Reading Room - Alone In The Wilderness by Elessar

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

Title: Alone In The Wilderness

Author: Elessar

Link to story: at the Circuit Archive http://www.thecircuitarchive.com/tca/archive/2/alonein.html

I thought I would try and get a little different type of discussion going on this week's Reading Room. We have so many very knowledgeable, thoughtful folks here and so I am hoping that some of you can answer a particular question that has puzzled me for quite a long time.

Elessar wrote roughly twenty or so Pros stories in the late 1990s and early 2000s, about twelve of which are available on the Circuit Archive and the ProsLib CD. Of those, a longish fantasy AU called “The Captive Heart” and this story, “Alone In The Wilderness,” seem to be the best regarded; I have seen “Captive Heart” recced on a couple of sites.

I will not lie: this author's writing is not my cup of tea or my glass of beer, either one. Besides the other usual questions we discuss here (characterization, plot-holes, American-ism, etc.), the thing that stands out to me most strongly is the way the author “tells” – never, ever “shows” – the story. The narrative is practically didactic in voice, in fact, and it is this very quality that I have heard praised with great praise by other readers. To me, this is the complete antithesis of what good story-telling should read like, but quite obviously this opinion is not shared by all!



So I put it to you, Pros fen: do you like this style of writing? If so, what is it about this style that appeals to you and why? I am very genuinely curious. Help me to understand, Obi-Wan!

Comments

[heliophile-oxon.livejournal.com]

I shall be of absolutely no use with answering your question, I'm afraid, as I agree with you completely! I was not aware that these stories had been much praised, and while I am always and eternally glad that people are moved to contribute to fandom by sharing stories I will admit to not being drawn in in this case.

The main thing that hit me with this one is the way the two protagonists go abruptly and rather consciously from long-lost apparently-straight best friends to lovers; there doesn't seem to be to be much psychological build-up, any preparing the ground to make it credible, so it comes off as a bit arbitrary. It gives me the feeling that the author knows where she wants to get her characters to be, but she pulls the strings a bit too visibly and walks them there (rather than creating the illusion that the characters do the walking, as it were). Tell rather than show, as you put it.

I would be interested too to know more about the appeal of both stories - looking forward to reading what others say!

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

I shall be of absolutely no use with answering your question, I'm afraid

But thank you for jumping in and commenting! *g*

but she pulls the strings a bit too visibly and walks them there

Yes! Yes, that is it exactly, beautifully put! And it is the evident appeal of that (she's by no mean the only author to write that way) that I am trying to suss out.

[snailbones.livejournal.com]

First - ta ever so for suggesting it. I hadn't read it before, and it was short enough I could chug through it quickly.

I didn't dislike it - and if it was written a little differently I'd probably love it to bits. I'm not a writer, so I always feel a bit stunted when it comes to commenting on writing styles; to me it feels rushed, as though she had this great idea for a story, got down the rough first attempt and covered all the bases of what she wanted to happen, and then... stopped. Didn't flesh it out, didn't write the story it could be. The emotions are way too OTT for me too - I don't think the lads would burst into tears after being apart so long - more likely to belt one another if anything *g* - and they would surely not go from being straight to leaping into bed with each other?

I was left thinking it was a story with fabulous potential, but feeling a bit cheated - the bones of something good are right there, but the way it's hastily written and disposed of is a shame.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

First - ta ever so for suggesting it. I hadn't read it before, and it was short enough I could chug through it quickly.

You're welcome! And the being short - that was very deliberate on my part *g*.

You have very cogently hit some of the main bits for me. I do think it is a story with good "bones" as you say - there is a lovely idea within, but it never quite got there. Or rather, I think she thought she got there, but by taking the reader by the hand and leading them, rather than having the story unfold. Plus tons of plot and dramatic possibilities that were never written.

Also I must agree totally on the OTT emotions - not at all how I'd see the lads reacting, or not given the story as it was written. I need a lot more story before I can really quite swallow that.

[heliophile-oxon.livejournal.com]

it feels rushed, as though she had this great idea for a story, got down the rough first attempt and covered all the bases of what she wanted to happen, and then... stopped.
Yes, exactly. I think you've put your finger on a crucial issue - it feels like the bare bones, without the fleshing-out that should bring the plot to life. And I agree re the emotions; it's not that I think they could never ever cry (well, we know that they can get pretty bright-eyed in canon! *g*) but that it's OTT here - partly because there's a bit too much of it, partly because we don't get the fleshing-out that might have worked to make at least some of those tears feel real.

There seem to be a fair handful of stories that like to get Bodie together with an Alan Cade-who-is-really-Doyle-in-disguise, and it's interesting to see the different schemes people have come up with to explain the situation! *g*

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I'm not a writer, so I always feel a bit stunted when it comes to commenting on writing styles
Oh, I always think that it's not-writers who should comment (well, and writers too... *g*) for that what-can-you-see-from-outside perspective. It's fine looking around from the "inside", but I know I like to hear from people who aren't thinking about technique or what could or should be done, but are seeing what has been done, and can just say whether or not it works for them, and perhaps why not from a reader-pov... then it's up to a writer to work out whether or how to change something...

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why we all worry about commenting 'because I'm not a writer'. This has never stopped members of a single book group I have been in!

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

Well, now I might need to read the story. *g* I do admit I don't read Elessar's stories anymore. Or, rather, I read them when written and haven't had any desire to go back to them. And that is because of the very thing you point out. I remember a discussion with her once, on the old CI5 listserv, about whether or not an author should use culture terms/language that her audience might not be familiar with. For her, such language interfered with the reader's possible enjoyment of the story because they wouldn't understand it. Others chimed in saying that they prefer stories that assume knowledge, or lead one to investigate, etc. That is very much along the same lines as "telling" as story. For her, it's about communicating effectively. For others it's about the story being stifling, allowing no room for individual interpretation, and keeping one from falling into it because you're never really part of that story's world.

I do know, though, that many readers do prefer to have everything spelled out for them and to be guided through the story by the author--told everything. For them, I suspect Elessar is a good writer.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

I remember a discussion with her once, on the old CI5 listserv, about whether or not an author should use culture terms/language that her audience might not be familiar with. For her, such language interfered with the reader's possible enjoyment of the story because they wouldn't understand it.

That's extremely interesting. See, I could see something like this if it were a story where there was something like, say, world-building involved, and one was in fact dealing with culture terms and/or language. But that just isn't necessary here, is it?

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

Ahh. Not going to quote you properly - wretched smartphone, sorry - but suddenly her explanation plops into place just perfectly. If that - ensuring the reader is not lost and having to quietly speculate to herself - is her aim, then she absolutely succeeds.

As I mentioned, I went off to skim some of her others this afternoon in order to remind myself of them. And even skimming, absolutely, there is no way I was losing my place or thinking damn, have I just missed something important? Now that you put it that way, yes, she does explain everything from the points of view of several people, and adds comments about who Beckett and another Bodie favourite are, just to help.

The others varied from fantasy slavefic romance to undercover as gay , which I totally should have remembered, being a huge lover of undercover as gay myself (took me about two lines before I recognised it and went, ohh, I remember this! Doyle as whore undercover!) to humour.

It's not my favourite style, but I wonder whether that is because I am now immersed in Pros. I don't need the glosses now. (Well. I like to think I don't!) I know who Ann Holly is. I know the sleeping bag conversation. Et cetera. I do remember that some stories were much more allusive than others, without the explanations. And I love those *now*, but back then, glosses like 'the woman Doyle nearly left over' or 'that time of shared confidences' and so on, they were probably much more necessary to get me far enough into the fandom to get to grips with stories where you need all that in your mind in order to make any headway at all.

So hmm. Interesting to recall my earliest impressions, actually! One thing that amazed me was the general fanon of secure flats and CI5 telling them where to go - and actually that's the topic in a 'bad guys have The Flat List, lads must move in together' by Elessar, now I look! I also remember adoring Brenda K's 'Matters in Hand' but having no idea that she had woven it so carefully into the timeline: the inquest after a bombing could have been canon or her invention, for all I knew - until I was completely thrown when Doyle is shot by a young Chinese woman.

Hmm. Rambling now, so time to put the phone down!

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

Well wow - I thought I would have to recuse myself, or excuse myself for being the dissenting voice! Thank you for posing such an interesting question in such a careful way.

My first encounter with that story was on my initial plunge through the archives, and I had never even heard of The Chief. I have always assumed that my reaction to the story (I found it a struggle) was affected by that - and my preference for scruffy unshaven lads, not all smartly suited. I think I may have a look at some of her others before replying further though.

I think you're right, though. I've seen her stories on the crack van recs comm, and somewhere there is a smashing page which is huge and recs a lot of Proslib-only stories, and I'm confident she has several stories listed there. (Must dig it out - all in a nice table layout, with plenty of quotes: it was the final thing that inspired me to get the CD). So yes, clearly plenty of fans around.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posing such an interesting question in such a careful way

Thank YOU for jumping into the discussion! Hope to hear more of your thoughts on this after you have done some more reading and research *g*.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

You can probably guess that my answer to your question is no - this style of writing just really doesn't work for me, and it's why I've only read a couple of Elessar stories. I think it's interesting working out why though, and why it does appeal to some people, cos as you say, it does.

For me, your description of it as "didactic" was pretty on the mark - I struggle with writing which feels as if it's trying to teach me something absolute and without question rather than tell me a story about what happened. And there's a whole debate about that actual style of teaching too of course, and has been for years. Do we want to be told information and left with nothing but the information - nowhere else to go with it? Okay, so William the Conqueror did his thing in 1066 - what do I do with that? But show me what the people were like, what the world was like, and then make me wonder why he felt he had a right to the crown of England, and I can fly off in all kinds of directions and work out his place in the world and then think about how it applies to other people, to me, to current day people, to current royalty, the best way to go about winning friends and influencing people... *g* It expands thought rather than just putting a full-stop at the end of it... Which perhaps says about me that I need prompts and questions and things to do my best (shush!) thinking - simply give me information and my thinking just doesn't cut in. *g*

So for instance - "Thanks to his status as a best-selling journalist, Phillip Williams had had no trouble getting a copy of the picture and the address of the location where it had been taken." Okay, there's lots of information in there, but it stops your imagination stone-cold (where it might otherwise be wondering how Williams managed to do those things and, given clues about it, had the fun of working it out along the way). It also doesn't leave space for much tension in the story - we're told flat out that PW effectively has the power to smooth his way through life without much worry. So what? So how exciting is the rest of the story going to be, if he can cut through life with his "status as a best-selling journalist" who has "no trouble" getting hold of the things he needs? So not only was that bit not exciting, but my subconscious has just been told that the rest of the story's unlikely to get much more exciting or tense than that. It also means it's harder for me to relate to the character - PW has the status to get whatever he wants in life, and that's so far away from my world that it's hard to have sympathy for him, because things are clearly going to come to him easily...

And none of that might be how the story goes - PW might well have other problems, his life might be lousy in other ways - but I've been set up without that sympathy for him, and no matter what else happens, that's what I'm going into the writing with. It also means that if other issues are thrown up that his "status" should be able to sort, but doesn't - well, I've lost my belief even in that PW...

So writing for me needs to give my mind something to do, make me empathise and/or feel sympathy for a character, and include some sort of tension so that my emotions are also at work, wondering if things are going to work out okay. For that I need to be shown the world so that I can pick up hints and make my own mind up about things - not just be told how it is...

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

For me, your description of it as "didactic" was pretty on the mark

Dictionary for the win! *bg*

And there's a whole debate about that actual style of teaching too of course, and has been for years. Do we want to be told information and left with nothing but the information - nowhere else to go with it? Okay, so William the Conqueror did his thing in 1066 - what do I do with that?

Wow, way to very neatly encapsulate that debate! Yes, that is along the lines of discussions I have had many times with folks who are not nearly as fascinated by and with history as I am. Was it because I had a couple of good teachers early on who did in fact make it come alive for me, by giving that kind of additional information to spark my imagination about it? (Or because I will read and and everything I get my dirty hands on?)

So for instance - "Thanks to his status as a best-selling journalist, Phillip Williams had had no trouble getting a copy of the picture and the address of the location where it had been taken." Okay, there's lots of information in there, but it stops your imagination stone-cold ... It also doesn't leave space for much tension in the story - we're told flat out that PW effectively has the power to smooth his way through life without much worry. So what? ... So not only was that bit not exciting, but my subconscious has just been told that the rest of the story's unlikely to get much more exciting or tense than that.

Excellent, yes, that is indeed part of my issue as well. I have been "told," in specific terms, just what I am to think of the character. Okay, fine ... but that leaves nothing for me to do, except wade through the sea of words necessary to tell me all that. Whoo. Just not exciting, and as you say, not engaging -- it doesn't draw me into the story.

So the readers who prefer this type of discourse might be looking for stories where they don't have to engage, perhaps?

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

That line you quote about 'Thanks to his status as a best-selling journalist' is exactly one that hit me, too. Because it only poses more questions to me. Does how Bodie gets an address and photo need glossing at all? Why?

And such a status - is he writing books or articles? I rather think that this is a very American conception of journalism which we, regrettably, don't really have. Those Watergate guys wrote articles for papers with long long investigative journalism sections. What is our equivalent? The Sunday Times had long since lost its Insight team. Campaigning journalists these days have to do a whole series of articles for whoever will taken their work. All I can really think of is Nick Davies, who has written several astonishing books over the decades.

So yeah, in this case, the clarification just confused me further by reminding me that Bodie, at this stage, is not clear to me. Grubby mac and favours in scary parts of society, or in it for the long haul and impeccably referenced book every five or six years?

[firlefanzine.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I haven't reread the story for today(busy reading BB), and I can't say anything about the style - if it's good or bad.

Just want to say, that I read many of Elessar's stories 5 or 6 years ago, and then I loved most of them!
For example Joy's Bonfire, Answered Prayers, A Dozen Red Roses and Undercover. And my list says, that I also enjoyed Alone In The WIlderness!

So, at that time, the style was very fine for me! :-)

Thank you for your thoughts though!

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

Okay, see, you are the person I was hoping would join the discussion! *g*.

I really wasn't trying to make this a discussion of whether the style is good or bad, at all. It is just that as a writing style, it doesn't work for me but quite obviously it does work for you and bunches of other folks, and I am sincerely looking to understand why. It is something that has never appealed to me, personally, but is it just a lack of something in the way I read? I am looking to expand my personal horizons and I figured this was a way to reach out.

Alone in the Wilderness by Elessar - Pt I

[fiorenza-a.livejournal.com]

I want to come at this unconventional question in a more conventional manner; because while I'm not sorry I read this story, and I appreciate the efforts of the writer to avoid making a knowledge of The Chief essential to its enjoyment, I don't think it will ever be my cup of tea.

Writing is as much about reading as it is about writing, I think. So when I read for the reading room I jot down as I go. I often find myself revising or revaluating what I've noted as I go too. For me, this is just a formalising of my natural reading style. This is what I came up with for Alone in the Wilderness:

Alone in the Wilderness is both a crossover with The Chief and an AU and I'm not an instinctive fan of either. In addition to which, I don't know The Chief and unlike Apparitions, which I also missed, it's never piqued my imagination. Happily, however, it transpired that not knowing The Chief was not a huge drawback, for which consideration I thank the author.

Given all of the above, I've never previously been tempted to read this story. However, in the spirit of the reading room, I gave it a try.

I immediately got thrown out of the story by the weary cliché of a maternal cleaning lady. And then all the nonsense about jumping through hoops to get a newspaper photograph, when newspapers not uncommonly offer their prints for sale to any member of the public who requests one. And since Phillip Williams has a portable PC, whatever that is, I was distracted by questions about why he didn't just download/print the image from the net. (Possibly the story predates t'internet? Phillip Williams has no access to a printer? Or the online version was obscured in some way?)

Which brings me to my next niggle; Phillip Williams. It's a common enough conceit to play with the lads' names in an AU, (and Bodie's Philip is usually one 'l' – but hey ho – I'm already niggly, let's not get petty) but unless I can see the reason for it, it's also one which irritates me. The reason becomes transparently clear later in the story but, by that time, I was really quite irritated. In addition, once the reason is made clear, I was then left querying why Bodie, who continues to feel sufficiently at risk in the epilogue to maintain a second home as cover, would choose such a readily identifiable alias, other than as a device to clue the reader in on his identity. (Perhaps he thought it would make it easier for Doyle/Cade to make the connection? Which doesn't say much for Doyle/Cade's detective skills, once Bodie hits the best seller lists.)

I have no idea if the characterisation of Chief Constable Alan Cade is accurate, so I was content to accept the author's version.

I also found some of the plotting distracting; having gone to the effort of securing a decent quality print, I wasn't sure how the constant references to a newspaper clipping fitted in. Surely, the denizens of Eastland can't be so inured to armed sieges that they'd need a clipping to remind them of events which occurred only yesterday? And if Phillip Williams has a decent quality photo, why does he delay using it?

Alone in the Wilderness by Elessar - Pt II

[fiorenza-a.livejournal.com]

I also had to re-read this several times to make sense of it: He grabbed his luggage from the critic's office...and headed out the door. Climbing into his car and contemplating the rush hour commute to Eastland he almost regretted not taking the train.

Phillip Williams apparently lives in Cornwall, but the story says it's a London paper, Phillip Williams' first stop is London. So, presumably then, he's already driven around two to three hundred miles in his car and is now, faced with however many more miles in bad traffic, having a moment's regret at not taking alternative transport? (I can't gauge the additional mileage, I don't know where Eastland is. For some reason I keep thinking of Birmingham.)

But then, the reference to the rush hour confuses me. Depending on when his cleaner rises, Bodie presumably arrives in London midmorning or lunchtime and is heading off again as soon as possible after that. It appears evident to me that he commences his journey in Cornwall, since he packs immediately after speaking to his cleaner and therefore presumably 'phones her from home. He sighed as he hung up the phone and began to rapidly pack a bag. Even if she is indulgent about the time, he'd still be in London after the morning rush hour (and hurrying away again before the evening version).

I found all of this thoroughly distracting. However, on the up side, although for me the brisk pace of telling detracted from the story, I thought the main plot was very well thought out. I therefore thought it was a shame that the story wasn't told at greater length. Although, I also respect that not every author is ready, willing or comfortable to write at length.

Alone in the Wilderness reminded me of Rob's Waiting to Fall (http://www.thecircuitarchive.com/tca/archive/15/waitingto.html) (which I really enjoyed), in that so much happens, or has happened, before you realise the story isn't 'gen'.

In my humble opinion, both Waiting to Fall and Alone in the Wilderness, if allowed to unfold only slightly differently, would work equally well as gen stories.

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

Initially I thought this was going to be a great story, I loved the beginning and was immediately pulled in with the mystery of who was in the picture and why Bodie had been searching for so many years, but boringly (in terms of having something different to say!) I soon found myself thinking lines similar to yours and others that there was too much telling and not enough showing – too much ‘filling my mind like a vessel’ rather than ‘kindling it like a fire’

and it is this very quality that I have heard praised with great praise by other readers.

At first this surprised me as I thought people would prefer stories which allowed you room and time to think for yourself and stimulated you to do so, but then I thought again and realised I was being completely subjective and why shouldn’t there be lots of people who prefer this kind of story? Arguably it’s just a question of preferred style.

To me, this is the complete antithesis of what good story-telling should read like, but quite obviously this opinion is not shared by all!

So many ways to judge a story but I think for me the bottom line is whether it attracts me in the first place, holds my attention and by the end I can say I’ve enjoyed it for whatever reason. I feel the writer did meet some of these criteria but got a little lost along the way and yes, she seemed in a hurry as if she had a lot of information to impart to the reader and was going to do it no matter what. But having said that I've enjoyed a few of her stories and liked ‘Undercover’ enough to read a couple of times, so......

Arguably it’s just a question of preferred style.

[fiorenza-a.livejournal.com]

I agree that has a lot to do with it. I found the plotting dense, like a very rich fruit cake. It took me quite a few days to read because of that, I felt I had to keep 'coming up for air'.

But I liked the plot premise, and to me this is just the reverse of all those criticisms which say 'so-and-so definitely knows how to write, but such-and-such a thing in the plot/characterisation left me cold'.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

So many ways to judge a story but I think for me the bottom line is whether it attracts me in the first place, holds my attention and by the end I can say I’ve enjoyed it for whatever reason.

Well-said! I think that should be, in the end, one's truest personal test about whether or not a story worked.

[paris7am.livejournal.com]

I am once again late to the party. But I just now finished rereading the story and thought I'd try to catch up.

S2K, I agree wholeheartedly with you here. I also was feeling anticipation in the beginning, but got bogged down as it went along. I don't remember that reaction from the first time I read it! "Kindling a fire" is a lovely way to put it.

I think the author's note at the end helped me to understand why she wrote it in this way - that it really was an attempt to reconcile the Pros with the Chief and that she and a group of friends were brainstorming ideas for how it might be worked out... (rough paraphrase!). That makes sense to me.

I am sure that all of us recognize the trope in stories where after the first confession/kiss/sex the pair start explaining things? When did you first know? How long have you felt this....? etc. and on and on. OH the AGGRAVATION! I am sure there are times when this is handled beautifully and i don't notice, but i must say that these are the kiss of death for me. There is, for me, some of that tone in this story, because the author is decidedly trying to tie up loose ends and cross the T's for fitting each of these characters into the other's universe.

Alone in the Wilderness by Elessar - Pt III

[fiorenza-a.livejournal.com]

What all my jottings tell me is that I dissect what I read, so the logistics of Phillip Williams' journey matter to me. I need to know why Phillip Williams eschews the photograph he's gone to such lengths to obtain.

However, Elessar's writing style is very common within the Pros community on FanFiction.net.

I think it goes back to what I believe is the link between reading and writing. How many times are aspiring writers advised to write the story they want to read?

I like to pick my way through the clues, sense what a character is feeling because the writer has him pick up a book and not put on a record. But other people, it seems to me, prefer to be sure.

Like sitting at a formally laid dinner table, some people are happy to work their way through the cutlery, trusting that the dishes will turn up in the right order and that someone will remove the fish knife if they skip that course. And are not particularly bothered if they discover that they're drinking their red wine from the white wine glass. Other people feel more secure if they're seated next someone who knows what they're doing and is happy to guide them, otherwise they won't enjoy the meal.

So for some people, it seems to me, they want to be sure they have the story right. That they've understood it and have not missed a nuance. For others of us, the joy is in discovering something new upon a re-reading.

RE: Alone in the Wilderness by Elessar - Pt III

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

\,However, Elessar's writing style is very common within the Pros community on FanFiction.net.

This is interesting, what kind of things do they have in common? I've read a few stories at FanFiction.net e.g. a couple by Ali and Bardicvoice or Bardicsomething, sorry I can't remember, and enjoyed them.