that they had no control over whatsoever, they beat themselves up over it until one of the other characters gives them a heartfelt, 'it's all right, it wasn't your fault,' speech). They frequently die, but this is also a bad thing, because then we're subjected to pages of the good guys declaring how this is the saddest day EVER, and the bad guys stopping to pay respects to a worthy foe. A Mary Sue in SR might look something like this. His name is Sandval S..er... Starr. He's Dunkelzahn's son, but it's been a big secret, because his mother was a Horror, and he was born before the Scourge during the fourth age. He did many evil things during the Scourge because of his horror nature, but then reformed later, and will now do anything to stop them. He looks like an immortal elf, but his true form is that of a great dragon, although because the mana cycle is too low, he can only transform when in the prescense of great power, or when pushed to the edge. He hates Harlequinn, who is his inferior in every way, and the two shall meet repeatedly, and every time he will easily make Harlequinn look like a complete chump. He gets along well with Ehran, who is almost his intellectual equal, and Frosty falls head over heels for him at first sight. It is his tragic destiny to give his life to seal the Horrors away forever. The biggest reason why most people are repulsed by Mary-Sues is that they are literary masturbation, pure and simple, and you have to be a HELL of an author in order for most people to want to watch that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2004, 06:46 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Well, yes. That's what I meant when I said in the context of fanfiction which deals with already established characters that everyone but the author like better than the author's character the super character would never work. What I've been trying to say is that in a story that is *not* fanfiction, and therefore dosen't have any characters that people already like by default, then the M-S style character would be a lot less obnoxious. (There's a reason I don't read fanfiction, heh heh. ;) ) EDIT: Granted, I know what you're talking about, I think. Few things annoy me *more* than when a character is *not* appealing, but then is inexplicably powerful as well. Sailor Moon is like that. I hate Sailor Moon because even though Usagi is a wuss who should DIE, she always saves the day in the end. And that's just piss in my cheerios. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 8 2004, 07:02 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Ha ha, good one. ...... OK, as cool as it would be to end my post there, I'm not going to. Because I have an analogous example using works of classic literature. Here it goes. My argument is that the most important thing is how cool and appealing the main character is rather than whether or not the character is fallible. Let us compare two old favorites...Jane Eyre by Bronte, and The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. Jane Eyre is about a brainy and artistic but low-self esteem chick. She gets mistreated by her adoptive family because they're sterotypical evil relatives and struggles against her poverty and low self esteem. After a lot of difficulty, however, she manages to marry the hunky mysterious man and live happily ever after. Now, I liked Jane Eyre. It's just about the only Bronte novel that I liked, actually. I thought Wuthering Heights was moronic. (Although granted it was written by a different sister...but you know that they probably all influenced each other's writing.) Jane is a pretty cool character; she's brainy, she knows art, she likes to read history. If I met someone like Jane in real life, I'd probably like her. So, it was fun reading about her. Okay, fair enough. One thing is that Jane Eyre is very fallible. She's kind of scrawny physically and gets kicked around mentally a lot. But, compare this to the main character in The Count of Monte Cristo, Edmond Dantes. Dantes starts out as an ordinary pretty cool sailor but is unfairly imprisoned for years where his only meaningful human contact is this aging priest. The aging priest is a powerhouse of inorganic chemistry and political science knowledge. Dantes learns all about inorganic chemistry and all about history and politics and then stages a daring escape from the prison. Then he disappears to China and the Middle east. He perfects his skill in hand to hand combat, his dueling skills, his knowledge of drugs, and his ability to sneak around and pick locks. He comes back to europe with: 1.) A really hot slave chick, 2.) a mysterious slave man, 3.) a seemingly unlimited supply of hashish, 4.) the enormous and effectively unlimited amount of money represented by a pirate's treasure, 5.) the friendship and loyalty of Italian organized crime, and 6.) a chemistry set which he uses to pwn everyone. He's like Batman, except with more oriental exoticism thrown in. And plus he predates Batman as a character. He goes back to Europe and manipulates politics, the stock market, and French gentle society to put the hurting on the people who originally sent him to prison by destroying their finances, completely messing up their politics, and completely psychologically tortures them all the point of breakage. He's inscruitable, just like a mysterious 1800s pop culture oriental, and invincible when it comes to fighting with a veritable Pistols 6 (12) where his funky orientalism translates into 6 levels of Improved Ability in pistols. His character is constantly in dominance. No one can outwit him or stop him. The only times it looks like he might back off and not continue with the vengance is when he himself experiences doubts, but it's never because he is actually incapable of doing anything. And the truth is, I LOVED The Count of Monte Cristo. I liked it a lot more than Jane Eyre. While Jane Eyre was interesting to read, The Count of Monte Cristo had me gobbling page after page with enthusiasm. Dantes, being ten times more kickass in every way than Jane Eyre, made the story that much more appealing to me. Because Dantes was such an appealing character I didn't mind that he was all but invincible on every level. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 9 2004, 03:03 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 256 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,709 |
I don't think it was the character that really appealed to you. Stories like The Count of Monte Cristo aren't really about fully-fleshed out characters. They're about fantastic and strange sights, bizarre caricatures, whirlwind adventure, and many other things, but not character. That you should find them appealing is no surprise; most modern entertainment derives from that style of storytelling, including RPGs like Shadowrun. I wouldn't advise anyone to try to write Jane Eyre in a Shadowrun universe; that defeats the point of both.
The key thing to remember about writing in the adventure genre is that what you are writing is not unique. Your plot has probably been done before. Someone has probably written a character just like yours before. So you have to work to keep things interesting. Find new ways to do things. Work hard on making interesting description and dialogue. They're the grease that keep stories flowing, and the difficult part of writing WELL within the genre. In my mind, the greatest failing of fantasy and science fiction is that authors these days get too caught up in plot, which is kind of boring, and neglect to flesh out their stories. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Dec 9 2004, 06:21 AM
Post
#48
|
||
|
Guests |
Hm. Shocking. Just type something up--like maybe a summary of a run. It's not hard. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 9 2004, 06:54 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
I'll echo the advice of writing. Everyday: write something. A paragraph, a sentence. Keep a note pad with you. Don't be afraid to say, "Just let me write that down." And write it down. All the time. Experiment with style. Have fun. Write. Then read it a day later and learn from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2004, 07:15 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Ronin, I think you're kind of missing my point. I'm not against characters who are strong, skilled, talanted, or what have you. The problem is, even in real fiction, when the rest of the story exists simply to point out how cool these characters are. It's like listening to some stranger tell you all about how cool their 100 karma pool sammie is in the game he GMs, and how nothing can stop him, and in his campaigns he runs a couple of megacorps, and has killed great dragons with his bare hands.
The Count of Monte Cristo was a great story, and has all sorts of things going for it. Then let's say I wrote a fanfic sequel to it, called the Baron of Cronte Misto, whose lead chatacter's treasure is just a little bigger than Dantes's, his abilities are just a little better than Dantes', so on and so forth. That's one reason why M-S characters grate so much. Harlequinn is one of the most powerful characters portrayed in the sixth world, but whenever they met, Sandoval Starr would easily out magic, out wit, and out duel him, and it would be patently obvious that the author did not like Harelquinn at all. That another problem with fics that have M-S characters: the original cast is usually written completly out of character for the benefit of the M-S. Captain Picard becomes a warm and loving father figure, Riker a sneaky, scheming bastard. Draco Malfoy turns out to have a heart of gold, he just needed to suddenly fall in love with the irresistable halfblood who is secretly Harry's sister (and since it's a secret, Harry is trying to put the moves on her too, and boy, does she torture herself over the fact she can't tell him). Read the first paragraph and tell me what immediately springs to mind when you consider that scenario. Read the second paragraph, and even if you're only passingly familar with the characters in the second, think about what is immediatley wrong with those portrayals. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th December 2025 - 07:51 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.