Tuckerizations and Inside Jokes
I’m about 10,000 words through the third draft of Libriomancer. The scene I wrote yesterday introduces one of Isaac’s colleagues, a fellow magic-wielding librarian. I ended up basing the character on a librarian friend of mine (with permission), one who routinely used to kick my butt at Trivial Pursuit back in grad. school.
I’ve got another character who will be based on the winner of a fundraising auction from earlier this year. That’s two Tuckerizations in one book. (Tuckerization being the practice of inserting real-life people into the book as minor characters.)
I’m also writing a protagonist who’s a SF/F fan, meaning there will be inside jokes aplenty. He quotes Star Wars at one point. He has a toy TARDIS hanging from his rear-view mirror. He makes quips that some readers might not get…
…and that’s where I run into a dilemma. Because with everything I’m doing here, it would be too easy for the book to become self-indulgent. Especially when you add in the fact that I’m bringing Smudge back for this series.
So I’m falling back on the same rule I use when writing humor:
The story comes first.
Years ago, I was reading one of Robert Asprin’s MYTH books, and there was a scene where our hero meets a green-scaled taxi driver. The driver proceeds to talk about this convention where he won the chance to be written into some author’s next book…
Bam. Just like that, I was flung out of the story. I loved the early MYTH books, and I thought it was pretty cool that Asprin had done that, but I was thinking about Robert Asprin instead of the story. It felt like he had paused the story to squeeze in this scene.
With Libriomancer, I could easily work in all sorts of details and backstory about my friend, but she’s not a primary character. It might be fun to work in that puma joke from ’98, but it wouldn’t add to the story.
On the other hand, it would be in character for Isaac, who prides himself on his brains, to mutter something about a Trivial Pursuit rematch when he sees her. It’s not that such things can’t work; they just have to fit the story.
The same holds true for Smudge, and for the inside SF/F jokes. My agent has already suggested I trim the Smudge scenes in chapter one, because while they might be appealing to me and to my goblin fans, they slow down this story. Likewise for Isaac’s Star Wars quotes, or references to other SF/F books and films.
In the end, I believe Tuckerizations, inside jokes, and humor in general should all work the same way:
- It should fit the story.
- It should add to the enjoyment of the story for readers who get it.
- It should not detract from the story for readers who don’t get it.
Easier said than done, especially with the rather meta premise of Libriomancer. It’s a book about SF/F books and magic, and it would be so easy to pack it full of geek references and insider humor … but I don’t want to restrict my readership like that. So in general, if I think something will bump a reader out of the book, it’s getting cut.
What do you think? Any examples of effective or ineffective Tuckerizations or inside jokes? For the writers, what has your experience been with writing (or avoiding) them?
snapes_angel
August 11, 2011 @ 10:06 am
Jim.
Jim, Jim, Jim.
Write it first, and worry about cutting out a lot of the fun parts later. >=3 If it’s too self-indulgent, then still write it, but put it into a separate file, with notation. Hey, you never know: someone may want a geek version, some day. Also, you can still post outtakes on your web site, right?
Jim C. Hines
August 11, 2011 @ 10:10 am
Well, this is the third draft, so I’ve not only written it first, I wrote it second, too 🙂
snapes_angel
August 11, 2011 @ 10:32 am
At least some of them may be fun on the web site. I like the TARDIS in the car, and that doesn’t seem too in-jokey for people to grok. Considering the nature of the book, and the location of the action, you’d expect a lot of relatively esoteric stuff…so long as it doesn’t overshadow the plot (at least, not too much: red herring?).
Bill Pearson
August 11, 2011 @ 10:35 am
It seems like the real trick with inside jokes is playing it straight for long enough that the inside joke pops up when you least expect it. I agree the story comes first, but sometimes it is worth loosing the story for a second on a really good joke.
I suppose if you are aiming at a wide audience you may have to pull from a wider range of novels as source material. Though I honesty don’t know what you can take from bodice ripping romance, other than a ripped bodice to throw at someone to blind and distract them. 🙂
Jim C. Hines
August 11, 2011 @ 10:37 am
Actually, the first chapter also includes a brief reference to Scottish highlander-style romance novels…
Boyd Meier
August 11, 2011 @ 11:30 am
I usually think of Tuckerizations as things that are obvious enough that a casual reading shows the derivation. Those tend to drive me crazy. I much prefer a low key reference to some character trait or habit that would not be obvious to the casual reader. An example is some of the Wheel of Time charity auction characters that Jordan and Sanderson inserted, the name is derived in some way from the real person, along with some aspect of the role, but if you are reading the book and don’t know about it in advance, then it doesn’t make itself obvious.
The in-joke thing is significantly more difficult IMHO, because it’s easy to slip into XANTH mode or Myth mode where everything is an in-joke and you spend more time trying to figure out the references than you do enjoying the book. That’s especially true with the type of book that Libromancer sounds like. I’d just say “everything in moderation” as the primary rule. We shouldn’t be reading the book and wondering if we’re missing a certain in-joke or not. And getting a certain in-joke shouldn’t be in any way crucial to the story, unless it’s a fairly obvious joke.
Enough rambling, I guess. I like the rules you’ve set up, so it sounds like you’re on the right path. 🙂
snapes_angel
August 11, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
Speaking of Xanth mode, I usually just read those straight through and enjoy the story as-is; and, if I get the in-jokes, fine. If not, well, that’s okay, too. I try to focus on the story itself while reading. If something strays too far from the story, I usually end up skimming over it till I find the story again.
Jon Lundy
August 11, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
The most recent Tuckerization I saw was in A Dance of Dragons. Pat of Pat’s Fantasy hotlist was tuckerized. I would have never noticed it if he hadn’t pointed it out on his blog. I think a Tuckerization works best with the name, some minor descriptions, and maybe a few character quirks. The Asprin example was far too blatant. (IMO the later Myth books got too meta for their own good. The first ones had references throughout and were fine, but the later ones lost track of the story).
Jim C. Hines
August 11, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
I’d tend to agree – it works best when it’s subtle enough that those “in the know” will get it and hopefully appreciate it, while the rest of us won’t notice and will (hopefully) just keep on reading and enjoying the story.
Birdy Diamond, Roving Robin & Paranormal Diva
August 11, 2011 @ 2:13 pm
Yes, now that you mention it, that scene in ‘Myth’ does rather throw one out of the world.
Fortunately, that’s the only place I can think of that he does it.
As to the ‘do I or don’t I’ aspect, it seems like once again, an author is being put in a bit of a pickle.
To be blunt, most folks are apparently not paid anywhere NEAR enough to be able to restrict themselves to their very ‘Bestest Peeps’, to paraphrase marketing jargon, so on the one wing, you’re flinging your nets as wide as you can, which means leaving your works as jargon & inside-joke free as possible.
On the other wing tho’, it’s nice to be able to reward your loyal followers a bit by bringing in little tidbits here and there.
For me, I love the welcoming aspect of non-obtrusive ‘tuckerisms’. Sort of weaving all of this literature together into a soft meta-structure that I can sink into and relax. I read a lot of series S-F & fantasy, so appropriate references are reassuring somehow.
Really obvious ones, like that scene you mentioned, are annoying. In that particular example, what made it even worse was that it seemed so out of character. Shoe-horned in because he had to sort of thing, rather than flowing naturally.
So, yes. Flow & Story are all, in my opinion.
What serves the story stays in.
What does not serve the story does not.
I just wish that following that higher calling would let authors take care of what they need to take care of, money-wise.
How can we as the reading public help? 🙂
Getting VERY TIRED of Big Biz taking unfair advantage of those who help make them who they are.
And yes, if you can’t leave them in for story reasons, maybe we could have some of the outtakes on the blog every now and again?
That would be a very happy thing on my planet. 🙂
Have an Awesome! 🙂 :>
Jon Lundy
August 11, 2011 @ 10:07 pm
I just finished reading Kitemaster and read the sample chapter for Libriomancer, since I had already read this blog entry, I kept it in mind.
1. I knew who Smudge was, and why he would catch fire, be dangerous,etc… If you didn’t have that information I think the chapter would be a little confusing.
2. I though the intro chapter was quite good and I’m looking forward to purchasing the full novel. I had already read the Libriomancer chapter in Goblin Tales so I knew the basic concept, I’m not sure how well someone would pick it up from this chapter. IIRC the short story had some exposition about the idea, this chapter didn’t really have exposition, but the description of the process should be sufficient to give people the idea of what is going on.
I think in-jokes are quite welcome, but should be in character and not interrupt the flow too much. Another recent example is in Ghost Story, Harry Dresden uses Star Wars jokes fairly frequently and then goes into a half page description of HOW he can do so despite the fact that his magic messes up technology. I don’t know if Jim Butcher had received questions about this aspect and decided to explain it. I felt it was amusing and enjoyed it, but it was a digression from the main storyline.
Jim C. Hines
August 12, 2011 @ 9:11 am
Thanks, Jon! I appreciate the feedback, as well as the review over on Amazon!