Below is an interview we did with acclaimed author, C.S. Marks back in 2010 when we were still Indie Fantasy Review. Given that she is our book of the day, we thought we'd republish the interview in honor of the occasion.
I’d like to welcome fantasy author C.S. Marks to Indie Fantasy Review. Many of you already know “Archer” from the forums and also from reading her Alterran novels which begin with Elfhunter.
I wanted to take the time to learn a little more about what went into the writing of these wonderful books and, of utmost interest to me as a writer, what makes them different to so much modern fantasy.
I’m afraid we jump straight in, so please picture a quiet tavern with two dusty and weary travellers seated on low chairs by a crackling fire, pipes hanging from the corners of mouths and frothing ale spilling from the tops of tankards balanced on laps.
Derek Prior: Well met, Archer. ‘twas good of you to hearken to my request for parley and to come hither so speedily.
C.S. Marks: Eh?
Derek Prior: Uh, cheers for coming. Fancy a chat about Elfhunter?
C.S. Marks: Thought you’d never ask.
Derek Prior: I'd really like to look at the disparity between old and new fantasy -- the move from literary to cinematic writing.
Perhaps we could start by looking at linear and non-linear plots. Elfhunter has a definite vector, but it gets from A-B by a circuitous route. The shifts back and forth in time (flashbacks) remind me of the circular plots of some Eastern dramas (I'm thinking chiefly of the Mahabarata). In Elfhunter, whenever we meet a character, you can bet that sooner or later we are going to get a lot of background on that individual which brings her/him into sharper focus later on.
I think this captures the peaks and troughs of human experience, the drifting into reflection and memory after intense action. It's quite different to the relentless forward movement of contemporary fantasies.
Could you say a little about plot, flashbacks and character background in your books?
C.S. Marks: When I create characters, I want the readers to really relate to them--to really get to know them. Readers can empathize, they can place themselves in that character's shoes, they experience the story as the characters do--as if they were standing beside them from beginning to end. That's my goal. Now, how does one do that?
Think about the people you know. When you first laid eyes on them, all you knew was what your senses told you, so we describe our characters physically before we do anything else. Then we either interact with them ourselves or we observe them interacting with others. We listen to what they say, and we watch what they do. We form opinions about their personalities, we conjecture about their experiences, and we often decide what our initial reaction will be to them based on these observations.
As we come to know them, they reveal more of themselves. Past histories often shed a lot of light on present behavior, and the closer you get to a person the more likely you are to discover his past. Because I want my readers to be able to empathize with a character, particularly when a past incident has been of great significance, I will flash back to it so that the readers can 'experience' it as the character did. Gaelen's relationship with 'Rain' was of vital importance in defining who she is today. I devoted two chapters to it (and don't think I haven't taken a little flak for that from a few of my 'macho' readers). ;-)
Besides, I'm an incurable romantic and I could not resist!
All of the characters are very well fleshed-out in my mind--even the minor ones. They all have histories, and a few are based on people I know (thankfully, Gorgon is not!). This makes it easier for me to understand them, easier for them to behave consistently and 'in character'. I allow them to 'drive' the story, and they get me where I want to go every time! It's amazing how, if you know your characters, they tie up every loose end and wrap the story into a neat, believable package with very few difficulties.
(Aside)
I realize that my storytelling style is a little 'unconventional' in the context of modern fantasy, but it works for me. It makes sense that a complex story should be experienced as the characters live it--and life is not about relentless forward motion with action on every page. Action is part of life--but it is not the only part. My characters reflect on the events in their lives, they wonder about the future, they ask themselves whether they are 'doing the right thing'. One character, Orogond, is legendary for his indecisiveness--he makes a nice 'foil' for Gaelen, who is impetuous to a fault. Again..people often find themselves attracted to complementary personalities.
In my opinion, too much action, violence, and angst becomes tedious after a while. We become desensitized to it and it loses its intended effectiveness. Some modern fiction leaves little, if anything, to the reader's imagination. I have discovered (both as a reader and as a writer) that the most frightening moments are those I don't expect and where the nasty details, while suggested, are left up to ME to fill in. Of course, I have little choice in this as a writer because my works are intended to cross over between adult and young readers. But I would still write this way even if the choice was given.
Derek Prior: There's been a shift towards very tight POV in contemporary fantasy, the argument being that this helps the reader to identify more fully with the character in question. I think it can be extremely effective when used well but I wonder if it's overdone. With close POV there's not as much room for some of the other narratorial tools that make writing distinct from cinema (exposition, asides, dramatic irony, foreshadowing, commentary). With the modern obsession with pace and forward momentum these things are not always considered desirable and there's a definite move away from the omniscient narrator.
I still think there's a place for the above. Tight POV can be restrictive and it sometimes deprives us of the aforementioned delights of writing. Admittedly, bouncing from one character's head to another's can be jarring but I don't think it should be entirely ruled out.
You have opted for an omniscient narrator in Elfhunter. We learn things the characters couldn't yet know, we sometimes hear of things that are far distant (I'm thinking here of Gelmyr's fate, which is mentioned as something the characters weren't aware of at the end of a chapter). I really enjoyed this aspect of your writing. I liked having a story-teller -- someone actually talking in the third person and not pretending to be closer to the first person (tight POV) than we actually are.
What are your thoughts on narration, POV and the difference between reading a book and watching a film?
C.S. Marks: That's an easy question for me, because I love classic literature. I started reading Dickens, Hawthorne, Jack London, and Melville when I was very young. The omniscient narrative was a common technique, and I found it both comforting and stimulating. I like to 'hear the voice' of the storyteller as I read, and many readers have commented (not unfavorably) that they were comforted by the storyteller's voice--just before being terrified, shaken, or shocked by the action.
There are long and very intense action scenes in the trilogy (remember: Elfhunter is only the first of three parts, and it takes longer to get going because we must meet and develop the main characters and the Alterran world). But they are interspersed with less frantic moments in which we learn more about the characters, we might laugh a little at some of their comments or behaviors, we see relationships develop between some of them, and we get inside their heads as they ponder those questions we all ponder--sometimes drawing conclusions or finding answers, but often not. Remember--I write for young readers as well as adults. The narrative and occasional foreshadowing are reassuring to them.
Another point about narration: it provides an additional dimension to the work. It's like the score in film. The music sets the scene--dark, light, suspenseful, up-beat--it provides context and can function in foreshadowing (think Jaws). Imagine your favorite movie without the score!
Reviewers have stated that POV shifts are intriguing when done well; they have added that I do them well (at which point I breathe a sigh of relief). What a shame if we could not shift from Gaelen's POV to Gorgon's--the interplay between those two characters is best demonstrated that way (IMHO).
Reading a book should be a very different experience from watching a movie. Watching a movie is a passive activity. Everything is spelled out and shown--there is nothing left to the imagination these days. I will confess that I dislike 'action films'--after the fortieth explosion, third minute of rare, unrealistic dialogue ('hey, baby, ya just gonna stand there and get assassinated, or ya gonna jump in my car?' 'Ha! I'd rather get assassinated!')) and twentieth over-the-top character death (yawn!) I start looking at my watch and wondering how much longer it will go on. I don't care what happens because I know it's going to involve forty more explosions, at least ten mercifully rare lines of unrealistic dialogue, and they're going to start stripping the skins off the characters and burning them alive. (Yawn.) I don't care about any of the characters (except the dog). My ears hurt from the constant noise of things exploding and I know none of it is real. Please don't hate me.
Movies that I love are those which, while visually stimulating and occasionally rip-snorting, put me in the scene. To do that, they have to seem 'real'. Reality is not relentless action and constant forward motion. If I can identify with the characters, so much the better--but that's rare in an action film. Let's face it--superhuman feats (the hero flies through sixty minutes of mind-blowing, body-destroying action without a break) have me thinking 'yeah, he'd have died of exhaustion about forty minutes ago...yeah, his arm would have broken just now...yeah, he'd have been incinerated if he had actually been that close to a REAL fire of that size...yeah, yeah (eye-roll). I can't get into it--I just can't. The absolute worst (IMO) are films based on video games. Words fail me.
Reading a book should engage the reader's mind and senses without any direct sensory input. It all comes from the imagination. The brain processes the words and produces the imagery from within. It's a very active experience. Watching scenes on a screen engages far less of one's brain (research has demonstrated this) than reading a story does. A well told story provides not just an escape, but an experience--a kind of journey. It's useful and refreshing at times to rely less on the senses and more on the mind. I often lose myself in a book--rarely does a movie do that for me, though it does happen.
I can and do enjoy a good story written according to the 'show, don't tell' mantra. But I love a good, old-fashioned narrative if done well. I write what I like to read--and I love the classics. I know my style is unconventional according to modern standards, but it works for me. I have never been much of a conformist, anyway.
(Aside): I wish I had thought to use the example of 'Jaws' in the previous [answer]. The back story of Quint on the USS Indianapolis is absolutely essential in understanding the character, though it does nothing to 'advance the story'. Imagine the same film if the shark had eaten someone every five minutes--none of the reflection, inner conflict, and back-story. UGH and double-ugh!
Derek Prior: Can you take us through your editing process? How do you manage to catch all the typos and word repetitions? What big decisions have you taken regarding structure/cuts?
C S Marks: First, I spend far more time in editing than I do in writing. I do use 'spell check', but only as I am writing. I never edit onscreen--always from a hard copy. I find I miss too many errors otherwise. I read all passages aloud (several times) to check 'flow', sentence integrity, impact, and so on. I usually catch the 'typos' as I read. Every line of every chapter is proofed several times by me; I then turn them over to other proofers. Many pairs of eyes find the problems I missed. I am lucky enough to have a professional editor who is a fan--she is paid to go over the final draft of the manuscript to catch those rare-but-pesky persistent typos. THEN I turn it over to Beta-readers. Their job is to tell me what parts of the book are unclear--what doesn't make sense, what needs expansion, what should be cut back. They don't realize that's what they're doing, but I get this information based on their feedback. I always have some betas who are unfamiliar with any of my other work. That really helps you have novels that (though they are part of a series) stand alone. The betas who are familiar with my work will notice if something seems inconsistent or out of character.
By this time, the manuscript has been (some would say obsessively) polished to the point that it's ready for publication. I love my fellow indies, but I DO wish they would take a little more time to edit--rushing to publication before the 'baby' is ready is just one more way to reinforce the stereotype. We want to contradict that stereotype as much as possible, and that might mean producing works that not only rise to professional standard, but display professional excellence. I don't know if I've achieved that, but if I've fallen short it's not for lack of trying.
Derek Prior: Your books are very lengthy and contain an incredible amount of detail. How do you manage the material so that you maintain continuity and don't forget to follow up on developments?
C S Marks: This one is easy to answer, Derek. I don't manage--the characters do. They are the experts at maintaining continuity and they tie up all the loose ends. I kid you not--it works every time! I do make notes as I write--usually just ideas that I want to pursue later--but I don't outline. I discover the story as the characters do. The details of the journey are left up to them. I know where I'm going, but they take me there. :-)
Derek Prior: There's a good deal of emphasis on Psychological Realism in modern fantasy which would probably have G.K. Chesterton turning in his grave -- if there was room). I'm reminded of the influence of Socialist Realism on theatre -- the sort of thing that gave rise to "fourth wall" dramas and ultimately soaps on TV.
It has its place, for sure, and it often gives rise to complex characters and moral attitudes. Evil arises from within -- it's part of the human condition, and consequently there tends to be an underlying cynicism about human nature in many newish novels. Writers of heroic fantasy balance this somewhat with the selfless sacrifice of their protagonists but in some of the very recent work (I'm thinking of Joe Abercrombie) even this is missing.
In Elfhunter, the evil seems to come from without. I picture the natural world of woods and mountains peopled with elves and dwarves who are genereally rather decent sorts. Unfortunately for the good folk of Alterra, the Dark Tower intrudes into their world like a cancer and evil is personified by Wrothgar. There is a clear distinction between darkness and light and we tread a familiar, comforting, moral path.
How much of this reflects your own view of human nature and the world? Are you an optimist? Were you influenced by the light and darkness in Tolkien? Would you share his views (and those of Belloc and Chesterton) regarding the encroachment of industrialisation upon a simpler, more egalitarian time (the Distributist vision of guilds and cooperatives where there was a fairer share of the means of production)?
C.S. Marks: I suppose I am an optimist. I believe that people are born innocent--they are neither good nor evil, but are influenced by their world and by those who would endow them with a basic conscience. If one is raised to believe in the 'Golden Rule', which is based on empathy (I certainly wouldn't want anyone to do that to me, therefore I should not do it to anyone else), then a sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is pretty much guaranteed. The character must make a conscious decision to go against his/her principles.
In the case of those raised to believe that 'He who dies with the most toys wins', the egocentric view prevails. Self-sacrifice would not occur to such a character. Power over the lives of others may be granted and accepted (as with a King) or it may be taken by force. Evil beings in Alterra crave power as they do in other worlds (including our own). Evil does not empathize--it is completely self-absorbed. It does not seek unity or harmony with anything.
The trilogy is actually not nearly as simplistic as one believes from just reading the first part of it. Evil comes from within, without--this question is an interesting one, but it's too early to really get into it based on Elfhunter alone.
I was definitely influenced by Tolkien in a lot of ways, but the world views expressed in the trilogy are my own. Again...you're just getting started with Elfhunter. The majority of the journey still lies before you.
Derek Prior: Thanks for that. So far I've found the optimism regarding the "human" spirit a great strength of the book and a refreshing change.
I'm afraid I have one last question: Alterra: The World that is - what does this mean?
I take Alterra to mean "alternate Earth" or something similar, but "the World that is..." Is this something that becomes clearer later on in the trilogy? Is it a simply a statement that Alterra is the world (it's not the land on the other side of a wardrobe but is more akin to Middle Earth, a fully fleshed out world with its own civilisations, history and believable characters)?
Tolkien and Lewis were at logger-heads over this difference in their attitudes to fantasy. Lewis followed the Chesterton pattern of having ordinary humans enter a fantastic world, whereas Tolkien made the fantastic world the only reality (and this is the pattern most modern fantasy books take).
C.S. Marks: The World that Is is the literal translation of 'Alterra'--it comes from the root word 'Alta' (to be). The significance is 'The Real World' in the characters' view--not the spirit world, but the world that 'Is'. There are many spiritual/ethereal realms, especially to the Elves (who, after all, named most of the stuff). You'll discover more of them if you keep reading.
It also signifies 'Alternate Earth' in our tongue. Convenient, eh!
All sketches by C.S. Marks
No comments:
Post a Comment