When I'm in between writing, I think a lot about humor. I'm a humor writer--I think that's the best description--but still thinking about what kind of humor, where the draw the line between Silly and Serious.
Jane Austen was firmly within the realm of Real Life. Her writing is witty, but there's no farce, no silliness. The big set pieces involve romance, not humor (Eg. Darcy's horrible proposal.) That's not me. When I re-read my stuff from the past, it is DEFINITELY silly.
Georgette Heyer pulled us closer along the silliness spectrum. I'd call her a humor write first, before romance, and I wish more men would read her (these days. In her day lots of men read her.) She has great comic set pieces, and her books tend to end like a Thin Man movie--full of characters bashing up against each other. I love that stuff.
PG Wodehouse was very silly. Nothing tragic happens in the World of Wodehouse. In Heyer bad things can still happen to people; in Wodehouse, the biggest threat is being forced into a marriage with a terrifying woman.
I've been reading Terry Pratchett whose books have become more serious over time. He now believes you need the serious stuff to offset the humor, to make the humor funnier, more noticeable. And of course, a lot of times it's just characters using humor to deal with life.
So... am I a Wodehouse? Should I eschew all seriosity? It occurred to me tonight that most of Wodehouse's humor is in the actual writing--the narration, the dialogue. He wrote incredibly funny lines. He was the absolute MASTER of similes. But if you take away that writing what do you get? There are funny characters, funny situations, but I think Heyer did a better job wih the situations.
I can't write as overwhelming-hilarious as Wodehouse. Pratchett can do it, John Mortimer can do it, but not me. I'm funny but... those freaking similes. How did he do it? How do any of them do it?? However I do think I'm good at set pieces.
I think my humor has to be pulled back a bit into the realm of reality. And romance works better that way too, as Jennifer Crusie found. (She had to remind herself to stop being cynical and be willing to write romance stories with heart and vulnerability.)
I'm still not sure How Serious to get. Pratchett's Snuff goes into slavery and ethnic cleansing--it's dark stuff.
Well, anyway... so time to experiment. I have an idea for a novella, and we'll see where my writing naturally draws the line. But I think I have to attempt some seriousness... give myself permission to kill someone off, or deal with ugly-humanity stuff.
...I'll leave you with some Pratchett from Snuff:
" They were crude weapons, to be sure, but a flint axe hitting your head does not need a degree in physics."
"Whatever you thought about goblins, their cave had the kind of atmosphere about which people say, 'I should wait two minutes before going in there, if I was you.'"
"Vimes woke in damp and utter darkness with sand under his cheek. Some parts of his body reported for duty, others protested that they had a note from their mother."
"Lady Sibyl leaned back with her secateurs poised, and regarded the rose bushes like a bloody-handed revolutionary looking for his next aristocrat."
Jane Austen was firmly within the realm of Real Life. Her writing is witty, but there's no farce, no silliness. The big set pieces involve romance, not humor (Eg. Darcy's horrible proposal.) That's not me. When I re-read my stuff from the past, it is DEFINITELY silly.
Georgette Heyer pulled us closer along the silliness spectrum. I'd call her a humor write first, before romance, and I wish more men would read her (these days. In her day lots of men read her.) She has great comic set pieces, and her books tend to end like a Thin Man movie--full of characters bashing up against each other. I love that stuff.
PG Wodehouse was very silly. Nothing tragic happens in the World of Wodehouse. In Heyer bad things can still happen to people; in Wodehouse, the biggest threat is being forced into a marriage with a terrifying woman.
I've been reading Terry Pratchett whose books have become more serious over time. He now believes you need the serious stuff to offset the humor, to make the humor funnier, more noticeable. And of course, a lot of times it's just characters using humor to deal with life.
So... am I a Wodehouse? Should I eschew all seriosity? It occurred to me tonight that most of Wodehouse's humor is in the actual writing--the narration, the dialogue. He wrote incredibly funny lines. He was the absolute MASTER of similes. But if you take away that writing what do you get? There are funny characters, funny situations, but I think Heyer did a better job wih the situations.
I can't write as overwhelming-hilarious as Wodehouse. Pratchett can do it, John Mortimer can do it, but not me. I'm funny but... those freaking similes. How did he do it? How do any of them do it?? However I do think I'm good at set pieces.
I think my humor has to be pulled back a bit into the realm of reality. And romance works better that way too, as Jennifer Crusie found. (She had to remind herself to stop being cynical and be willing to write romance stories with heart and vulnerability.)
I'm still not sure How Serious to get. Pratchett's Snuff goes into slavery and ethnic cleansing--it's dark stuff.
Well, anyway... so time to experiment. I have an idea for a novella, and we'll see where my writing naturally draws the line. But I think I have to attempt some seriousness... give myself permission to kill someone off, or deal with ugly-humanity stuff.
...I'll leave you with some Pratchett from Snuff:
" They were crude weapons, to be sure, but a flint axe hitting your head does not need a degree in physics."
"Whatever you thought about goblins, their cave had the kind of atmosphere about which people say, 'I should wait two minutes before going in there, if I was you.'"
"Vimes woke in damp and utter darkness with sand under his cheek. Some parts of his body reported for duty, others protested that they had a note from their mother."
"Lady Sibyl leaned back with her secateurs poised, and regarded the rose bushes like a bloody-handed revolutionary looking for his next aristocrat."
RSS Feed
