aliensoul77
from a cold distant star is reading the writing on the wall.December 15, 2011 - 7:28am
Well, a mick is a racial slur for one thing.
aliensoul77
from a cold distant star is reading the writing on the wall.December 15, 2011 - 7:29am
Seriously tho, Mick, i like you. You seem like you would be an awesome cuddler. Fingers running through the hair and everything.
Mick Cory
from Kentucky is reading everything you have ever posted online and is frankly shocked you have survived this longDecember 15, 2011 - 7:39am
Sounds terribly creepy when you say it. I prefer the left side of the bed.
Renfield
from Hell is reading 20th Century GhostsDecember 15, 2011 - 7:51am
I'm guessing that 'pussy' comment was directed at me, although I have no fucking idea because the site is sorely lacking a reply button.
It's not directed solely at you because I've seen it happen worryingly often when people have differing opinions here and it stifles otherwise civil debates, anyway I don't know if you brought that into this conversation or someone else, I'd rather not read over it again. Generally I'd rather read arguments made with some semblance of intelligence than uninteresting bickering. It's annoying to have to say this.
mutterhals
from Pittsburgh
December 15, 2011 - 8:11am
Well, I re-read my argument and in my opinion it was crafted thoughtfully, no matter how bluntly I may have said it. I thought Mick and I were having a pretty civil, if not lively, debate, he even joked at me towards the end. So I guess I'm confused. If the way I state things bores or upsets you, you should probably steer clear of me in the future, because there is very little I can do about that.
avery of the dead
from Kentucky is reading Cipher SistersDecember 15, 2011 - 8:17am
"Well, a mick is a racial slur for one thing."
Yeah, that's definitely part of it.
.
Mick Cory
from Kentucky is reading everything you have ever posted online and is frankly shocked you have survived this longDecember 15, 2011 - 8:18am
It also happens to be my name.
avery of the dead
from Kentucky is reading Cipher SistersDecember 15, 2011 - 8:20am
Yeah, and a lovely name. But when you call yourself "The Mick" it just gives it some extra awesome!!!
Mick Cory
from Kentucky is reading everything you have ever posted online and is frankly shocked you have survived this longDecember 15, 2011 - 8:24am
Are you taking the mickey?
Renfield
from Hell is reading 20th Century GhostsDecember 15, 2011 - 8:37am
Well, I re-read my argument and in my opinion it was crafted thoughtfully, no matter how bluntly I may have said it. I thought Mick and I were having a pretty civil, if not lively, debate, he even joked at me towards the end. So I guess I'm confused. If the way I state things bores or upsets you, you should probably steer clear of me in the future, because there is very little I can do about that.
Noted.
PopeyeDoyle
December 15, 2011 - 8:43am
This is a bit of a bizarre conversation. Without knowing the context of the "self-plagiarized" statements, it's pretty hard to really discern what's going on. It could be purposeful or it could be some type of mistake. It really would depend on the context. No one seems to have really delved into any textual analysis of the passages...
But, what most surprises me is that there are actual Bret Easton Ellis fanboys. I thought BEE was someone you read once or twice in your early 20s and then kinda got over. American Psycho was great, but Less Than Zero was boring. I read fifty or so pages of Glamorama and decided I was done with BEE. I thought most people past their early-20s did the same thing.
Mick Cory
from Kentucky is reading everything you have ever posted online and is frankly shocked you have survived this longDecember 15, 2011 - 8:51am
It seems all threads are destined to fray.
misskokamon
from San Francisco is reading The Moonlit MindDecember 15, 2011 - 9:47am
On topic:
I can't really blame someone for plagiazing his or her own work.
I noticed that all my story ideas have a similar character objective. The theme is different every time: for example, in my current project, my main theme is accepting who you are, all versions of you, all dark things and good things and perverted things. But the main character's objective is to find someone he lost.
Finding something or someone that is lost is an idea that finds its way into many of my pieces. I try my best to steer away from it, or to change it as much as I can, but I know it's there. It doesn't matter how small or how large it is in the story, it's there.
The important thing is people like Koontz and King make their formulas work for them. I'm sure they recognize they do things a certain way, and fans have come to expect it from them. Then you have the people who recognize they repeat themselves often and try to change it, like me. As long as you know you're doing it, I don't think of it as a mistake; sometimes it's hard to avoid, and sometimes we make it work for us.
Mick Cory
from Kentucky is reading everything you have ever posted online and is frankly shocked you have survived this longDecember 15, 2011 - 10:08am
I must again state that I am not in this instance criticizing the revisiting of themes in one's work, though I do feel some authors use it as a crutch and the overall quality of the work declines over time. The example I site is rather specific, so specific I cannot recall another example of such repetition. I was actually hoping someone may be able to provide another occurrence. I am however surprised that so few seem to be troubled by this.
bryanhowie
from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING.December 15, 2011 - 10:28am
I haven't read this example (only read American Psycho), but I've seen other writers do it. Often it's the same scene set up from a different POV, or a reworking of the same scene (Carver would rewrite his stories so much that they'd end up morphing meaning, and that was part of his genius).
Doing a direct copy & paste into another story could easily have been a litererary technique intended to highlight the difference between the two books (maybe with different characters, the dialogue means a much different thing). It may have been used to highlight a lot of nueances that are hidden in the text and available only to a big BEE fan.
Or it might be an inside joke, an 'thumbnail' example of the theme of the book, something he did on a bet, or an editor's suggestion. I have no doubt that it's not a hack job. It was most likely done with a lot of forethought and a big set of balls.
.
December 15, 2011 - 11:33am
Ellis inspired me to write. I'm paying for it though every time his style bleeds through my finger tips on the page. I can't help it though. Living in this city, it feels like an Ellis novel. I write what I know.
Nighty Nite
from NJ is reading Grimscribe: His Lives and WorksDecember 15, 2011 - 1:34pm
I will say this, even though I enjoy B.E.E. novels, I hate that he basically tells the same story every time, just "Here's a disconnected youth with money. Here's a disconnected serial killer with money. Here's a disconnected me with money and spooky ghosts"
Someone said it in a thread a while back, but I would like to read a story not about rich people and parties from him. I mean, write what you know I guess, but it'd be interesting.
XyZy
from New York City is reading Seveneves and Animal MoneyDecember 15, 2011 - 7:55pm
I must again state that I am not in this instance criticizing the revisiting of themes in one's work, though I do feel some authors use it as a crutch and the overall quality of the work declines over time. The example I site is rather specific, so specific I cannot recall another example of such repetition. I was actually hoping someone may be able to provide another occurrence. I am however surprised that so few seem to be troubled by this.
Vonnegut does it. Between Welcome to the Monkey House, and Time Quake he must have written some of those anecdotes three times. Same story, replayed (though that makes sense in Time Quake.)
And some of Barth's short stories are very similar plots played out through different characters or from different perspectives.
Some of Borges' maze-metaphor stories begin to sound repetitive if you read them back to back, but then again they are about mazes.
But the question is what is there to be troubled by? Repetition is a powerful tool. And repetition at all levels of narrative (including meta-) has a place. So for me, the simple fact that BEE retold the same scene in different settings, doesn't bother me. I also understand that most of BEE's work occurs in the same universe. Wasn't Patrick Bateman in like three of his books, and isn't the main character from Rules the younger brother? That sort of re-using material is not subject to concern to you, but having that similar characters (some detractors would go as far as "carbon-copied" characters) in similar situations would end up having similar interactions somehow troubles you? Granted, you're saying "nearly identical", but I say, what's wrong with that?
If it doesn't work for you with these scenes, fine. If it doesn't work for you when BEE does it at all, fine. But perhaps consider that it's those specific executions that are the problem, not the technique itself. I didn't like Eragon, but I don't blame the hero's journey. And maybe you don't like the technique itself, which is fine as well, but I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find any story-tellers that don't repeat themselves at some point. Now some are going to do it better than others, and personally I agree that I wasn't so enthralled with any of the scenes in BEE's work (at least the ones I've read) that I would care to read them again, re-tooled in another work. And it's interesting to me that you pick him as your example, because he is one of those writers that so many have read, enjoyed, and moved on. Perhaps you were thrown out and distracted by this technique in his work because you are realizing that a lot of his work lacks the sort of depth you are looking for.
And repetition and self-imitation is prevalent. And has been, pretty much since the beginning of story-telling. So prevalent that there's an adage that every writer is only trying to write one story, over and over. I don't personally believe that (well, the "every writer" part anyway)... but I don't discount that some writers can make that seem true. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. As long as they're entertaining and engaging... some writers, I could be enthralled with a shopping list. Well, maybe just Bakhtin...
NotMarilyn
from Twin Cities, MN is reading Mistress of Rome by Kate QuinnDecember 16, 2011 - 10:48am
It seems all threads are destined to fray.
Hear, hear.
On point, prime example: Christopher Moore novels. While I loved the first two that I read (Lamb, and A Dirty Job), the rest seemed to fall into the same step as one another. Not just in their themes, but situations, lines of dialogue (If I see "heinous fuckery most foul" again, I'll scream), and cookie cutter characters. I didn't bother picking up his latest because I'd know exactly what happened by reading the others again.
Mick Cory
from Kentucky is reading everything you have ever posted online and is frankly shocked you have survived this longDecember 16, 2011 - 11:36am
Well, a mick is a racial slur for one thing.
Seriously tho, Mick, i like you. You seem like you would be an awesome cuddler. Fingers running through the hair and everything.
Sounds terribly creepy when you say it. I prefer the left side of the bed.
It's not directed solely at you because I've seen it happen worryingly often when people have differing opinions here and it stifles otherwise civil debates, anyway I don't know if you brought that into this conversation or someone else, I'd rather not read over it again. Generally I'd rather read arguments made with some semblance of intelligence than uninteresting bickering. It's annoying to have to say this.
Well, I re-read my argument and in my opinion it was crafted thoughtfully, no matter how bluntly I may have said it. I thought Mick and I were having a pretty civil, if not lively, debate, he even joked at me towards the end. So I guess I'm confused. If the way I state things bores or upsets you, you should probably steer clear of me in the future, because there is very little I can do about that.
"Well, a mick is a racial slur for one thing."
Yeah, that's definitely part of it.
.
It also happens to be my name.
Yeah, and a lovely name. But when you call yourself "The Mick" it just gives it some extra awesome!!!
Are you taking the mickey?
Noted.
This is a bit of a bizarre conversation. Without knowing the context of the "self-plagiarized" statements, it's pretty hard to really discern what's going on. It could be purposeful or it could be some type of mistake. It really would depend on the context. No one seems to have really delved into any textual analysis of the passages...
But, what most surprises me is that there are actual Bret Easton Ellis fanboys. I thought BEE was someone you read once or twice in your early 20s and then kinda got over. American Psycho was great, but Less Than Zero was boring. I read fifty or so pages of Glamorama and decided I was done with BEE. I thought most people past their early-20s did the same thing.
It seems all threads are destined to fray.
On topic:
I can't really blame someone for plagiazing his or her own work.
I noticed that all my story ideas have a similar character objective. The theme is different every time: for example, in my current project, my main theme is accepting who you are, all versions of you, all dark things and good things and perverted things. But the main character's objective is to find someone he lost.
Finding something or someone that is lost is an idea that finds its way into many of my pieces. I try my best to steer away from it, or to change it as much as I can, but I know it's there. It doesn't matter how small or how large it is in the story, it's there.
The important thing is people like Koontz and King make their formulas work for them. I'm sure they recognize they do things a certain way, and fans have come to expect it from them. Then you have the people who recognize they repeat themselves often and try to change it, like me. As long as you know you're doing it, I don't think of it as a mistake; sometimes it's hard to avoid, and sometimes we make it work for us.
I must again state that I am not in this instance criticizing the revisiting of themes in one's work, though I do feel some authors use it as a crutch and the overall quality of the work declines over time. The example I site is rather specific, so specific I cannot recall another example of such repetition. I was actually hoping someone may be able to provide another occurrence. I am however surprised that so few seem to be troubled by this.
I haven't read this example (only read American Psycho), but I've seen other writers do it. Often it's the same scene set up from a different POV, or a reworking of the same scene (Carver would rewrite his stories so much that they'd end up morphing meaning, and that was part of his genius).
Doing a direct copy & paste into another story could easily have been a litererary technique intended to highlight the difference between the two books (maybe with different characters, the dialogue means a much different thing). It may have been used to highlight a lot of nueances that are hidden in the text and available only to a big BEE fan.
Or it might be an inside joke, an 'thumbnail' example of the theme of the book, something he did on a bet, or an editor's suggestion. I have no doubt that it's not a hack job. It was most likely done with a lot of forethought and a big set of balls.
Ellis inspired me to write. I'm paying for it though every time his style bleeds through my finger tips on the page. I can't help it though. Living in this city, it feels like an Ellis novel. I write what I know.
I will say this, even though I enjoy B.E.E. novels, I hate that he basically tells the same story every time, just "Here's a disconnected youth with money. Here's a disconnected serial killer with money. Here's a disconnected me with money and spooky ghosts"
Someone said it in a thread a while back, but I would like to read a story not about rich people and parties from him. I mean, write what you know I guess, but it'd be interesting.
Vonnegut does it. Between Welcome to the Monkey House, and Time Quake he must have written some of those anecdotes three times. Same story, replayed (though that makes sense in Time Quake.)
And some of Barth's short stories are very similar plots played out through different characters or from different perspectives.
Some of Borges' maze-metaphor stories begin to sound repetitive if you read them back to back, but then again they are about mazes.
But the question is what is there to be troubled by? Repetition is a powerful tool. And repetition at all levels of narrative (including meta-) has a place. So for me, the simple fact that BEE retold the same scene in different settings, doesn't bother me. I also understand that most of BEE's work occurs in the same universe. Wasn't Patrick Bateman in like three of his books, and isn't the main character from Rules the younger brother? That sort of re-using material is not subject to concern to you, but having that similar characters (some detractors would go as far as "carbon-copied" characters) in similar situations would end up having similar interactions somehow troubles you? Granted, you're saying "nearly identical", but I say, what's wrong with that?
If it doesn't work for you with these scenes, fine. If it doesn't work for you when BEE does it at all, fine. But perhaps consider that it's those specific executions that are the problem, not the technique itself. I didn't like Eragon, but I don't blame the hero's journey. And maybe you don't like the technique itself, which is fine as well, but I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find any story-tellers that don't repeat themselves at some point. Now some are going to do it better than others, and personally I agree that I wasn't so enthralled with any of the scenes in BEE's work (at least the ones I've read) that I would care to read them again, re-tooled in another work. And it's interesting to me that you pick him as your example, because he is one of those writers that so many have read, enjoyed, and moved on. Perhaps you were thrown out and distracted by this technique in his work because you are realizing that a lot of his work lacks the sort of depth you are looking for.
And repetition and self-imitation is prevalent. And has been, pretty much since the beginning of story-telling. So prevalent that there's an adage that every writer is only trying to write one story, over and over. I don't personally believe that (well, the "every writer" part anyway)... but I don't discount that some writers can make that seem true. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. As long as they're entertaining and engaging... some writers, I could be enthralled with a shopping list. Well, maybe just Bakhtin...
Hear, hear.
On point, prime example: Christopher Moore novels. While I loved the first two that I read (Lamb, and A Dirty Job), the rest seemed to fall into the same step as one another. Not just in their themes, but situations, lines of dialogue (If I see "heinous fuckery most foul" again, I'll scream), and cookie cutter characters. I didn't bother picking up his latest because I'd know exactly what happened by reading the others again.
Thank you. I keep hoping for examples.