Comments on: Rodrigo! Rodrigo! Save me!

By: February Short Book Reviews « Errantry

February Short Book Reviews « Errantry — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:33:05 +0000

[...] also read several short stories including ‘Tongue before Sword’ which received a longer review here, And Matthew. [...]

By: tanaudel

tanaudel — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:48:45 +0000

I agree with you, depending on your definition of “good”. I think it is a good thing when characters grow and develop and learn, but it isn’t strictly necessary for a good story that they do so (although I noticed you said “sometimes in unhealthy directions” and arguably failing to learn from one mistakes is growing… rootbound? hardhearted?).

A story can still be a good story when characters fail to do this. Not heartwarming, perhaps. To go back to House, many of those stories are/were good even though his character didn’t grow or develop – although other characters did and the viewer’s understanding may.

I think a well-written television series can manage this, though its difficult.

Pondering also.

By: Haoran

Haoran — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:24:18 +0000

No worries! I was wondering why I wasn’t seeing any blogs from you, and realised that I hadn’t added the new blog to Google Reader.

Your review was good–it started me thinking about story, and how we interact with story. I.e., the standard themes: Boy meets girl, Man learns a lesson etc; and how there might be something primeval about the way we want story to be.

In “good” stories, characters develop, they learn lessons, they grow up (sometimes in unhealthy directions); and perhaps those are our expectations of real life too. “Good” people should grow up; those immature 40-year-old men who act like boys with toys are actually abject failures.

Developing that (without taking up all your space) perhaps it’s because there’s an innate God-driven expectation of justice and growth and virtue; that we learn not to expect from “real life”.

[ponders, ponders...]

By: tanaudel

tanaudel — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:43:13 +0000

Thanks for stopping by, by the way :)

By: tanaudel

tanaudel — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:42:19 +0000

That was the problem – it wasn’t a portrayal of real life and the vicissitudes of human nature. I wouldn’t have taken issue with that. The problem with “Sword before Tongue”, apart from the title, was the glorification of these things as some sort of romantic ideal. House isn’t represented as particularly heroic and deserving (usually if it is it is against his will) but he is played and portrayed as an at times outrageously horrible person. And I can appreciate and enjoy that: the authors are *very* aware of what they are doing. His behaviour is understandable, and occasionally redeemed, but not condoned. This was… approving. I got the feeling I should swoon over Nigel and be pleased with Rosamund’s commeupance.

By: Haoran

Haoran — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:46:32 +0000

So Deeping succeeds in his attempt to portray reality, I take it?

Because in real life virtuous action is not always rewarded, and people are whimsical and capricious and cruel, and people often do not learn from their mistakes.

Which makes for unpleasant story, and unpleasant characters… but then again, why do we all like House?