Subject:
|
Re: Story crafting (was Re: Please read this!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:05:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2927 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Great. Now, a note...
>
> The samples I picked were just that, samples. I chose a few to illustrate a
> point, not that if you fix these you're all set. They're characteristic of
> much of the work that I read.
I'm going to fix the dialogue first, then work
on the rest of the specifics.
> You're often better off not characterising characters, believe it or not. At
> least in my view. Let their actions (or their interactions with others via
> dialogs) speak for themselves and then let the reader draw their own
> conclusions. If you are using first person (the story is told from the point
> of view of a character and that character is speaking or narrating what
> transpired) you can let the character draw conclusions, but near as I can
> tell, you're not using first person. So present the evidence and let the
> reader decide what it means.
Avoid it all costs so the reader can figure it out, then.
Noted.
> Balance is needed. Don't insult the reader's intelligence by making it all
> TOO obvious. Even bad guys have good reasons (in their world view) for what
> they do unless they are just out and out insane (which is not very
> interesting to read about). But don't obscure things with multilayer
> similies and analogies either.
Ah, this sounds pretty fun, actually. Why make
an enemy obvious when in fact, they would be the
protagonist in the situation, only you think of
them opposite due to their actions?
(this is starting to get interesting.)
> So say that the clouds projected a shadow that looked like a falcon. State
> what happened or what the character saw, or even what the character thought
> it looked like, if you must get it across and you can't think of another way
> to do it, and let the reader draw their own inferences.
I'll ameliorate that as well...
> On another slightly related note, don't be afraid of "he said." Full stop.
> There is no need to say, for example "he said, slyly" or "he intimated" or
> whatever. Let the characters words show the tone, or use a sentence before
> that to set the mood.
But using 'he said' too many times can get
rather redundant.
> Omission.
Gone.
> Another piece of advice you've been given that's worth repeating is to use a
> spell checker. Then check the results of it. Then check your sentence
> structure for danglers, for excessive length, for clarity and so on.
Actually, I've ran quite a lot of the story through
the spell checker, although some words that may have
been spelled correctly, but used incorrectly are
still present. (I think I've corrected most of those
errors.) As for commas, I've cut the sentences down
pretty far as well.
> Even in your writing ABOUT your writing (such as here), you should do so.
> Because even this writing has an audience. You need to draw us (the critics)
> in and want us to help you so don't make it hard for us. Don't get defensive
> about it, you're asking for criticism and you're getting it. But make it
> engaging for us to help. And ask questions about why we asked things or what
> we meant.
I'm starting to believe I've got most of the
specifics down. Making it hard for you (the
critics) would be like saying 'no, your
opinion doesn't count' or not even bothering
to take into account your suggestions.
Actually, this critique serves to better my
writing, so I'm not the least angry about
receiving it. (and that's probably a good
quality with anyone.)
> Cutting is good, and so is adding and revising. But have a plan for what to
> cut and what to keep.
And what exactly to cut? Irrelevant detail? Someone
earlier suggested that most detail is pointless, but
how would a person perceive the background if I
just said 'they were standing in a courtyard'. Hmm...
> What are you trying to get across to the reader? If you could have the
> reader sum up what they saw or what happened in the chapter in a few
> sentences, what would they be? Write those down or keep them in your head,
> then rewrite the chapter and give the reader what they need to draw that
> conclusion without telegraphing it to them.
Well, for part three it's this.
Skye and Dash are split apart on their
stance with the society issue, and Skye
walks away arrogantly from Dash as
he tries to explain why her actions
may suggest war.
Sergei tries to oust Ludan, only to
fail in disparity.
Ludan's council tries to defend Faiye,
as enemy forces send an onslaught against
the city. Dash is nearly killed, only
for Agron to intercept the enemy so they
can escape with the wounded president.
> How does flamboyant at heart suggest that? At heart means at the center, but
> can imply that outside appearances are possibly different. Were they
> different? Is the flamboyance of the *discussion* (positing that a
> discussion can be so rather than a person) central to the story? I would
> have Dsth say something a bit more clear about what he means if he is with
> someone he trusts and respects and wants to bring in on things, or not even
> say anything at all if not.
This has been a rather troubling part of
dialogue to write. I was trying to use
flamboyant to suggest that Ludan (or
his council) had a discussion that
Dash perceived to be disheartening.
(or contreversial? to him, anyway.)
Might need some clarity here.
> Also what does this mean in your explanation:
>
> > The sction the militancy council had
> > was viewed by Dash as flamboyant
>
> What's a sction?
<sp.> oh, that's not good...
so I'm going to rewrite this.
-The discussion of the military council-
> Militancy is a state of mind, typically, not a sort of government. Avoid
> introducing new or made up words if you can. If you must, do it very very
> sparingly. And if you do make sure that it is extremely clear what the
> context is. UNLESS your goal is to have the reader wondering what you mean.
Well, that's a nice change to make. I'll
get at it later.
> No new words are used. But the reader is instantly hooked... what is a seed
> village? We know what seeds are and what villages are... but what do they
> mean together? And how would a person regard a village (of whatever sort) as
> "one of his villages". Who is this Doro? Who is the woman? Why doesn't she
> have a name?
> Now, if Octavia had dropped using the notion of what seed villages are and
> never referred to them again in the book, she would have done the reader a
> disservice. The reader would have been wondering about it to no purpose,
> distracting from the rest of the story.
> But she did not. Seed villages (whatever they are, I know but you don't
> unless you've read the book) are central to the entire plot of the book.
> Thus it is with "militancy council". You used it. If it's important to the
> story, it's a good usage. Used properly, it will hook us in. But leave new
> words and new usages unexplained carefully.
That might need a nice amount of explanation.
> Here's the first two paragraphs.
>
> "Doro discovered the woman by accident when he went to see what was left of
> one of his seed villages. The village was a comfortable mud-walled place
> surrounded by grasslands and scattered trees. But Doro realized even before
> he reached it that its people were gone. Slavers had been to it before him.
> With their guns and their greed, they had undone in a few hours the work of
> a thousand years. Those villagers they had not herded away, they had
> slaughtered. Doro found human bones, hair, bits of desiccated flesh missed
> by scavengers. He stood over a very small skeleton—the bones of a child —and
> wondered where the survivors had been taken. Which country or New World
> colony? How far would he have to travel to find the remnants of what had
> been a healthy, vigorous people?
>
> Finally, he stumbled away from the ruins bitterly angry, not knowing or
> caring where he went. It was a matter of pride with him that he protected
> his own. Not the individuals, perhaps, but the groups. They gave him their
> loyalty, their obedience, and he protected them.
>
> He had failed.
> "
>
> See the rest of the hooks that she sets? How could Doro know the people were
> gone before he reached it? What work of a thousand years was he referring
> to. How did he know it was slavers that did it?
>
> Also note how much of the millieu she gives us with the prhase "New World"
> colony"... all of a sudden we have ratcheted down in setting, this has to be
> Africa and the period somewhere between 1500 and 1800. She did that with
> just three words.
It's more difficult with a fantasy setting, though.
(I clarified that in an earlier chapter, although it
hasn't been posted.)
> Also... don't be afraid of short sentences. Or of short words. Excerpting
> again, here is the entire third paragraph:
>
> "He had failed."
>
> Full stop. That's it. 3 words. But what powerful words, especially after the
> first two paragraphs had lots of words in them!
> I highly recommend _The Wild Seed_ as an interesting and engaging book in
> its own right but it's quite instructive to read it and see how the author
> did things.
>
> That's good advice in general. Go read what you like. But read it with a
> critical eye. Why do you like it? What was the author doing to draw you in?
> Where did the author flub up? Where did it drag? And so on.
> ++Lar
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Fellow lego enthusiast
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Story crafting (was Re: Please read this!
|
| In lugnet.publish, Matt Hein writes: <lots of good back and forth> I can't stay too long tonite, I got a mountain calling my name but I will just leave you with this one clarification _Wild Seed_ *is* a fantasy. It may not be the conventional swords (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Story crafting (was Re: Please read this!
|
| (...) It can, but Tom Swifties can be even more irritating to read. Often you can just skip the whole thing altogether, and just have the quotes, if it's two people speaking... Bob walked up to Mary and whispered in her ear. "I think we should go (...) (22 years ago, 25-Dec-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Story crafting (was Re: Please read this!
|
| (...) Great. Now, a note... The samples I picked were just that, samples. I chose a few to illustrate a point, not that if you fix these you're all set. They're characteristic of much of the work that I read. (...) You're often better off not (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
