A Transrealist Manifesto, by Rudy Rucker

[Stop Him]

[wolfbynight]

[clarion]

Good article--he makes some interesting points, although I'm not that interested in following his formula.

[Stop Him]

wolfbynight: I would like to point out, if it wasn't clear enough from the words "came across this text", that I did not write the Manifesto, and I am not Rudy Rucker.

Responding to the Manifesto as if you were debating with the author is futile; Rudy Rucker is not likely to ever be reading your responses...

[wolfbynight]

Stop Him

wolfbynight: I would like to point out, if it wasn't clear enough from the words "came across this text", that I did not write the Manifesto, and I am not Rudy Rucker.

Responding to the Manifesto as if you were debating with the author is futile; Rudy Rucker is not likely to ever be reading your responses...

oh, ha ha. i know you are not rudy rucker (or do i?)

every point brought to the internet, however, needs a counterpoint.
how dare you call my response futile.

the response is not meant to reach the initiator, but rather accompany the opinion into the heads of impressionable youth who read it

[Stop Him]

wolfbynight

oh, ha ha. i know you are not rudy rucker (or do i?)

every point brought to the internet, however, needs a counterpoint.
how dare you call my response futile.

the response is not meant to reach the initiator, but rather accompany the opinion into the heads of impressionable youth who read it

In that case, you should seriously consider avoiding responses with personalized "you" statements when making your counterpoints. If you don't expect a reply to the phrase "tell me how", for instance, don't use the phrase. It makes you seem to not be trying to offer an opposing viewpoint for interested readers, but rather trying to simply argue with the author himself. It is a poor choice of tactics, in my opinion. Why should an "impressionable youth" bother to read a response which does not appear to actually be aimed at him or her?

As long as we're at it: The idea that "every point needs a counterpoint" is mere sophistry. If a valid counterpoint can be made, that's one thing, but to oppose something simply for the sake of opposing it is not the mark of intellectual analysis of an issue, but gratuitous gasbagging.

To be frank, your "counterpoints" appear to me to lack a clear understanding of the points you're trying to discredit, as well as falling into the trap of ascribing motives to the author's writing which are not as clearly defined as you seem to assume. I'd go into more detail, but it really doesn't warrant the effort.

[terradi]

Interesting.

The argument that a story should contain people you know and aspects of yourself seems to make sense, though I would argue that it is possible to write a character whose personality you have never experienced and that such is sometimes necessary in order to have the correct character in some books.

In fantasy in particular, there are some villains who we would never have as friends, though certain aspects of them we might see in family members, relatives, etc. I suppose by exaggeration of certain points or applying certain principles to larger areas you could mold a villain out of a friend or family member. Personally that strikes me as a little disturbing though.

The idea of characters being unpredictable strikes me as being something all authors should strive for. A character doesn't seem to me as if it should be obedient, but rather that the author introduces some things and watches as things unwravel from there. Then again, that is how I tend to write, so I am quite obviously going to be behind it.

I think you need to have some idea of where a story is going, especially if you're co-writing. There are some plot points that need to be clear in order for multiple people to work on the same story at once, though I will admit completely unpredictable stories have a certain appeal to them. Sometimes they just don't seem practical though, unfortunately.

[wolfbynight]

Stop Him

wolfbynight

oh, ha ha. i know you are not rudy rucker (or do i?)

every point brought to the internet, however, needs a counterpoint.
how dare you call my response futile.

the response is not meant to reach the initiator, but rather accompany the opinion into the heads of impressionable youth who read it

In that case, you should seriously consider avoiding responses with personalized "you" statements when making your counterpoints. If you don't expect a reply to the phrase "tell me how", for instance, don't use the phrase. It makes you seem to not be trying to offer an opposing viewpoint for interested readers, but rather trying to simply argue with the author himself. It is a poor choice of tactics, in my opinion. Why should an "impressionable youth" bother to read a response which does not appear to actually be aimed at him or her?

As long as we're at it: The idea that "every point needs a counterpoint" is mere sophistry. If a valid counterpoint can be made, that's one thing, but to oppose something simply for the sake of opposing it is not the mark of intellectual analysis of an issue, but gratuitous gasbagging.

To be frank, your "counterpoints" appear to me to lack a clear understanding of the points you're trying to discredit, as well as falling into the trap of ascribing motives to the author's writing which are not as clearly defined as you seem to assume. I'd go into more detail, but it really doesn't warrant the effort.

whoa, sorry if i offended you; such was not my intent.
i really liked the article, and i felt bad that it had almost reached the scond page without a reply.
yeah, poor choice of pronoun, i guess i was just getting really into it

you sound so mad at me while still being quite condescending; i'm really sorry. i was trying to dicuss this man's article and you turned it into a personal attack. i thought you had posted the article here for some discussion. and now i am getting all offended, so i'll just say i'm sorry again and leave it at that.

[Stop Him]

wolfbynight

you sound so mad at me while still being quite condescending; i'm really sorry. i was trying to dicuss this man's article and you turned it into a personal attack. i thought you had posted the article here for some discussion. and now i am getting all offended, so i'll just say i'm sorry again and leave it at that.

That doesn't wash with me. First you reply to the article in a personal and somewhat antagonistic way, then you tell me it's "just to provide an opposing view", and now you're "offended" because I'm criticizing your own statements? For someone who wants to debate an issue, you sure have a thin skin.

My language has been no more "mad" or "condescending" than the statements you've made; if you consider this kind of thing a "personal attack", then why do you start out with it in the first place?

I don't mind if you discuss the article - that's why I posted it in the first place - but "discuss" doesn't mean I won't point out where I think you're wrong if you go shooting your mouth off.

In other words, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

terradi

In fantasy in particular, there are some villains who we would never have as friends, though certain aspects of them we might see in family members, relatives, etc. I suppose by exaggeration of certain points or applying certain principles to larger areas you could mold a villain out of a friend or family member. Personally that strikes me as a little disturbing though.

Well, isn't "disturbing" a good quality for a villain? And isn't that how it goes, a lot of the time? Half the time on the news when they catch the serial killer it's some normal-seeming quiet guy who was a friendly neighbor and a gentle-seeming soul, except he had a stack of body parts in his refrigerator...

I think one of the things that Rucker is trying to strive for is avoiding creating a character just for the sake of them filling a role (such as "bad guy" wink - if all they're there for is to be evil and oppose the good guy, then they lack real dimension.

Hitler is the usual example folks think of when we start listing the Most Evil People in the World, but it's fairly certain that even he didn't just wake up one day and say "well, time to be evil". He started out as an artist, he had motives and rationalizations behind his actions, he probably didn't even consider that what he did was evil, and who knows - he probably liked puppies, too.

After all, if a villain has no human qualities to them, then they're just monsters, and I think there's less of an impact if your villain has absolutely no human connection. You expect an ogre to be a brutal remorseless beast - but to see the kindly old granny lady lure in runaways and decapitate them, well, that's more chilling than the Evil Doom Wizard could ever be...

[wolfbynight]

Stop Him

wolfbynight

you sound so mad at me while still being quite condescending; i'm really sorry. i was trying to dicuss this man's article and you turned it into a personal attack. i thought you had posted the article here for some discussion. and now i am getting all offended, so i'll just say i'm sorry again and leave it at that.

That doesn't wash with me. First you reply to the article in a personal and somewhat antagonistic way, then you tell me it's "just to provide an opposing view", and now you're "offended" because I'm criticizing your own statements? For someone who wants to debate an issue, you sure have a thin skin.

My language has been no more "mad" or "condescending" than the statements you've made; if you consider this kind of thing a "personal attack", then why do you start out with it in the first place?

I don't mind if you discuss the article - that's why I posted it in the first place - but "discuss" doesn't mean I won't point out where I think you're wrong if you go shooting your mouth off.

In other words, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

terradi

In fantasy in particular, there are some villains who we would never have as friends, though certain aspects of them we might see in family members, relatives, etc. I suppose by exaggeration of certain points or applying certain principles to larger areas you could mold a villain out of a friend or family member. Personally that strikes me as a little disturbing though.

Well, isn't "disturbing" a good quality for a villain? And isn't that how it goes, a lot of the time? Half the time on the news when they catch the serial killer it's some normal-seeming quiet guy who was a friendly neighbor and a gentle-seeming soul, except he had a stack of body parts in his refrigerator...

I think one of the things that Rucker is trying to strive for is avoiding creating a character just for the sake of them filling a role (such as "bad guy" wink - if all they're there for is to be evil and oppose the good guy, then they lack real dimension.

Hitler is the usual example folks think of when we start listing the Most Evil People in the World, but it's fairly certain that even he didn't just wake up one day and say "well, time to be evil". He started out as an artist, he had motives and rationalizations behind his actions, he probably didn't even consider that what he did was evil, and who knows - he probably liked puppies, too.

After all, if a villain has no human qualities to them, then they're just monsters, and I think there's less of an impact if your villain has absolutely no human connection. You expect an ogre to be a brutal remorseless beast - but to see the kindly old granny lady lure in runaways and decapitate them, well, that's more chilling than the Evil Doom Wizard could ever be...

but you were not defending the article or discussing my points.
your statements seemed to target me as opposed to the article or my posts per se. well enough of that.

i don't understand how he wants us to avoid taking on perspectives alien to ourselves (instead simply break down our own self and experiences into characters we may manage) yet still incorprate the uniquiness of real people we know (aunts uncles, crazy next door neihbors) into our stories. the two statements seem contradictory. any light?

i agree with the villain thing
the best villains are the ones that think they are the good guys.

[Stop Him]

wolfbynight

i don't understand how he wants us to avoid taking on perspectives alien to ourselves (instead simply break down our own self and experiences into characters we may manage) yet still incorprate the uniquiness of real people we know (aunts uncles, crazy next door neihbors) into our stories. the two statements seem contradictory. any light?

It's only contradictory if you aren't very close to your relatives and friends. Rucker isn't saying to only write from your own personal perspective, though he does advocate heavy use of one's own personality, and he says, in essence, that once you've taken what you can from yourself, you go to the next best source - people you know well.

It's impossible for any of us to truly get inside the head of anyone besides ourselves. However, we can get close enough to other people that we know them as well as someone can possibly know another individual.

If I try to base a character on you, for instance, I have virtually no idea of what you're really like inside. But if I base a character on, say, my father, I know more about how he ticks than most other people. I can't truly know my father 100% as well as I know myself, but it's as close as it gets.

You're fixing on this supposed contradiction, but if you go back and re-read the essay, particularly this part:

Rudy Rucker

In real life, the people you meet almost never say what you want or expect them to. From long and bruising contact, you carry simulations of your acquaintances around in your head. These simulations are imposed on you from without; they do not react to imagined situations as you might desire. By letting these simulations run your characters, you can avoid turning out mechanical wish-fulfillments.

--you'll see that Rucker does not imply that you know exactly what's inside your friends and family, but neither does he say that you have no idea of how they tick. A long association with someone grows into deeper understanding of someone - it's this level of detail that Rucker is saying lends credibility to a character, rather than a character who's just invented from nothing by the author.

I see no contradiction at all.

wolfbynight

but you were not defending the article or discussing my points.
your statements seemed to target me as opposed to the article or my posts per se.

What I was criticizing was your approach. Understand that I'm not saying this out of malice, but because I honestly feel the way you approached discussing this article was poorly considered, for reasons already stated as well as the following:

If the base upon which you build is flawed, your structure will not stand for long; if (as I believe) you don't fully understand the Rucker essay, you can't effectively build an argument against it. Case in point: The contradiction you were talking about. It's my opinion that you didn't fully comprehend Rucker's writing, and perceived a "contradiction" that, as I've detailed above, I don't believe exists.

I don't really want to go through and pick apart each of your points, mostly because it would take too much time and effort - after all, look how much has been typed over this one part of the issue. I simply think that you've missed a lot of what Rucker was saying for some reason or another. I suppose it may sound insulting to imply that you just didn't fully understand the article, but if that's the case, there's hardly any benign way to put it.

[wolfbynight]

taking the villain into consideration
if the antagonist is a murderer or insane...
well there is only so much the author has contact through via friends and family. what do you suppose rucker would say about basic research into character types as opposed to the life experience method?

any idea where he stands on genres other than sf?

[Stop Him]

wolfbynight

taking the villain into consideration
if the antagonist is a murderer or insane...
well there is only so much the author has contact through via friends and family. what do you suppose rucker would say about basic research into character types as opposed to the life experience method?

any idea where he stands on genres other than sf?

To be honest, I have no idea what Rudy Rucker thinks about anything aside from what he discusses in this one Manifesto. I found a link to the essay on the website of another writer entirely. I haven't even read anything he's had published.

[terradi]

Stop Him

terradi

In fantasy in particular, there are some villains who we would never have as friends, though certain aspects of them we might see in family members, relatives, etc. I suppose by exaggeration of certain points or applying certain principles to larger areas you could mold a villain out of a friend or family member. Personally that strikes me as a little disturbing though.

Well, isn't "disturbing" a good quality for a villain? And isn't that how it goes, a lot of the time? Half the time on the news when they catch the serial killer it's some normal-seeming quiet guy who was a friendly neighbor and a gentle-seeming soul, except he had a stack of body parts in his refrigerator...

I think one of the things that Rucker is trying to strive for is avoiding creating a character just for the sake of them filling a role (such as "bad guy" wink - if all they're there for is to be evil and oppose the good guy, then they lack real dimension.

Hitler is the usual example folks think of when we start listing the Most Evil People in the World, but it's fairly certain that even he didn't just wake up one day and say "well, time to be evil". He started out as an artist, he had motives and rationalizations behind his actions, he probably didn't even consider that what he did was evil, and who knows - he probably liked puppies, too.

After all, if a villain has no human qualities to them, then they're just monsters, and I think there's less of an impact if your villain has absolutely no human connection. You expect an ogre to be a brutal remorseless beast - but to see the kindly old granny lady lure in runaways and decapitate them, well, that's more chilling than the Evil Doom Wizard could ever be...

Chilling, yes. An ordinary seeming character who should be harmless and trusted but unexpectedly turns out to be the villain is fascinating. Also, having a character who is completely out-of-touch with humanity makes them fairly easy to stereotype and just shrug off.

I remember doing a research paper on Hitler .. it struck me as extremely odd that he started off so normal

Still the fact that some of my worst villains are loosely based on a friend and a sister who I get along with extremely well worries me. That's the thing, of course ... I've been using bits and parts of the described technique to put together characters for a co-written series with my best friend for the past six years. Many of the characters are based on either myself, my best friend, or on people we know or people who have asked us to include characters for them.

With some characters, I keep waiting to see how well I nailed them in comparison to the real people and waiting for them to act like the characters. Considering that the one based off my sister is a happy-go-lucky killer who is responsible for more death over the past milennia than anyone has the right to know about, I figure being a bit unnerved by this is acceptable.

I'm rambling and I'm not sure my point is really getting across. I swear there is one though.

[wolfbynight]

make characters who worship you and give you lots of money and see if your friends and family follow suit