Writing Tips -- Good Cooks In Stories

Recently I've been watching Kakuriyo -- Bed And Breakfast For Spirits, and it's an enjoyable break from all the serious stuff I normally watch.  As the story progresses, however, it's obvious that (so far) it's fallen into a trope common in stories involving a skilled cook: characters tend to automatically like whatever food is made by the skilled cook, regardless of individual preferences.

Here are a few brief responses and proposed solutions to this trope:

Let some taste testers dislike the food.  Everyone has different tastes.  Some things are so gross to me that I can't imagine them tasting good to anyone, like this really bitter tea I had once.  But then someone else near me tried it and liked it.  This can be a challenge when writing good cooks because it is necessary to show how skilled they are.  And the easiest way to do that is to show everyone loving their food.

It's not necessarily 'bad' to depict characters that are so skilled their food is always perfect for whoever eats it.  But to make the story more realistic and deep, the author can also show what happens when someone doesn't like what the skilled cook prepares.  Such a thing could be an opportunity to explore and address ways of politely telling someone 'I don't really like this'.  Or maybe to show how the cook handles criticism and learns from it.

The taste testers don't have to dislike the food very often, but it would be realistic for that to happen once or twice.  For a real life comparison...when people go to a fancy restaurant, all the food is made by competent chefs, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd enjoy every single thing on the menu.

Allow skilled cooks to mess up now and then.  Of course this shouldn't happen very often.  These cooks have to appear competent after all.  But allowing them to mess up now and then can provide good character building moments.  Are they distracted by worries or excitement?  If so, they may accidentally burn a batch of whatever they're making.  

Are they learning to make something completely new and out of their realm of expertise?  Show that they are skilled enough to make good guesses when it comes to cooking this new thing(which could be an entirely different genre/culture of food) But also show them making a mistake that causes the dish to be lower quality than their food normally does.

Have them receive input from another skilled chef.  This can be someone on the same level as them, or someone more advanced.  Even if the skilled cook's food is normally good, that doesn't mean they do everything completely right and could still benefit from another's chef's tips and tricks.  

To address the taste and personal preference aspect of this...  If a professional chef dislikes a certain type of food, they might still be able to tell if it is well cooked or well prepared.  This might not always be the case, but in some instances at least, the professional will understand the 'standard' for common dishes and judge the dish based on that criteria, rather than their own taste buds.

So, yeah, just my two cents and observations on the matter.  

Have you noticed this trope yourself?  What are your thoughts on it?  Are there any other cooking story tropes that come to mind?

Writing Tips -- Pros And Cons Of First Person Narrative:

This is a partial reboot of an old post from my tumblr, creatureofgraphite.tumblr.com.  I decided to delve a little deeper into the topic of first person than that initial post did because I've found that first person is one of my least favorite point of view styles.  Although there are several first person stories that I do like, it's still the POV I tend to avoid.  

This made me wonder what it takes to make make a good first person story.  Unpacking what I like and dislike about first person POV sounded like a good writing exercise as well, so here we are.

So...some cons of first person:

First person is, to an extent, less common, and thus a little jarring at times.  While this tends to vary a bit based on the genre, as well as time of publication being discussed (the popularity of different POV styles probably ebbs and flows) other points of view seem to be a more favored now days.  This is especially true when we add visual media to the mix.  Most movies aren't in first person at all.  If first person is included, it is usually only at certain parts of the film, rather than all the way through.  So first person is more likely to feel a bit jarring, except for the readers that habitually seek out first person stories.  Interestingly enough, first person is usually the POV type I see people actively saying they dislike or try to avoid.

Prose sometimes suffers, and we are less likely to feel like we're inside the character's head.  These are in the same section because they stem from a similar issue:  With first person, it is easy for authors to fall into the trap of using 'I' sentences too much.  Instead of simply reporting visuals or running through thought processes, there may be too many sentences that say 'I saw that' or 'I thought that'.  It is very much like sitting down and having Grandpa tell a story.  While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it means a lot of detail is omitted and we are not given much detail on character thoughts. Now days, many readers want to feel immersed in the story, which tends to mean being in the character's head.

'I' sentences are fine when used sparingly, but only when necessary.  'I saw a mouse sniffing at the open packet of food.  I hated mice.  They were always chewing holes in things so they could steal food and make messes for me to clean up.  I grabbed a jar and stalked over to the table.'  isn't as vivid as something like 'The rustling on the table was a mouse, sniffing at the open food packet.  Nasty.  Those stupid little rodents were always chewing holes in things so they could steal our food and leave their poop around.  Where was that useless cat?  Shaking my head, I snatched a jar from the counter and crept to the table.'

The second option sounds slightly better from a prose standpoint, and gives us a better window into the character's thoughts.  Why?  The first example has the narrator simply reporting actions and a few blunt thoughts.  It also included a few unnecessary 'I' statements that could have been removed in favor of more description.  The second example, however, is almost like the narrator is a better storyteller, able to communicate their thoughts more vividly to the reader.

First person narration presents a more obvious bias.  Bias is an important aspect of writing, but is often more blatant in first person.  This isn't an immediate problem, but it can annoy some readers that prefer to form their own conclusions instead of having a narrator telling them what to think.  This annoyance often multiplies when the reader disagrees with the narrator.  Character bias is extremely realistic in a first person narrative, but it is important to ensure that the story is well suited to first person.

Obviously, the audience is going to form some of their own conclusions regardless.  In the Emperor's New Groove, for instance, the viewers probably view Cuzco as selfish and bratty no matter how many times he describes himself as a nice guy.  But this is fine because a story like The Emperor's New Groove works wonderfully in first person.  

Yet, in other cases, stories are more fun when the reader/viewer can simply watch events unfold without feeling like a character is directly speaking to them and demanding they interpret things a certain way.  This is a factor that should be considered when deciding on POV type, since it will affect the mood and audience perception of the story.  Narrator bias is good, but shouldn't be used in a grating way.

Narrator bias and personality quirks should be present, but often aren't.  Imagine a dog chasing a cat around the neighborhood.  That story would sound different based on who's perspective the story is told from.  How would the dog report the scene?  How would a cat narrate it?  What about the thoughts from the human watching the chase?  

A cat, for instance, might try to gain sympathy by talking about how upsetting it was to be chased by the big, mean dog, but intentionally leave out the fact that the dog only gave chase after being insulted and scratched on the nose.  But the audience might assume the insult happened, depending on how the cat tells the story.  The way characters tell their stories based off their personality and audience is a fascinating dynamic.  The issue is that many first person stories don't do this nearly as much as they should.  In fact, now and then, a first person story might be so lacking in these dynamics that some may wonder why the story wasn't simply written in third person or omniscient instead.  If the story doesn't lend itself well to bias, that might be a sign that first person isn't a good POV for it.

Now for some pros:

Done right, first person can inject just as much, if not more, personality than third person.  This is someone telling us their blunt thoughts, or at least the ones they are willing to share.  And done right, these speech patterns can tell us a lot about the narrating character.  This often means the author needs to have a vague idea of where and why the narrator is telling the story, along with the narrator's intended audience.  Is the narrator a grandparent looking back over their life with regret, perhaps telling their story as a cautionary tale?  Or is the narrator a sneaky criminal trying to paint himself in a better light?  This can even be a fun way to enhance the story's lore.  Is the story in first person because it's written in a journal?  The fact that the journal exists in the first place can be an important plot point.  What inspired the narrator to journal the story down at all?  

It's easier to portray a first person narrator as more biased/unreliable.  This branches off the previous point, but the unreliable narrator thing deserves a paragraph of its own.  If someone wants to do an unreliable POV story, first person is often a great way to go, especially if the author wants to make it obvious, fun and quirky.  The Emperor's New Groove is a great example.  The audience knows that the narrator is unreliable because his words don't match up with the story's circumstances, and when narrators don't notice such discrepancies they've probably deluded themselves.  While a similar effect can be accomplished with third person, first person unreliability is a bit different.  At the very least, it makes the unreliability more obvious, and the audience is more likely to know that the discrepancies are a deliberate part of the narrator's character.

It gives the story a different feel.  Depending on how the first person aspect is used, it may make the story feel like an old classic like Where the Red Fern Grows.  Or, the story may need to be in first person to accentuate the fact that the tale is the character's diary or collection of letters.

Overall, first person isn't a bad POV to use, but it should probably be chosen only if it fits the story and the narrative is developed in an entertaining way.

So, yeah, just my two cents on the subject.  I'll probably go through and make a similar post for each of the main POV styles.  What do you think of first person POV?  Do you have anything to add to the pros and cons list, or any tips for those writing first person?

Thanks for reading! :)