Log in

No account? Create an account
I don't know what my genre is. I have psychics, and a… - Silicon Rose [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Silicon Rose

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Nov. 3rd, 2006|09:25 pm]
Silicon Rose
[Current Mood |thoughtfulthoughtful]

I don't know what my genre is.

I have psychics, and a post-apocalyptic world, but the focus isn't on society as it would tend to be in a science-fiction novel. (I know psychics barely fit in science-fiction, but they tend to be categorized that way anyways - I can hear you wincing, froborr!) It's not wonderous like I feel most fantasy is, and the focus isn't on the powers or the world, but the characters. I guess it kind of can affiliate with coming-of-age, but I doubt that's a genre. Since the protagonists are teenagers, I know some people would classify it as young adult, but I hesitate at really calling that a genre (even though it appears to be considered one).

I want it to be serious, and sometimes painful. I doubt I can really pull it off, but I hope so. It's sadder than Familiar. Dana chose what happened to her -- yes, it came with a lot of baggage that she hadn't anticipated, but she had plenty of chances to turn aside from her path, and she didn't take them. It was often because of flaws in her character that she didn't, but she could have turned away.

Forest isn't about people who got into bad situations because they put themselves there. It's about people who had something horrible happen to them, something that they couldn't do a damn thing about. The story is about them realizing what happened and deciding how they're going to handle it.

You can argue in some ways that Familiar was 'fair', or my goal is that it should feel that way. The reader should watch Cal and Dana and hurt that they don't make the decisions that might have made things better. But they had the chance to do so.

Forest is about 'unfair'.

[User Picture]From: froborr
2006-11-05 02:50 am (UTC)
Eh, genres are pigeonholes invented by publishing companies that have no real bearing on writing, anyway.

I find "unfair" stories intrinsically more interesting because, of course, they're vastly more realistic.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: siliconrose
2006-11-05 08:46 pm (UTC)
Not always, though. People do dig an awful lot of their own ditches.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: froborr
2006-11-06 12:42 am (UTC)
Yes and no, I think. Mostly no. I think people are flawed, and make mistakes, and often tend to make the same mistake over and over again, and if they get in a situation where that is a very bad mistake to make, then they're going to just keep digging themselves deeper unless they manage to achieve the self-knowledge and will necessary to break out, which is, frankly, hard as hell to do.

Nobody ever says, "Hey, I want my life to be a disaster!" They all try the best they know how to lead the life they dream of, and most of them fail because either they don't know the right way to do it, or their best just isn't good enough, or their dreams are just plain old-fashioned impossible.

And sometimes you'll finally have things falling into place when you randomly get cancer, while some gang member who sets homeless people on fire for laughs finds a winning lottery ticket in a trash can. Life is random; unrewarded virtue and unpunished crimes are far more common than their opposites; all the hard work in the world doesn't mean you won't get hit by a bus.

And if you do have a problem, nobody's going to help you. They're going to watch you make the same mistake over and over again, and say, "Hey, you made your bed, now lie in it."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)