Suck it up, snowflake! And Alexandra Quick is too heroic

[inverarity]

So, is it the people who say I suck or the people who say I'm awesome who don't know what they're talking about?

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. It's been a long time since I was drawn into fiction the way I was with this chapter.

This is one of the most professional stories I’ve read on ________.

This is top notch stuff. I really had nothing to pick at. I can't tell for sure how the novel is going to work from just the opening chapter (plot-arc and such) but so far this looks like it's ready to go. You ought to be working on your query.

I'm so confuuuuuuuuuused!

Okay, indigo_mouse says I should stop obsessing. And half of you said I should finish the SF novel and half said I should start on AQ5. Only one dirty rotten bastard said I suck. Oh wait, that was me.

Well, for the record, I am working on the SF novel. And I'm not really obsessing over the bad critiques. Okay, maybe a little tiny bit. Just a bit. But I've found a few good critiquers, so onward!

Let's leave aside the SF novel for now, and get back to Alexandra Quick. I just got a long, long review from MadYak on fanfiction.net. The kind of long, long review I love that are full of praise and criticism. The last couple of people to go on at length about how much they enjoy the AQ series and all the things I am doing wrong were Miles2Go and tealterror0, and they both wound up as betas. So be careful when eviscerating my writing, I might ask you to read more of it!

Anyway, MadYak's comments went over ff.net's character limits, so he PMed me the rest. I'm going to reproduce some of it here. These are mostly the criticisms, so bear in mind he had a lot of positive things to say beforehand. But there were some specific points I wanted to discuss.

Perhaps more importantly, it's incredibly annoying that she continues to be just as reckless, all the way up and through the fourth book, despite the sometimes brutal consequences that should have taught her caution by now, in spades. You've rehashed enough how she thinks she's in control when she has the slightest grip on a situation and doesn't intend for things to happen differently, but it's starting to get old. Note that she, yet again, somehow comes out alive from two different encounters with John, despite him being a capable and amoral killer.

I have been hearing this a lot, often enough that I'd be taking it seriously even if I hadn't already been moving in that direction. Yes, recklessness is part of Alexandra's nature. ("Troublesome's reckless, ruthless and bold....") But there's a fine line between recklessness and stupidity. Alex will be smarter in book five. Which is not to say she'll stop being reckless. But she's starting to become aware of her limitations. She's had enough painful lessons that she knows being reckless can get people hurt. If not herself, then someone else.

This, however, brings up something of a contradiction. For every reader who grits her teeth when Alex once again pulls some dumb stunt and gets away with it, there's someone who wants to see her continue being indomitable and irrepressible and a little bit dangerous. If Alexandra became really smart and sensible and thought things through before doing them, she'd certainly get in less trouble and danger and she'd probably get more done. But she wouldn't be Alexandra. Also, she wouldn't have succeeded at so many of the things she has accomplished if she'd taken the time to think them through before doing them.

Now, part of MadYak's objection is not just that Alex is reckless, but that she's reckless and then gets away with it, seemingly with the benefit of too much luck. Well, if Alexandra seems to get away with being stupid by virtue of being lucky, that's definitely a failure on my part; writing your heroine out of a corner by fiat is bad writing. I'm not sure I really agree, though. After all, one of the things other readers have pointed out (a common element they like in my AQ stories) is the fact that Alex doesn't get away with everything, and in fact, fails quite often and is severely punished for it. AQATTC is really the last book where she didn't get a hammer dropped on her in the end. At the end of AQATLB, she loses Max. At the end of AQATDR, she sees another girl, a "friend," die, and her own life is forfeit in seven years. And at the end of AQATSA, she was expelled from Charmbridge — which some people said was unfair, but most said was inevitable if not long overdue. So she doesn't exactly get away cleanly.

But, let's talk about heroism.

Also on the menu concerning Alex is her moral attitude. One of the things that I admired most about her in the beginning was that she was surprisingly willing to bulldoze over others objections when she needed to accomplish something. However, it seems more and more that she's destined to become the classic self-sacrificing hero who will commit no moral wrong and find a clever solution where no one but herself is harmed, which I absolutely loathe. I'd absolute prefer a determined protagonist who's willing to make some hard moral choices for something she believes in. I actually wanted to hit my screen in disgust in book 3 when Alex chose to sacrifice herself instead of happily chucking Darla's guilty ass to the Generous Ones. From an adult perspective, Darla is a little girl who makes bad choices in a bad situation while trying to save her sister, and her youth makes us want to spare her. From Alex's perspective though, this is a *peer* who has repeatedly attempted to kill Alex or someone Alex cares about for Darla's own gains. Just because it was all to save Mary does not excuse that. But instead of showing the slightest bit of self-preservation, she decides to be a moral paragon (at 14) because the girl who was trying to kill Alex and her friend doesn't deserve to die. The squeaky clean goodness continues in the fourth book when she steps outside the wards to save Larry Albo, of all people, endangering her own life due to his stupidity and desire to poke his nose where it didn't belong to harass Alex. On the other hand, I thought Alex was right to stand up to Mary and give Mary the chance to curse her, because Alex's reasoning was pretty sound. I don't really mind Alex having some morals - just please give her back some fangs and stop having her be the hero and sacrificial goat for others' problems.

The morality vs practicality issue is probably my biggest problem with the series so far. Abraham and Diana are both good examples of the practical side, both of whom I respect (although I do wonder at the justification behind Abraham's methods, but I'm betting that'll pop up in the future). Alex and her friends are understandably hesitant about causing anyone serious pain due to them being children, but they're leaving the age (mentally) where it fits, in my opinion, since Alex and her friends have been exposed to more than the other students. Alexandra especially has seen the darker side of life and should be realizing that she's not going to accomplish anything big without stepping on some people on the way, sooner or later. Thankfully, you're having her become more capable magically, but she needs some ruthlessness to back that up. To be fair, I'm pretty certain you'll have a lot more reviewers that want to see Alex be that perfect hero than what I'm proposing, but I really just can't stand archtypal hero protagonists.

Okay, so this is probably going to boil down entirely to a matter of taste. While I disagree with you that Alex is a "moral paragon" or "squeaky clean," you are right that she has a heroic nature, with a strong element of self-sacrifice. Underneath the self-centeredness and the recklessness and the arrogance and the occasional fantasies about "Dark Queen Alexandra" in book one, Alex is (right now) basically a good person who loves her friends fiercely, even if she doesn't always treat them well.

This kind of ties back to my SF novel because there are people who will tell you things that are exactly the opposite of each other — and neither of them are necessarily wrong! I gather that MadYak would like to see Alex be more of an anti-hero, or a dark heroine.

I promise, at a later time you will get a hint of what Alex is really capable of if she takes off the gloves and says "The hell with having morals." I definitely would like to show her having fangs. But I won't tell you that you have seen the last of the self-sacrificing hero, because she is self-sacrificing and heroic, as much as she is reckless, ruthless, and bold.

So, about Darla. It certainly would have been ruthless of Alexandra if she had just thrown Darla to the Generous Ones and said, "Take the bitch." And you're right, from a fourteen-year-old's perspective, that might have seemed entirely justifiable. But — while that might have pleased the readers who want to see more of a grimdark heroine, I don't think most people would have liked Alex if she'd done that. I wouldn't have liked her.

I place a heavy weight on moral choices and consequences. I got some flack from rheymus for saying that killing is serious business and that most people balk at it — even killing someone who deserves to die. This is, it seems, a philosophical difference of opinion. If Alex kills, it will be a big deal. If she becomes someone who can just (lethally) drop bad guys without hesitation, she will be an entirely different person.

I think Alexandra is a long way from doing no moral wrong, but the big wrongs, like murdering people, or letting them die because she doesn't like them? If you loathe heroes who consistently look for clever solutions when presented with a choice of evils, you probably aren't going to find Alexandra's future development any more satisfying.

Like I said, though, different people ding me for different things. MadYak admires Abraham Thorn for his practicality; rheymus is always on me about how he's a terrorist more evil than the Confederation, no matter what the Confederation is up to.

I like the debate, and the different viewpoints, and of course I wish everyone liked Alexandra just the way I write her, but evidently different readers want different things and I'm not going to satisfy all of them.

(Which is why I am obsessingpreoccupied with critiques of my SF novel...)

Also, I believe you have a problem with word bloat/filler. While your stories flow very well from scene to scene, it only flows that well because you almost never jump from important scene to important scene, and you tend to add in a lot of extraenous information that isn't always needed, like mentioning a few classes Alex is taking between scenes or something similar. I've already started skimming these bits as a result. I'll admit that it does do a good job of making for a casual pace of school life and it does disguise the important bits and pieces when its something minor that becomes important later. However, it also is sometimes a chore to read. Not sure if you should change it or not, but that's my thoughts on it.

Yeah, guilty as charged. And flow and pacing is a lot more critical when I'm writing something that isn't fan fiction.

Thanks for your comments, MadYak!

[Poll #1864938]


(I assume it goes without saying that poll results will in no way affect what I'm actually going to write...)

Comments

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

OK, so Inverarity and Kith_Koby have already written article-length responses to you. I guess I might as well add to the scholarship. :p

I think there are three major points here: the usefulness (or lack thereof) of empathy, "human nature," and what we want stories to be about. So I'll address them in that order.

Point one: In terms of achieving a goal, empathy is a weakness. Flat out.

First of all, this isn't true. But let's assume that it is. The main point of empathy isn't to help you achieve a goal, and it certainly isn't to make you happy. It's to inform you of what your goals should be in the first place.

You toss out goals like "saving a life" or "doing the greatest good for all" as if they're obvious. But they're not. Why should you save a life? What does it mean to say "doing the greatest good"? IMO, empathy is the main way we decide these. More importantly, empathy works as a "safety valve" to make sure the goals we choose are actually appropriate ones.

To put it bluntly, if our empathy is telling us "Hey! Don't do this! It's bad!", it's probably a good idea to seriously consider whether what you're trying to accomplish is actually a good thing. Not to go all (variant of) Godwin's Law here, but Soviet Russia is a perfect example of ditching your empathy to accomplish a goal you think is right, and I think we can agree it didn't turn out well in the end.

Point two: This is human nature not because we are horrible, miserable little creatures or anything so pessimistic. This is human nature because we are simply limited to our own perspective by biology.

"Human nature," eh? You seem to assume that human nature, if there is such a thing, consists in only caring about oneself and one's loved ones. I see no evidence to support this hypothesis and plenty of evidence that goes against it. There are plenty of people who have risked their lives for a stranger. There are plenty of people who have lost their lives for a stranger. Saying that humans are selfish by nature is not being cynically realistic, it's being hopelessly idealistic (don't have the room here to explain why) and in any event makes you just as wrong as people who believe humans are inherently altruistic.

Human nature is not selfish, selfless, or anything else. Human nature is to change. It's to make oneself better, or perhaps worse, but definitely not to remain the same as every other human who has ever lived, pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychological claptrap notwithstanding.

You say you "eventually realized" that selfishness is acceptable and desirable. I have no problem with healthy self-love (indeed, I think you have to love yourself to have healthy relationships with others). I have a huge problem with people who think they are worth more than other people. They are not; they're just deluded.

Point three: You want a story about people who rise above their humanity. I want a story ABOUT humanity. In all its glory and sorrow, selfishness and sacrifice included and present in all characters.

First of all, please don't tell me what kind of stories I want. This may surprise you, but I actually prefer cynical, "gritty," and "realistic" stories full of extremely flawed anti-heroes. And I almost always dislike the kinds of stories where the main character becomes a Christ-like figure.

Second, being empathetic is not "rising above [your] humanity." Not being empathetic is falling below your humanity.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

Soviet Russia is a pretty broad topic, so I'm not sure what specifically you're preferring to.

As for human nature, I was arguing about one aspect of it that I find is true. Obviously, what is human nature is a highly debatable topic and I doubt any two people will come to an agreement on everything within that scope. I certainly agree that to change is another aspect of human nature that is true, although how we are capable of change is debatable.

Point Three: Well, I'm not sure what to say here. To me, this part of your post contradicts almost everything else I've seen you write on this topic. We've gone back and forth, and I feel pretty certain that your stance is about the importance of morality guiding your choices against my selfish practicality, but then you say you prefer anti-heroes.

From wikipedia "Antihero": "Unlike traditional heroes...They may do bad things but are not evil. They may fight villains, but not for the reason of justice, or if it is for the cause of justice will take an "ends justify the means" stance. Their actions are motivated by their own personal desires, such as revenge. For example, an antihero may steal, vandalize, and perform other "bad" acts but may do so for a good cause or even an unexamined motivation."

Granted, this is wikipedia, but I checked a few different definitions and all support a flexible and somewhat ruthless moral code like I've been driving for. I've been arguing for Alex to be an anti-hero this entire time. Hell, Inverarity said as much in the main post. I suppose it was wrong of me to assume you prefer the protagonist that corresponds to your beliefs, but I honestly thought it was a given.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious at this point that we fundamentally disagree on what a person should strive to be. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I believe you are utterly wrong just as much as you believe I am, and I doubt we're going to reach a consensus. By now, we've both made our stances about as clear as possible and there isn't much more to be said without going off-topic. However, I thank you for an interesting and civil discussion.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Because I can't help having the last word...

Soviet Russia is a pretty broad topic, so I'm not sure what specifically you're preferring to.

The Soviets--or at least some of them--honestly believed that they were bringing on the worker's paradise. A totalitarian regime that oppressed hundreds of millions of people was regrettable, but necessary. If they had listened to their empathy more, maybe that wouldn't have happened.

I'm just saying that when empathy is warning you against an action, it's a sign that what you're trying to accomplish is probably wrong (morally).

As for human nature, I was arguing about one aspect of it that I find is true.

Of course humans are selfish. They are also selfless, and both, and neither. Humans are complex, which is why I find it pointless to debate what human nature "actually is." Either there is no human nature, or human nature is a bunch of contradictory things.

I suppose it was wrong of me to assume you prefer the protagonist that corresponds to your beliefs, but I honestly thought it was a given.

Obviously it's not a given. Actually, I usually find it more boring the more a protagonist corresponds to my beliefs. Why?

Because one of the things I find most valuable in fiction is trying to understand and, well, empathize with, people much different from myself. Understanding someone who corresponds to my beliefs is easy and thus boring. Understanding someone whose beliefs are much different from mine is harder, and thus more interesting.

Well, that's my attempt to psychoanalyze myself at least. Probably the truth is something else.

By now, we've both made our stances about as clear as possible and there isn't much more to be said without going off-topic.

Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure what your position is.

At this point you seem to be claiming that people shouldn't be entirely selfless. But, um...almost everyone believes that, including me. You also say that we should sometimes ignore our empathy in order to achieve important goals, but I even agree with that (though as I said, you shouldn't turn it off completely to make sure you stop from going completely off the rails). So it seems our disagreement is one of degree, not kind, but I don't know how much that degree is, if that makes sense.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying that when empathy is warning you against an action, it's a sign that what you're trying to accomplish is probably wrong (morally).

We agree on that completely. My point was that this is a kneejerk reaction and does not mean your action is the wrong choice for your or your goals. Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself. I regard pushing it aside when you need to as a strength. You see it as a weakness, given what you've said before. That is the crux of our argument as I understand it. You place a much higher value on morality in a person than I.

Obviously it's not a given. Actually, I usually find it more boring the more a protagonist corresponds to my beliefs.

It was probably arrogant of me to assume you read for the same reasons I do. And I admit I also enjoy reading from a different POV than my own when it is well done and broadens my mind. Frankly, it's very rare that I find a protagonist that matches with my beliefs to a significant degree and I've only found it about three times in all the fanfiction I've read. Perhaps this rarity explains the difference in our reading motivations and I might eventually covert to the same motivation you have.

"Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself"

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Umm, no.

Also, empathy and morality are not the same thing.

Re: "Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself"

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Empathy and morality may not be the same thing, but they are very closely connected IMO. However, this is heading into "stuff I might write my dissertation on" territory, so it might be best to stop here...

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

My point was that this is a kneejerk reaction and does not mean your action is the wrong choice for your or your goals.

OK, quick question here. Where do you attain your goals, if not from empathy? And don't say "biology," or I'm going to have to break out the is/ought gap.

Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume you're right. So what?

I regard pushing [morality] aside when you need to as a strength. You see it as a weakness, given what you've said before. That is the crux of our argument as I understand it. You place a much higher value on morality in a person than I.

There's a difference between "is pushing morality/empathy aside a strength or a weakness?" and "how much value 'should' one place on morality?" In the latter case, I doubt we can come to any kind of accord. But the former claim, that pushing aside morality is a strength, honestly confuses me.

There's a reason most ethical theories and religions try so hard to convince you to do the right thing. It's because it's often really hard to do the right thing. I mean, it often involves putting oneself at great risk for a stranger; it's always much easier just to walk away. How is saying, in effect, "Screw you, I've got mine" strong in the least?

Frankly, it's very rare that I find a protagonist that matches with my beliefs to a significant degree and I've only found it about three times in all the fanfiction I've read. Perhaps this rarity explains the difference in our reading motivations and I might eventually covert to the same motivation you have.

There are a very large number of antihero fanfics in the Harry Potter fandom; turning Harry into a Dark Lord, after all, is one of the major time-honored tropes in the fandom. (Not to mention the "Harry gets sent to Azkaban, becomes the Count of Monte Cristo, and kills everyone" stories, but those tend to be quite bad needles to say.) I can give you some suggestions if you want.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

Where do you attain your goals, if not from empathy?

This is a quick question?! But I'll give it a shot. My goal in any given situation is usually predefined based on past experience and the conclusions I've drawn from that. For instance, I went to college to become an engineer because I concluded that while money is not the only requirement for happiness, it helps. Therefore, I chose a profession that gives me financial comfort in my (American) society, as well as because I'm very good at math. My highest goal in life is to find a woman who makes me happy enough to spend decades with her. The reason I chose this goal is because I'm selfish enough to spend my life pursuing my own happiness. Happiness in itself is a huge topic, but I concluded that one part of it is from being interested by outside input from other people or concepts. Since I tend to find the majority of people stupid and boring, any large scale group function is out. I could pursue a close circle of friends (and probably will), but American society is pretty predisposed towards marriage in the first place, so I chose that. For argument's sake, if I believed strongly in morality and placing the good of others above my own, I would've chosen to dedicate my life towards science or government service or charity, since I consider myself among the more intelligent and capable (I'm aware that I am not genius-level however). The concept of empathy setting my goals pretty alien, perhaps you could elaborate?

There's a reason most ethical theories and religions try so hard to convince you to do the right thing. It's because it's often really hard to do the right thing.

If a person strongly believes that putting their interest above another's is evil and strongly believes that they do not want to be evil, doesn't that effectively make it hard for them to commit a consciously evil action?

There are a very large number of antihero fanfics in the Harry Potter fandom; turning Harry into a Dark Lord, after all, is one of the major time-honored tropes in the fandom.

I don't really want a protagonist that becomes a Dark Lord, and anti-hero is a pretty broad term. I like some anti-heroes and hate others. In regards to power specifically, I think it's appropriate for Harry to pursue power because he is born with it and cannot remove it from himself (either in magical ability, wealth, or fame, depending on the fic). He logically has to pursue power because he has to defend himself against powerful individuals. The only real way for him to avoid that is to fake his own death. I like Alexandra's base circumstances for the same reasons - she has reason for pursuing that power for her own self-defence and happiness. Most fanfic authors eventually screw this up (for me) by either having the protagonist in these circumstances eschew power (which is stupid and self-harmful in these cases) or the protagonist deciding to use that power for the fluffy goodness of all or just to subjugate everyone, which is a lot of work for what purpose? As a result, I end up only happy with a narrow range of fics with a powerful, intelligent, somewhat selfish protagonist pursuing their happiness. To date, probably only jbern's works or Chris Widger's Grey Maiden series has met those narrow confines of a work that I find truly delightful, although a few dozen others have earned a spot in my favorites for various reasons. AQ has the potential too, depending on how Alex goes (thus my reason for being here).

If you've got any recommendations that fit that, I'd be happy to hear them, although after several years of reading HP fanfiction, it's somewhat unlikely that I haven't found them by now. The Dresden Files and Song of Fire and Ice (although bloated) series are some non-fanfic examples of what I enjoy. Even though Harry Dresden violates that rule a bit by pursuing the use of power for greater good initially rather than for self defense of him and his.

If you have any another specific questions regarding my views that you felt were unclear, ask away. I don't mind explaining it. We've certainly touched on more than a few very broad topics, and much of that was spent explaining the contradictions between my views and others rather than specifically detailing my own.