I do not think that means what you think it means...

[telophase]

I checked the book Story Structure Architect out of the library this week. Not because I think it will driectly help me, as it's pretty didactic about things, but because it felt good. It's a well-designed book, attractive and reminiscent of blueprints, with color and design used quite effectively. Plus, it might serve as reverse-inspiration: the sort that happens when I read something that says "Do [this] in [this] manner," and my reaction is "Oh HELL no!" and I go and do it completely differently, out of spite.

However, that's not what this post is about. What this post is about is one line in an early chapter when it's defining subgenres (and one wonders exactly what the need to define genre is, in a book that's aimed at a slightly more experienced writer than your basic beginner) in Romance:

Regency: Monarchs,rulers, and kings abound

Um.

Er.

How on earth did Victoria Lynn Schmidt, Ph.D. come up with this definition? Regency romance does not by definition mean that it deals with monarchs, but that it takes place during a specific historical time and place when the UK was ruled by a regent. There are tons of Regency romances that haven't got a single crown in them.

Most of the rest of the definitions of genre are at least halfway decent, but that one stuck out as really, completely, and utterly wrong wrong wrong.

Comments

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

...

...

*goes off to cry*

[telophase.livejournal.com]

I think I figured out how she failed to get the correct definition: on the next page she recommends Dogpile as "a great resource for writers." WTF Dogpile? Why not, say, Google? And why not give writers an explanation on HOW to look things up instead of just saying to look things up there?

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

This sounds like a book I'm very, very glad I'm not the one reading.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

I think it'll be quite inspiring, in the "throw it against a wall while screaming I CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS" way.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Ah. Like Eragon.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think it was really aimed at screenwriters churning out scripts, because it's kind of a by-the-numbers guide to creating dramatic tension and resolution, and lists lots of situations, then asks questions about them that the writer can, theoretically, use to construct the story. Such as:

9 & 10 Flight & Pursuit

Pursuit

BEGINNING: A crime or injustice occurs and the potential Fugitive is present. She is either guilty or innocent of the act and may just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

* Which type of Punishment is she fleeing--Just, Injust, or Unjust?

* Is she upset by what happens? Is it personal for her?

* Is there anyone there to witness it?

And so on. (That's a teeny excerpt of the chapter, obviously).

[chomiji]

Heh, that's beginning to sound like GM instrux for creating a Random Encounter.

I have a book that's actually quite entertaining for creating character backgrounds that reads any awful lot like that (it's the "Heroes of Legend" thing about halfway down the page under the link).

[readsalot.livejournal.com]

I looked her up in Google, and I get the feeling that she's a screenwriter who decided she could make decent money by writing books about writing. She probably can, but that doesn't mean that she knows what she's doing.

At least you borrowed the book from the library instead of buying it.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wouldn't have bought it. I got it partly because it just felt good and partly because there was one page that had some questions I thought might be good for helping me get out of a spot in the Yuletide story I was having trouble with, but by the time I got home from work I'd figured it out already and had gone on to new problems. XD