Paul Trembling's Blog - Posts Tagged "experiment"
Arc of Life: A literary Experiment
A little while ago I read an article about different genres. In it, a famous author (I think it was George R. R. Martin, but I haven’t been able to find the article to be sure) said that all stories were basically the same: different genre’s merely changed ‘the furniture’ around. So a story with blasters and starships would be SF, but the same basic plot written with six-guns and stage coaches would be a Western. Or with different ‘furniture’, it could be a crime story. And so on.
He made a good argument, and it seemed a reasonable proposition to me. In fact, I could think of some examples. If I remember correctly Robert E. Howard re-purposed some of his contemporary adventures into fantasy stories, changing the central character to his great barbarian warrior Conan, and substituting bows and arrows for rifles and pistols.
Still, it occurred to me that it would be interesting to test the idea out. How about a little experiment?
A few weeks ago, I came up with a good subject to experiment with. I’d started writing a story called ‘Arc of Life’, but then, realised that the basic idea was very similar to an SF story that I’d read a long time ago. A little digging around the internet confirmed this.
‘Life-Line’ was written by one of the Great Names of SF, Robert A. Heinlein, and was actually the first story he ever had published – in an SF magazine called Astounding, back in August 1939. I was an avid reader of Heinlein (and any other SF I could find) back in my teens, and must have come across this story then. I hadn’t read it since, but once reminded, I could clearly remember the main points of the plot and its eventual resolution.
I hadn’t been thinking of it when I first had the Arc of Life idea, but who knows if something hadn’t bubbled up from my subconscious to spark the thought? Impossible to say, but my first thought was to drop the idea. After all, it’s already been done, and by a Great Name, no less. I certainly wouldn’t want to be accused of plagiarising Heinlein!
However, I didn’t really want to drop Arc of Life entirely. It was, after all, still my idea, whatever inspired it, and it was different from Heinlein’s. Not only in the fine details of how it worked, but more importantly, I could already see that this was going in a different direction, teaching different lessons. Using a similar idea but saying something else.
So, a good subject for the experiment.
I wanted to find out if changing the genre would force any changes on the story, or if it was no more than just a furniture change. How much difference would it make to the characters? Would the resolution be different?
I decided to use three genres. The first was ‘Urban Fantasy’, which for this purpose I’m defining as a story set in the present day but with fantasy elements. The second was a Western – because I’ve always wanted to write a Western. Except that, like all stories set in history, to get it right you need to do a lot of research, and I’m not great on research. So I designated this as ‘Alternative Western’, that is a Western set in an alternative history, where (for example) an unnamed President might well have taken the train out to California to drum up some support for a second term. And also where some fantasy elements might intrude.
The third genre I chose was ‘Steampunk’, since that is also something I wanted to have a go at – though as it turned out, there was no actual steam involved. Instead, it’s a sort of Alternative History Science Fantasy. The good thing about writing something like this is that there’s less research to do (or in this case, none at all), the downside is that you have to put a lot more into the world building. But I’m OK with that, I enjoy world-building much more than research! And, as it happens, I had already had some ideas for a world that I could use for this. A world of sky-ships that flew and communicated through aether-technology. A little bit of fantasy could be introduced into such a world with no bother at all.
Some rules – or at any rate, guidelines – did emerge as I developed the three stories. There was the same basic cast of four characters: one person with the ‘gift’, one person with some local knowledge about them, and two authority figures investigating. They had similar names and appearances, but their actual roles and their sex could change. Each story has a message, originating from the gifted person, and predicting the death of another person, someone of importance. However, I didn’t insist on the stories working out in exactly the same way each time. Much more interesting to let the characters, their interactions, and of course the genre determine the course of events.
So how did it work out? Check for yourself – read the stories here.
https://yearningblue.weebly.com/arc-o...
Conclusions: what changed with the genre?
(NB – ARC 1 is written in first person, the others in third. That’s not connected with the genre, just my own whim!)
1. The first change I noticed was in the characters themselves. Put them in a different world, and they become slightly different people. The most obvious example of this was the ‘gifted’ person. In the first story, Juliet is a shy, withdrawn woman, who keeps people at a distance. In the second story, July also keeps to herself, but is far from shy and withdrawn. Living alone in a remote place means that she has to be a much tougher person: a Juliet in that situation would be out of place. In the third story, Sir Julian is able, as a minor noble, to control how much distance he puts between himself and others, and therefore chooses how and why he uses his gift.
2. The changing characters led naturally to a change in the details of the story. As the writer, I could have enforced the original pattern on all the versions, in which case Stourwood would always be shot by his (or her) boss, Juliet / July / Sir Julian would have gone to work for the government, and so on. But to me that wouldn’t have fitted the characters. A tough western woman like July wouldn’t react like a timid suburbanite like Juliet, or an aristocrat like Sir Julian.
3. The different story environments also suggested different developments of the plot, and different outcomes. What felt like a plausible sequence of events in a present day British setting didn’t fit so well into the other scenarios. Of course, that was just my feeling about it, and I could have stuck rigidly to the first outline. But as a writer, I prefer to go with my instincts: stories have to be allowed enough freedom to be themselves. So the secret agents working to guard the nation, became hired assassins and then enforcers for an oppressive regime – depending on which world they inhabited.
4. All these changes meant that ultimately the stories had different things to say. They were all, in some respect, about knowledge, but they made different points. In Arc 1, unwanted knowledge is shown to be a burden: as Juliet herself says, it’s more of a curse than a gift. In Arc 2, knowledge proves to be a dangerous thing: knowing things, and letting people know that you know things, can make you enemies. In Arc 3, knowledge is a tool that can be used to manipulate the course of history.
4. So, somewhat to my surprise, I’m forced to the conclusion that changing genre’s is more than just changing the furniture. It has a more subtle effect than that. Putting the same basic story ideas into a different genre alters characters, suggests different story-lines, opens up different possibilities, takes the writer (and the reader!) down different paths.
Of course, this is just my conclusion, from one experiment. Hardly scientific, not even science-fiction-tific! Perhaps you might think differently? Have a go yourself. Try writing some stories in different genres. Feel free to use my characters and basic idea: I’d be interested to see what it would like through someone else’s lens, and perhaps as a historical novel, or a romance! Or use one of your own story ideas. Let me know how it goes!
He made a good argument, and it seemed a reasonable proposition to me. In fact, I could think of some examples. If I remember correctly Robert E. Howard re-purposed some of his contemporary adventures into fantasy stories, changing the central character to his great barbarian warrior Conan, and substituting bows and arrows for rifles and pistols.
Still, it occurred to me that it would be interesting to test the idea out. How about a little experiment?
A few weeks ago, I came up with a good subject to experiment with. I’d started writing a story called ‘Arc of Life’, but then, realised that the basic idea was very similar to an SF story that I’d read a long time ago. A little digging around the internet confirmed this.
‘Life-Line’ was written by one of the Great Names of SF, Robert A. Heinlein, and was actually the first story he ever had published – in an SF magazine called Astounding, back in August 1939. I was an avid reader of Heinlein (and any other SF I could find) back in my teens, and must have come across this story then. I hadn’t read it since, but once reminded, I could clearly remember the main points of the plot and its eventual resolution.
I hadn’t been thinking of it when I first had the Arc of Life idea, but who knows if something hadn’t bubbled up from my subconscious to spark the thought? Impossible to say, but my first thought was to drop the idea. After all, it’s already been done, and by a Great Name, no less. I certainly wouldn’t want to be accused of plagiarising Heinlein!
However, I didn’t really want to drop Arc of Life entirely. It was, after all, still my idea, whatever inspired it, and it was different from Heinlein’s. Not only in the fine details of how it worked, but more importantly, I could already see that this was going in a different direction, teaching different lessons. Using a similar idea but saying something else.
So, a good subject for the experiment.
I wanted to find out if changing the genre would force any changes on the story, or if it was no more than just a furniture change. How much difference would it make to the characters? Would the resolution be different?
I decided to use three genres. The first was ‘Urban Fantasy’, which for this purpose I’m defining as a story set in the present day but with fantasy elements. The second was a Western – because I’ve always wanted to write a Western. Except that, like all stories set in history, to get it right you need to do a lot of research, and I’m not great on research. So I designated this as ‘Alternative Western’, that is a Western set in an alternative history, where (for example) an unnamed President might well have taken the train out to California to drum up some support for a second term. And also where some fantasy elements might intrude.
The third genre I chose was ‘Steampunk’, since that is also something I wanted to have a go at – though as it turned out, there was no actual steam involved. Instead, it’s a sort of Alternative History Science Fantasy. The good thing about writing something like this is that there’s less research to do (or in this case, none at all), the downside is that you have to put a lot more into the world building. But I’m OK with that, I enjoy world-building much more than research! And, as it happens, I had already had some ideas for a world that I could use for this. A world of sky-ships that flew and communicated through aether-technology. A little bit of fantasy could be introduced into such a world with no bother at all.
Some rules – or at any rate, guidelines – did emerge as I developed the three stories. There was the same basic cast of four characters: one person with the ‘gift’, one person with some local knowledge about them, and two authority figures investigating. They had similar names and appearances, but their actual roles and their sex could change. Each story has a message, originating from the gifted person, and predicting the death of another person, someone of importance. However, I didn’t insist on the stories working out in exactly the same way each time. Much more interesting to let the characters, their interactions, and of course the genre determine the course of events.
So how did it work out? Check for yourself – read the stories here.
https://yearningblue.weebly.com/arc-o...
Conclusions: what changed with the genre?
(NB – ARC 1 is written in first person, the others in third. That’s not connected with the genre, just my own whim!)
1. The first change I noticed was in the characters themselves. Put them in a different world, and they become slightly different people. The most obvious example of this was the ‘gifted’ person. In the first story, Juliet is a shy, withdrawn woman, who keeps people at a distance. In the second story, July also keeps to herself, but is far from shy and withdrawn. Living alone in a remote place means that she has to be a much tougher person: a Juliet in that situation would be out of place. In the third story, Sir Julian is able, as a minor noble, to control how much distance he puts between himself and others, and therefore chooses how and why he uses his gift.
2. The changing characters led naturally to a change in the details of the story. As the writer, I could have enforced the original pattern on all the versions, in which case Stourwood would always be shot by his (or her) boss, Juliet / July / Sir Julian would have gone to work for the government, and so on. But to me that wouldn’t have fitted the characters. A tough western woman like July wouldn’t react like a timid suburbanite like Juliet, or an aristocrat like Sir Julian.
3. The different story environments also suggested different developments of the plot, and different outcomes. What felt like a plausible sequence of events in a present day British setting didn’t fit so well into the other scenarios. Of course, that was just my feeling about it, and I could have stuck rigidly to the first outline. But as a writer, I prefer to go with my instincts: stories have to be allowed enough freedom to be themselves. So the secret agents working to guard the nation, became hired assassins and then enforcers for an oppressive regime – depending on which world they inhabited.
4. All these changes meant that ultimately the stories had different things to say. They were all, in some respect, about knowledge, but they made different points. In Arc 1, unwanted knowledge is shown to be a burden: as Juliet herself says, it’s more of a curse than a gift. In Arc 2, knowledge proves to be a dangerous thing: knowing things, and letting people know that you know things, can make you enemies. In Arc 3, knowledge is a tool that can be used to manipulate the course of history.
4. So, somewhat to my surprise, I’m forced to the conclusion that changing genre’s is more than just changing the furniture. It has a more subtle effect than that. Putting the same basic story ideas into a different genre alters characters, suggests different story-lines, opens up different possibilities, takes the writer (and the reader!) down different paths.
Of course, this is just my conclusion, from one experiment. Hardly scientific, not even science-fiction-tific! Perhaps you might think differently? Have a go yourself. Try writing some stories in different genres. Feel free to use my characters and basic idea: I’d be interested to see what it would like through someone else’s lens, and perhaps as a historical novel, or a romance! Or use one of your own story ideas. Let me know how it goes!
