group discussion
topic:
Writing: Skills and trade secrets
Comments
(showing 27-76)
post a comment »
deleted user wrote: "Defining plot point, and what it can do for you:In my current novel I’m stuck at a place where my main character is involved in several investigations. The police are after her. The vampire s..."
You have some valid points, but one thought that I try to keep in mind whenever I am writing is "does this scene, and everything in it have a purpose?" If it doesn't cut it. So, yes that might mean moving a character from point A to point B quickly, but if I mentioned the small nook in the gnarled tree on the edge of the trail, it is for a reason; it may be much later in the book, but it is for a reason.
You might call this plot points, or you might just think i am skipping over the 'getting there' piece but everything in your book must be there for a reason, even if it is something as simple as describing the shimmering sunset to reader why they need to care for the environment. It all has to have a purpose.
Quinton Wall
http://quintonwall.com
Breakthrough debut novel, The Seed of Hope, available now: http://bit.ly/takeabite
Connect with me on facebook @ http://bit.ly/theseedofhopefan
Get exclusive book tweet updates by following @quintonwall
Going back to #65 - I don't have an agent (one is not really necessary in New Zealand, where Random House will - and did - accept my unsolicited manuscript following an initial query, though I would certainly be seeking an agent if looking to publish overseas), but I have recently posted an interview on my blog with a New Zealand author who, straight off the bat, secured a US agent and deals for six fantasy novels from major US publishers - two YA standalones and a four-book adult series.How did she do it? By writing well - very well, from the little I've so far seen of her work - and carefully researching the appropriate agent to approach, and how to make that approach. Her name is Helen Lowe, and she discusses this in the interview at
http://timjonesbooks.blogspot.com/2008/0...
POV is a topic that interests me a lot. I did my first novel, City of Masks, in first person (through journal entries and a few other documents), though switching occasionally to a different person's journal. It was a lot of fun to convey that the person writing the journal was an unreliable narrator and didn't really always have a handle on what was going on. However, I think it also helped to draw the reader into his somewhat innocent moral perspective.
I like a challenge, so I'm writing my current novel (publicly on a blog, http://gu-novel.blogspot.com) in second person. The idea is that it's describing an immersive documentary some years in the future, where you, the reader/viewer/experiencer, experience the story from various people's points of view, though most often that of the documentary maker. What that does, I think, is give a more vivid experience of seeing the issues from different angles. (The documentary is on a disruptive technology.)
Somewhat connected: I came across some material yesterday on the different effects of using first-person and third-person perspectives in therapy (I'm a hypnotherapist), and blogged about it: http://hypno.co.nz/blogs/index.php/2008/... Basically immersion in a first-person view of an emotional experience will bring about a repetition of that emotional experience, but if you view your own past experience from a third-person perspective you are more likely to make rational re-assessments of it.
I'd like to pick up on these ideas regarding first person versus third person, and how it relates to characterization.
To start with, the biggest reason for using 1st person versus 3rd person, to me (and I suppose this is only opinion) is:
1) 1st person allows for a more powerful and introspective view of a main character.
2) 3rd person forfeits this advantage because the author has no way for the main character to communicate all of the scenes in the story through one perspective.
Consider the options available for 1st person, however. A main character might extract information from another character, for example, or read about a different scene. In one book I devoted two small chapters from a second characters 1st person POV by saying, "Years later, while around a campfire, I recall Mary telling this account of the battle: '........'" A first person character might even dream about some other view, or imagine it. It might be fun if the imagined scene is even wrong.
The idea, however, that 1st person allows better internal description, while 3rd person allows better external, is probably not a huge issue. I agree with the former, but not the latter. The only character who is harder to describe externally in 1st person is the main character, and that isn't really very hard to accomplish, considering all of the various ways this can be done. In fact, I think the many ways a person might describe oneself, or bear someong else describe you, much more interesting than how an omiscient view might do the work.
fusiongary
To start with, the biggest reason for using 1st person versus 3rd person, to me (and I suppose this is only opinion) is:
1) 1st person allows for a more powerful and introspective view of a main character.
2) 3rd person forfeits this advantage because the author has no way for the main character to communicate all of the scenes in the story through one perspective.
Consider the options available for 1st person, however. A main character might extract information from another character, for example, or read about a different scene. In one book I devoted two small chapters from a second characters 1st person POV by saying, "Years later, while around a campfire, I recall Mary telling this account of the battle: '........'" A first person character might even dream about some other view, or imagine it. It might be fun if the imagined scene is even wrong.
The idea, however, that 1st person allows better internal description, while 3rd person allows better external, is probably not a huge issue. I agree with the former, but not the latter. The only character who is harder to describe externally in 1st person is the main character, and that isn't really very hard to accomplish, considering all of the various ways this can be done. In fact, I think the many ways a person might describe oneself, or bear someong else describe you, much more interesting than how an omiscient view might do the work.
fusiongary
Tifa wrote:
well...its my first time to write a novel...and sometimes i had difficulties on how to write it....but if theres some kind of online teaching on how to write a novel :)
One book I'd recomend is "Building Believable Characters" by Marc McCutcheon. It's a Writer's Digest Sourcebook. It not only helps creating characters for your story, but it give all kinds of discriptions of clothing, emotions, jobs, foreign names, types of homes and so much more. I can't say enough good things about this book.
G W Pickle
My publisher is Trytium Press. They accept SF & F.
Their website is:
http://www.trytium.com/
David is a really a nice guy and I'm pleased with the end product. They do use LSI for their printing. It is POD but, it's top quality all the way. They really listened to me about the cover art and gave me almost exactly what I wanted. I just cant say enough good about this publisher. FYI, the contract is very author friendly. I hope this helps.
G W Pickle
Bigtime congrats for that, GW. I guess I broke my own rule about never saying always. Say, who is that publisher. I have a need for a contact.
Gary Wedlund
Gary Wedlund
Gary
I guess I'm the exception to #5. My first novel(also my first attempt at writing a novel) was sold twice. My first sale was to an overseas E book publisher. They went out of business. I resold my book to a U.S publisher and it is now available as a paperback. Now,I'm busy writing the second book in the series.
G W Pickle
I would suggest reading the book, The First Five Pages, as a nice and extremely easy way of getting a feel for a first time novelist. The book jumpstarts the writer and gets them thinking about how to at least start a novel.
My second suggestion is a writegroup.
My third is to just start writing opening pages, leaving it at that.
my fourth is to find a good novel and type out the text. That's right, copy it. Get a feeling for how the book flows by accessing the tactile brain.
My fifth is to realize that the first book is unsellable.
My sixth is to post the first page or two here, and let us trash it. Ask someone to rewrite it for you, and see what they concerned themselves with.
Hope that helps some.
Gary Wedlund
My second suggestion is a writegroup.
My third is to just start writing opening pages, leaving it at that.
my fourth is to find a good novel and type out the text. That's right, copy it. Get a feeling for how the book flows by accessing the tactile brain.
My fifth is to realize that the first book is unsellable.
My sixth is to post the first page or two here, and let us trash it. Ask someone to rewrite it for you, and see what they concerned themselves with.
Hope that helps some.
Gary Wedlund
Writer's Digest provides online courses. Though I have not personally taken an online course, I did complete a Writer's Digest correspondence course about five years ago and it was fantastic. Three of my assignments became chapters in my first novel.
well...its my first time to write a novel...and sometimes i had difficulties on how to write it....but if theres some kind of online teaching on how to write a novel :)
Hey Gary, Are you trying to tell me that my chances of being obnoxiously rich and famous are less than slim?
It is a tough reality that, for most of us, we'll never get to see our names on the New York Times Bestseller list. Even if what we are writing might just be just as good as, or even better than, the works that reach those hallowed heights (and those delicious dollars).
What I think is important is the fact that we are all writing. Until someone wises up and offers me the mega bucks deal for my book, I squeeze in an hour here and an hour there between work, church, family, Guitar Hero, and the occasional three winks of sleep. Sometimes, during the wee hours of the morning, in the pale light of my monitor, I do dream of how wonderful it would be to turn my hobby into a lucrative full time job. However, to keep from driving myself crazy with dreams-of-what-may-never-be, I try to take a little satisfaction in the fact that my goal was to write a book. I may never make a dime on it, and some might try to tell me it was a colossal waste, but i get to check it off my "list" and don't have to worry about regrets.
Anyway... That's Rick's sermon for September 11, 2008.
So, getting back to Gary's point. Does anyone have any sure-fire tips, tricks, suggestions that have worked for you in your attempts to snag the attention of a good agent?
Oh, and it looks like I completely forgot to attach the link from earlier.
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/agents.htm
Well, far be it from me to know much about it, but I do have a few words of advise. The biggest is that agents don't cost much. 15% isn't a whole lot, and if you are being published by anybody at all respectable, you should get an agent to finalize the contract, even if there are no changes. Then you have an agent. It is by far the best way to get one because you are free money.
What an agent buys you is access after that point. Lots of major houses don't take submissions without an agent doing it for you. Rendom House, for example, falls under that category.
Almost every author who is published has an agent. Almost all of them complain about them. Still, you're talking peanuts for the flexibility of having an agent send your work to better houses.
The next thing to think about there is self-publishing. I think the playing field is shifting on us there. What is really needed is a process whereby self-published work can go through some kind of vetting house. That way everybody can publish, and the house can rate the work, giving seals of approval. The problem with self-publishing is that anybody can do it and thus a lot of really, really bad stuff gets out there. The public has reason to suspect it, as do the book stores.
The reason I bring that up is that all of the major publishers are now losing money. In fantasy literature, TOR owns 90% of the market all by itself. Nobody edits submissions. You get just about nothing but exposure to Border's shelf space and I am convinced that 80% of all published books happen because somebody knew somebody else. In this environment, it's a wonder any of what gets published is good and it's certain that Moby Dick would never have met press.
Let's go from there to the issue of how a book gets attention from a slush editor. Mike Resneck once told me that at Rand each slush editor has to move through 30 submissions an hour. Counting breaks, licking return stamps and any novel catching the eye enough to read two pages, that's about two paragraphs worth of reading per submission. Out of that, a slush editor might toss one manuscript up to a bigger editor a week. What this means is that every book has to grab you by the nuts within a hundred words. That tends to shape the products.
So, good luck.
Gary Wedlund
What an agent buys you is access after that point. Lots of major houses don't take submissions without an agent doing it for you. Rendom House, for example, falls under that category.
Almost every author who is published has an agent. Almost all of them complain about them. Still, you're talking peanuts for the flexibility of having an agent send your work to better houses.
The next thing to think about there is self-publishing. I think the playing field is shifting on us there. What is really needed is a process whereby self-published work can go through some kind of vetting house. That way everybody can publish, and the house can rate the work, giving seals of approval. The problem with self-publishing is that anybody can do it and thus a lot of really, really bad stuff gets out there. The public has reason to suspect it, as do the book stores.
The reason I bring that up is that all of the major publishers are now losing money. In fantasy literature, TOR owns 90% of the market all by itself. Nobody edits submissions. You get just about nothing but exposure to Border's shelf space and I am convinced that 80% of all published books happen because somebody knew somebody else. In this environment, it's a wonder any of what gets published is good and it's certain that Moby Dick would never have met press.
Let's go from there to the issue of how a book gets attention from a slush editor. Mike Resneck once told me that at Rand each slush editor has to move through 30 submissions an hour. Counting breaks, licking return stamps and any novel catching the eye enough to read two pages, that's about two paragraphs worth of reading per submission. Out of that, a slush editor might toss one manuscript up to a bigger editor a week. What this means is that every book has to grab you by the nuts within a hundred words. That tends to shape the products.
So, good luck.
Gary Wedlund
My research shows that an agent is going to take somewhere between 10-15%. However, it is widely held that having an agent is going to make you more money overall.
I imagine that the big difference between Agent vs. Publisher is that an agent is probably more likely to get you in with one of the larger publishers. I assume that with a larger publisher behind your book, marketing will be less of an issue.
I know... "Imagine" and "Assume" don't always = reality.
Take a look at the following link. It summarizes most of what I've read about reasons to have/not to have an agent.
My biggest issue is also marketing, as I am with a small publisher. They've treated me great (and my book too), but they don't have the connections and pull needed to put it in all the stores.
I don't know which is better for my next book: finding an agent or finding a publisher with more oomph, or doing both. I've heard that even though agents take money, they generally make you enough that you're still making more than you would have without them.
But is that only as far as getting a contract and all that? I still think that after that it's up to your publisher to get the thing in stores. Does anyone know different?
A.L. Travis
I don’t even know if we have literary agents working for authors in my corner of the world. At least it is not common. What does an agent do for you, and how much would you pay him/her?
Myself, I know next to nothing about the publishing industry, even after having published my first novel. I sent my manuscript to the most well known traditional publishers in my country, in alphabetical order. I got rejected by A, C and D before G picked me up. I actually doubt it would have worked out much better or faster if I had had more experience or knowledge. It seems to me that rejections and acceptances both happen by chance, half the time. As does success.
Rick wrote:
That brings up another question to the post:
Are most of you working through agents, or straight with the publishers? Personally, I've been trying to secure an agent because of my ignorance in the industry.
I went straight to the publisher, twice on the same book. The first was an E publisher (they went out of business) & the 2nd is a triditional publisher. I did my reshearch and blindly plunged forward. So far, so good. My biggest problem is marketing, getting the word out.
Gary sorry to hear about the rejection, but that means one less rejection till you get an acceptance. Good luck.
G W Pickle
I knew that Robert Jordan was dead, because I knew that Brandon Sanderson, one of my favorite new sci-fi/fantasy authors, has been asked to finish the 12th book in the Wheel of Time series.
I didn't know he was dead either. If he's dead, then I'm not sure I want to keep reading. I'm interested enough in watching the characters grow (especially Rand) that I've learned to skim through all the monotony. But WOW! That would be a big investment in time if there's no closure.
Gary, since misery sometimes loves company I'll share that I just received my first rejection from a round of query letters I sent out to agents for my first book 7:The Mahar.
I'm not trying to tell anyone that my book is going to be required reading when my grandkids take English Lit, but I think I can honestly say that I've spent good money on a lot of books that weren't as good.
As long as you KNOW that its good, keep on plugging and you'll find someone to agree with you.
That brings up another question to the post:
Are most of you working through agents, or straight with the publishers? Personally, I've been trying to secure an agent because of my ignorance in the industry.
Is he dead? I had no idea ...
For some bizarre reason that makes me want to revisit the series, though I doubt I will make it to the end.
I read the entire series. I think that's 12 books, but who's counting. As bad as it is that Robert draggggggggeeeeddddd me along for ... something like 7,000 pages and maybe 3,000,000 words is, by the time he died, he left twenty subplots open, along with two dozen main characters, half of whom were in some kind of lingering bondage, one way or the other. Robert Jordan's biggest sin isn't dragging us onward (bad at that is). It's being unable to finish anything because there was too much money in soap opera.
Ouch. I'm in a bad mood. Must be those two rejections that I got this week, both saying I can't write worth a crap. That while in the midst of reading two books that are mega-sellers that leave me wondering how they got published?
Gary Wedlund
Ouch. I'm in a bad mood. Must be those two rejections that I got this week, both saying I can't write worth a crap. That while in the midst of reading two books that are mega-sellers that leave me wondering how they got published?
Gary Wedlund
I did it with book 1. Seldom have I ever failed to finish a book, and can usually identify why: either it doesn't fit my mood, or the eight deadly words apply: "I don't care about these characters at all." I have to feel that the characters are compelling, and I didn't think RJ created anything more than stock fixtures, though he did get very wrapped up in setting---six page descriptions of a town, for instance [yes, I exaggerate:]. I LOVED his "Prologue": THAT character jumped off the page and bit me, but when we turned from this mentally broken man to the main character, then he takes NINE chapters to get them on the road for their quest . . . . THWACK! I hit the wall, then threw the book against a wall.
I do so hear you about that getting the charactor from point A to point B. I find myself choosing either to write for plot, and then going back to flesh it out, or writing for what I call Voice, and hoping the charactor will eventually get to Point B. Sometimes it is like trying to get children to go to bed on time.
While I enjoy either way, it would be nice to not have to choose.
On another note, Kristen, for a good example of how to slow down your writing, read the new Neal Stephenson. You might not want ot go as far as he does in his techniques, but his pacing is worth a look. Damn good book, too.
I just joined up with this group. Thank you all for the intelligent, hands-on useful comments.
And I have to admit that I threw Book 5 of Jordan's series against a wall in frustration, and never went back to it.
Hey Gary,
I totally know where you're coming from! My book, The Pillar of Light (The Legends of Milana series), follows a group of nine. It moves along very quickly, and I stick to the perspectives of a couple of people, but reserve the right to occasionally jump to the other nine (and I do).
And, as a reader, I eventually gave up reading Robert Jordan's stuff (gasp! I admitted that out-loud?!) because I got tired of reading about carpet and upholstery, when I wanted to know what was happening to Rand!
Anyways, I know that a great many authors plow through their first drafts, attempting to balance flesing and plot, only to have to go through and chop up all their painstaking work on their next draft.
So here's my tip: Do it backwards. Don't write a first draft, write a skeleton draft. I write like mad, put in the things I need to, and focus on getting where I'm going: the end. When a swordsmith creates a sword, he bangs it into a close idea of what he wants, then re-heats and works in all the details. When you have a skeleton done (not to mention that heady feeling of oh-my-gosh-I-finished-it), put the thing away for a month (Trust me, if it's worth anything, you won't forget it).
After you've gotten over you're euphoria, pick it up and read it. It's really easy to see where you need details, and I find it way more enjoyable to *add* richness, fun ideas, and all those neat tidbits that you're brain has been working on over the last month, rather than cutting up your work. Call this your flesh draft, and resist the temptation to edit silly little flaws - don't waste your energy, focus on fleshing out what needs it. If you're a real glutton for punishment, you can type the whole thing in from scratch, as it will probably change a lot!
Take another break.
Now, do your skin draft. Read it again. Does it make sense? Now you can cut anything that was "too much," do a spellcheck, look for consistency, grammar, etc. Get a friend to read it (be specific: do you want them looking for grammar or details or places where they are confused?).
I know, it may seem a bit backwards, but for some reason, working with the bare minimum and building on that is easier for me. Readers are always telling me they can "see everything so clearly!"
Good luck Gary,
Hope this helps a bit,
A.L. Travis
The Pillar of Light: The Legends of Milana series
www.altravis.webs.com
Gary
I get where you're going with this...
I certainly agree with you and find it funny that you mention Robert Jordan. I'm reading through the series right now and it certainly DOES take some time for him to get his characters from A to B.
I also have trouble sometimes balancing my efforts to flesh out all the details versus getting to the meat of the story, getting to something interesting.
I probably tend to try to get to the point, which sometimes leaves me wondering if I'm painting a vivid enough picture for the reader. However, I almost find it a necessity because I have eight main characters that I follow closely in my story line. I feel like I have to keep the story moving at a very fast pace. Too much detail surrounding one character, or even a couple, can be tolerated. But if I bog a reader down with to many details about Kayne, then Eyou, then Joan, then Taneli, then Betzalel... By the time I get back to Kayne, I run the risk that the reader might have forgotten why they cared about him in the first place.
Does anyone have any guidelines on how much effort they put into fleshing out the details? For instance, I always try to keep physical descriptions down to two or three sentences...
Wonderful, wonderful insights! I have to search myself on why do I read. I am not a tv watcher I may watch and hour a month....how much of our time do we spend with our writer selves? Is it something to do, is it something that has to be put to paper or drive us nuts, a creative outlet, or are certain people born with the ability to put inner thoughts and various inner selves to paper? How many are out there that the mechanics of writing put them off. This discussion should help, Gary.
Defining plot point, and what it can do for you:
In my current novel I’m stuck at a place where my main character is involved in several investigations. The police are after her. The vampire slayers are after her. The main vampire is after her. She’s not a vampire. Clues to troubles exist at two gypsy homes, a Brotherhood office an accounting firm and who knows where else.
While this goes on, she is recently divorced. Her daughter is estranged. Her sister is a total mystery, and sis’s servant is a transitioning transsexual. She has a new boyfriend and a new job and in three days has lost 60 pounds, fifteen years of age and men are suddenly attracted to her like a magnet.
Ironically she has no car, few clothes and no steady place to live.
Even more ironically, the story isn’t a mystery novel.
So, you might ask, “What does that have to do with plot points?”
Well, in order to do all of this I have to move my characters from point A to point B. A LOT. I have to engage my character in a ton of conversations. I have to feed my character through a lot of settings and seemingly endless conflicts.
NONE OF THIS RELATES TO PLOT POINT. All of this is plot. That might not be all that good.
I once said that the hardest thing for me is moving a character from point A to B. It is a really hard thing to do without boring the writer. Writers engage in lots of characterization, descriptive landscape, wind, weather, where’s the sun, what time of year is it and reflections about bad relationships (hopefully not mommy and daddy), mud and clothing design.
Ideally, I want to get to the PLOT POINTS. I want those moments in the plot where things change. I can define the first portion of my current novel in plot points thus: Woman gets screwed in divorce. She realizes someone is following her. A gypsy curses her, but she blows it off. Her sister and her house are really, really, really strange, but hey, she's an addict, what did she expect?
Sometimes I read books where I wonder if there are any plot points. Everybody seems to just be on the road to getting somewhere, taking a billion pages doing it. I love Robert Jordan, but hey, I skim that crazy dead man. Once the characters arrive, a bad novelist does nothing but sit there and describe the different setting, going right back to day two on the road. (All of this road business being either metaphorical or literal, depending upon what you're doing).
So, my point is, a writer needs to make the getting there interesting, but also be aware of the concept of plot point so that it’s worth the travel. It is worth the time to start thinking in terms of PLOT POINTS.
Gary Wedlund
In my current novel I’m stuck at a place where my main character is involved in several investigations. The police are after her. The vampire slayers are after her. The main vampire is after her. She’s not a vampire. Clues to troubles exist at two gypsy homes, a Brotherhood office an accounting firm and who knows where else.
While this goes on, she is recently divorced. Her daughter is estranged. Her sister is a total mystery, and sis’s servant is a transitioning transsexual. She has a new boyfriend and a new job and in three days has lost 60 pounds, fifteen years of age and men are suddenly attracted to her like a magnet.
Ironically she has no car, few clothes and no steady place to live.
Even more ironically, the story isn’t a mystery novel.
So, you might ask, “What does that have to do with plot points?”
Well, in order to do all of this I have to move my characters from point A to point B. A LOT. I have to engage my character in a ton of conversations. I have to feed my character through a lot of settings and seemingly endless conflicts.
NONE OF THIS RELATES TO PLOT POINT. All of this is plot. That might not be all that good.
I once said that the hardest thing for me is moving a character from point A to B. It is a really hard thing to do without boring the writer. Writers engage in lots of characterization, descriptive landscape, wind, weather, where’s the sun, what time of year is it and reflections about bad relationships (hopefully not mommy and daddy), mud and clothing design.
Ideally, I want to get to the PLOT POINTS. I want those moments in the plot where things change. I can define the first portion of my current novel in plot points thus: Woman gets screwed in divorce. She realizes someone is following her. A gypsy curses her, but she blows it off. Her sister and her house are really, really, really strange, but hey, she's an addict, what did she expect?
Sometimes I read books where I wonder if there are any plot points. Everybody seems to just be on the road to getting somewhere, taking a billion pages doing it. I love Robert Jordan, but hey, I skim that crazy dead man. Once the characters arrive, a bad novelist does nothing but sit there and describe the different setting, going right back to day two on the road. (All of this road business being either metaphorical or literal, depending upon what you're doing).
So, my point is, a writer needs to make the getting there interesting, but also be aware of the concept of plot point so that it’s worth the travel. It is worth the time to start thinking in terms of PLOT POINTS.
Gary Wedlund
Rick wrote: Most any story is going to have a plot, but only a good story is going to have a point to the plot. The point of that plot is to make anyone who reads the story look deep down inside.
While this doesn’t directly address the concept of PLOT POINT, Rick has written about what I consider to be the largest missing element in most writing. A book is more than a plot. A book has to have something to say. In fact, some define a plot as the why of a story. Defined like that, it’s pretty hard to say you’ve even written a plot if the story ends up being nothing more than a sequence of events, hardships, peaks, valleys, travels, thoughts and dialogue. All of the mechanics might be there, but Frankenstein has no heart.
The question begs: “Why am I writing this?” If a writing doesn’t answer this for the author and reader, it’s wasting all of our time.
Gary Wedlund
While this doesn’t directly address the concept of PLOT POINT, Rick has written about what I consider to be the largest missing element in most writing. A book is more than a plot. A book has to have something to say. In fact, some define a plot as the why of a story. Defined like that, it’s pretty hard to say you’ve even written a plot if the story ends up being nothing more than a sequence of events, hardships, peaks, valleys, travels, thoughts and dialogue. All of the mechanics might be there, but Frankenstein has no heart.
The question begs: “Why am I writing this?” If a writing doesn’t answer this for the author and reader, it’s wasting all of our time.
Gary Wedlund
Gary,
Are you asking "Why should the reader finish the book you are writing?" If so, I personally hope to not only open up a new world for anyone picking up my book, but I also hope to make them examine their own life and realize a new truth about themselves.
I guess most any story is going to have a plot, but only a good story is going to have a point to the plot. In the case of the book that I'm working on I certainly have a plot, but the point of that plot is to make anyone who reads the story look deep down inside. Can the reader relate to the fears, prejudices, and weaknesses that permeate my characters. More importantly, will the reader learn a personal lesson when they see these characters either overcome or fall farther into darkenss and despair.
Perrin
Sounds like an interesting premise for a story and I hope you keep working on it. I'd probably suggest you work a little on the grammar and sentence structure. One trick that helps me out is to read it out loud to find out how well it flows. I would also suggest spelling the numbers out (i.e. one thousand vs. 1,000).
Hope that helps!
Rick
Word of caution here: It is absolutely true that if you wrote it, you own it. There is no need to copyright anything, assuming you can prove you did something before someone else. That's why you just send your manuscripts out and once accepted, leave the copywriting thing to the publisher. Of course, you also have to deal with protecting yourself if the jackass shows up. He has no case, but who has the money to go to court, or to defend against a published piece of work that is 95% yours?
On another side, this notion of putting your work into the public forum is more of a threat to you. It is, in effect, published once you display it to the public. That means, to many publishers, that you are giving up second publishing rights instead of first publishing rights. Ouch!
You can avoid this a number of ways if you still want others to see it and give feedback:
1) Only post small portions of the work.
2) Only give the work up to a few individuals who you trust to give the feedback you need.
3) Join a write group, where sharing is part of the process and not in the general domain.
An aside regarding write groups: I could recommend a couple in the Columbus, Ohio area, but most of them are just about useless. Most of them have people bring in work and hand it out or read on the spot. Members tend to be all over the place in terms of skills and interests. Often you get really bad advice. I was in one where it was unanimous that the only way to write was present tense. About ten writers I’ve met in groups have said either that first person is bad form or third person is bad form. In certain cases, this might be true, but as a categorical, that’s just plan dumb. I regret that I actually spent several days trying to convert a past tense piece to present tense, just to please the idiots prior to me knowing better.
I've been lucky to find groups that are better than that, but at the very least, a group that passes the work out a week or two prior is better than a group that can't even get the main thing of allowing time for reviews prior to the meeting. If you ever get in a good write group, you will soon find it indispensable. At this point I'd contend that it's nearly impossible for me to write a good book without several ongoing reviews. Others catch things you don't. They catch things both on the micro and macro levels, and they do so in every chapter, regardless of how good you are at writing. I know, without a doubt, that I’d catch something worth rethinking out of every chapter submitted to me, regardless of the author or level of edit. That’s not to say I’m a better writer than anybody else, but it is to say I can make any writer better because I have different eyes.
Another option is to form your own write group. It takes little advertising (Craig’s list) and a reservation at the local library for space.
Gary Wedlund
On another side, this notion of putting your work into the public forum is more of a threat to you. It is, in effect, published once you display it to the public. That means, to many publishers, that you are giving up second publishing rights instead of first publishing rights. Ouch!
You can avoid this a number of ways if you still want others to see it and give feedback:
1) Only post small portions of the work.
2) Only give the work up to a few individuals who you trust to give the feedback you need.
3) Join a write group, where sharing is part of the process and not in the general domain.
An aside regarding write groups: I could recommend a couple in the Columbus, Ohio area, but most of them are just about useless. Most of them have people bring in work and hand it out or read on the spot. Members tend to be all over the place in terms of skills and interests. Often you get really bad advice. I was in one where it was unanimous that the only way to write was present tense. About ten writers I’ve met in groups have said either that first person is bad form or third person is bad form. In certain cases, this might be true, but as a categorical, that’s just plan dumb. I regret that I actually spent several days trying to convert a past tense piece to present tense, just to please the idiots prior to me knowing better.
I've been lucky to find groups that are better than that, but at the very least, a group that passes the work out a week or two prior is better than a group that can't even get the main thing of allowing time for reviews prior to the meeting. If you ever get in a good write group, you will soon find it indispensable. At this point I'd contend that it's nearly impossible for me to write a good book without several ongoing reviews. Others catch things you don't. They catch things both on the micro and macro levels, and they do so in every chapter, regardless of how good you are at writing. I know, without a doubt, that I’d catch something worth rethinking out of every chapter submitted to me, regardless of the author or level of edit. That’s not to say I’m a better writer than anybody else, but it is to say I can make any writer better because I have different eyes.
Another option is to form your own write group. It takes little advertising (Craig’s list) and a reservation at the local library for space.
Gary Wedlund
Hi, Anissa,I don't know what's on the wikipedia page, but anything you write is automatically copywritten. The only thing that could defeat you is if someone else wrote the same thing and can prove that they wrote it before you.
So if you post something on a public forum, the time and date is pretty much set. The US Copyright office is simply a vehicle for 'staking your claim' to a certain body of work.
Hope this helps.
Norm
I'm currently editing my first book to get it ready for submittal. Good point about the THAT's. I found a lot that I just didn't need.
Ok, I just recently wrote a flash fiction story with unsual tense and sci-fi theme. How do I post it, without copyright infrindgement? I have nothing copywrited so I am not sure what to do about internet sharing. Please help because I'd love to share it for feedback! Thanks.
Even my editor missed those, when we were cleaning up my second novel, A Warrior Made . My publisher caught them and sent it back. She had a simple technique, in which she would change the background behind every 'was' and 'were' to some other color. Blindingly obvious, done like that.I also dislike the pronoun problem, but some authors solve it by constantly referring to the person or thing by name, which sounds equally unrealistic. It takes some creativity to get around that, and I've often had to rewrite whole sentences or paragraphs to set a scene up in such a way that the issue doesn't arise.
I do exactly that, and sometimes it drives me absolutely nuts. The form that always gets me is the, was xxxing, which I automatically change to, xxxed, in my head. Some books, that's four times per paragraph. Obviously, a few cases are fine and maybe even good, but when it happens ten times a page I am a basket case by the end of it.
The other thing that drives me crazy is the pronoun after two or more characters. Usually this happens when an author has a billion characters, to be honest, amplifying the problem. Sometimes you go two pages before you get a clue to who the pronoun is about. There's nothing wrong with nouns, and if an author makes a mistake on the side of clarity, all is
forgiven.
Gary Wedlund
The other thing that drives me crazy is the pronoun after two or more characters. Usually this happens when an author has a billion characters, to be honest, amplifying the problem. Sometimes you go two pages before you get a clue to who the pronoun is about. There's nothing wrong with nouns, and if an author makes a mistake on the side of clarity, all is
forgiven.
Gary Wedlund
I'm with you. The re-write is definately better, it just seems to flow. The first version is jerky; you assume that the character being described is the one that's speaking (as it's all in the same paragraph), but when you realize it's someone else you almost have to stop and do a quick double-take.
The second one is quick and clear about who's saying what, yet still describes the extra very well.
(Do you often do these quick re-writes in your head when reading Gary? I hope so, it's nice to know I'm not alone!)
A.L. Travis
This is an excerpt from the Paul Park book, A Princess of Roumania:
Gulka was a thin, nervous man with a weak beard and a spot on his face. "When it is dark, we all move forward," Raevsky explained for the third time.
Let me start by saying that Paul Park's Tor novel has a great and inventive plot. I'm enjoying it and am halfway through. On the flip side, it suffers from a range of style issues, some of which I might get to in the future because addressing them might make us all better writers. I'd give Paul a 5 if he worked out these issues. I prefer using examples from books with merit, showing that we all have room for growth.
So, on to the lesson:
The sentence, Gulka was a thin, nervous man with a weak beard and a spot on his face, is nicely descriptive. Yet, I wonder why it falls in the midst of the action, saying so many superficial things about a side character? Then the second sentence hits, and we jump from an omniscient view of Gulka, into the mouth of Raevsky: "When it is dark, we all move forward," Raevsky explained for the third time.
The whole thing might be reworded like this:
Raevsky knelt close to Gulka, a thin, nervous man with a weak beard. When Gulka looked up, showing the harsh mole that defined his face, Raevsky said for the third time that evening, "When it is dark, we all move forward."
Now, why is this better? Or is it? I leave that up to discussion.
Gary Wedlund
Gulka was a thin, nervous man with a weak beard and a spot on his face. "When it is dark, we all move forward," Raevsky explained for the third time.
Let me start by saying that Paul Park's Tor novel has a great and inventive plot. I'm enjoying it and am halfway through. On the flip side, it suffers from a range of style issues, some of which I might get to in the future because addressing them might make us all better writers. I'd give Paul a 5 if he worked out these issues. I prefer using examples from books with merit, showing that we all have room for growth.
So, on to the lesson:
The sentence, Gulka was a thin, nervous man with a weak beard and a spot on his face, is nicely descriptive. Yet, I wonder why it falls in the midst of the action, saying so many superficial things about a side character? Then the second sentence hits, and we jump from an omniscient view of Gulka, into the mouth of Raevsky: "When it is dark, we all move forward," Raevsky explained for the third time.
The whole thing might be reworded like this:
Raevsky knelt close to Gulka, a thin, nervous man with a weak beard. When Gulka looked up, showing the harsh mole that defined his face, Raevsky said for the third time that evening, "When it is dark, we all move forward."
Now, why is this better? Or is it? I leave that up to discussion.
Gary Wedlund
"My point is, earned pain and passion gives a person something to say. It makes the writing authentic. It almost always means the writer is a little older."
This is exactly right. The strong point of Elizabeth Moon's writing is her experience, especially in the military. She still has characters traversing the countryside making stew, but in the military stuff she's first-rate. One of the things I love about fantasy is the way an author who pays actual attention to his life and uses that material in his writing can use it in ways never intended or even possible in the real world. Often what he has to say is about the meanings of things and events, and those meanings are much more readily expressed in a fantasy setting.
Always throw out ideas. That's particularly the case when ideas relate to the reality of life. Your comment kind of contrasts against the student work I've read over my life. Often times the work relates to girlfriend/boyfriend, cars and how mommy doesn’t understand me. When I read it I get the feeling that there isn't anything being said other than meaningless plot and shallow feelings about leaving the nest.
My point is, earned pain and passion gives a person something to say. It makes the writing authentic. It almost always means the writer is a little older.
Consider how this might relate to a fantasy writing. How many fantasy novels are about strange characters Tolkening around the countryside? Now consider the books that seem to have something to say about the world we live in, but just happen to be entrapped within a fantasy setting. That’s what I mean by writing the story from the characters and defining the characters from the inside out.
Warprize, by Vaughan Elizabeth, is an example of a passion driven work that speaks to real sacrifice and duty. In that book a princess allows herself to be given as a slave prize in order to end a war. Another example is King's Peace by Jo Walton, where a woman serves her king in a noble cause, never finding love of her own. The heroine is raped, has the baby, gives it up, and untimately takes both the boy back and the rapist, leading to a very complex array of relationships.
A person has to feel some pain and feel their characters in order to be able to write full of intensity like Elizabeth and Jo do.
So yeah, write down how you feel and how that strikes up ideas, because in my opinion there isn't anything else worth writing about.
Gary Wedlund
My point is, earned pain and passion gives a person something to say. It makes the writing authentic. It almost always means the writer is a little older.
Consider how this might relate to a fantasy writing. How many fantasy novels are about strange characters Tolkening around the countryside? Now consider the books that seem to have something to say about the world we live in, but just happen to be entrapped within a fantasy setting. That’s what I mean by writing the story from the characters and defining the characters from the inside out.
Warprize, by Vaughan Elizabeth, is an example of a passion driven work that speaks to real sacrifice and duty. In that book a princess allows herself to be given as a slave prize in order to end a war. Another example is King's Peace by Jo Walton, where a woman serves her king in a noble cause, never finding love of her own. The heroine is raped, has the baby, gives it up, and untimately takes both the boy back and the rapist, leading to a very complex array of relationships.
A person has to feel some pain and feel their characters in order to be able to write full of intensity like Elizabeth and Jo do.
So yeah, write down how you feel and how that strikes up ideas, because in my opinion there isn't anything else worth writing about.
Gary Wedlund
One of my favorite movies is Tremors, one of the few Creature Features where the monsters are as smart as the people and the people are smart. None of the usual lame stupidity. They make the right decisions, and use their brains against an enemy that's using theirs. The problem with movies of this sort is that it requires writers with brains too.
I really don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I think part of it is, that sometimes we need something in our lives. In times where we lead boring, predictable lives, we like to read something with adventure, and stress, and unhappiness. In times when we are constantly threatened by stress, and money issues, and other things, we like to read something that will tell us that everything will be okay. At least, that's part of it. Sometimes, it's opposite, that we read something that exactly what we're going through. Maybe we just need to sympathize with someone...I don't know...I just I shouldn't throw around ideas in a board, but I thought I'd take a shot.
Re: Tension
I must agree with you about phony tension. Give readers and movie goers some credit. I personally want to see an intelligent person really figure her way out of a difficult situation, no cop outs. However, Steingard makes a sad, but true point. Unfortunately, stupidity is real and the masses flock to it because it's easy. I am trying not to clump all of humanity into a humongous mass, but many have become sedentary and lazy and expect a golden parachute. Think of all the fad diets and get rich quick schemes.
It comes back to the reasons we write. Do we write to make millions on predictable golden parachute stories with fake tension that give "The Masses" the easy happily ever after they can't get in their own lives? Do we write to fight these stereotypes? Do we write because we have stories in us that are driving us crazy, imerging in the middle of the night and caring nothing for the sleep and nurishment of the scribe? Do we write because we can not find the story we want to read in published literature?
And why do we read? Are the challenges in our lives so pressing that all we want is to read a story that comes out neat and tidy? Are we surrounded by duldrums, in need of some action, and therefore tension, desiring a story of suspense or even a character that we can feel superior to as we see they are too stupid to save themselves even with all the obvious parachutes aboard the nose-diving plane? I, myself, hate to feel superior to a main charachter. If I can figure out what's going on before he can, I am almost always disappointed in the book.
Tension, and other golden parachutes
Last week I watched the movie, The Strangers. In case you missed it, it features Liv Tyler, who is terrorized in a remotely located house by two teenaged girls and a man. She has a boyfriend who is as inept at defending himself as she is.
My comment to my wife upon leaving the theater was that every time they should have gone left, they went right. Every time they stood up they should have crawled. Seemingly, they were unable to employ basic reasoning to their situation (unfailingly). I’m going to save you from watching this claptrap and tell you that in the end they are both murdered by the knife Liv left sitting on the kitchen counter, in spite of the fact that she put it there and ran by it three times while trying to hide in the pantry. There was no plot twist at all. Let me give a list to show their ineptness.
1) She falls into a ditch, and though the ditch is in shadows and nobody’s seen her yet, crawls out stumbling with the ever-predictable sprained ankle.
2) Going into the tool shed, she sees that the axe is missing. It never occurs to her to pick up a pipe or a shovel.
3) At one point they get their hands on a shotgun, then find a way to lose it. This, of course, happens while the other people aren’t even armed.
4) Instead of leaving together, they split up. And, in fact, they never consider leaving at all, going into the dark woods, and making themselves impossible to track.
5) In spite of the fact that evidence shows the bad guys are in the house, they lock the door and tell each other they only have to wait it out.
6) When a friend comes by, holding a cell phone, he sees the car is trashed, the windows and door axed, and blood all over the front room. He slowly goes down the hall, yelling their names. 9-1-1, what is that, three buttons?
I hope you get my drift, because that’s just the tip of it. So, in the midst of the conversation with my wife, my wife says that they had to do it that way in order to build the tension. Well, of course, she’s absolutely right. I had to agree. This leads to two questions:
1) Is tension that is artificially derived by virtue of a bad writer’s hand, worth anything in the grand scheme of things? I mean, I started cheering for the bad guys in the end.
2) Is it necessary that every book or movie have this ultimate, death defying item known as tension? I mean it in the sense that I hear bandied about so often; tension that has us on the edge of our seats every minute of the viewing or read.
I say not. I tend to like authors such as Modesitt, who let their main characters win. A lot. Sure, they get kicked to the ground every so often, and even get cornered a few times, but by virtue of their own ability and forethought, win the day. The grand tension advocates will tell me that I’m nuts. We need vulnerability right up to the last word. But I’m thinking, oh really? Ninety percent of the time when I read those really tense books where the heroine goes into the basement without a baseball bat (causing me to lose all respect for her intellect), she end up getting out because of a golden parachute. I mean to tell you, it’s epidemic to the point of being expected anymore And, these freaks actually have the gall to say they write better books, when in fact they are really telling me that they can’t be more inventive with their characters, can’t create creative plot points and can’t write characters we like without putting them into a pit without a ladder.
Just for reference, a golden parachute is defined as that point in any plot where the airplane is going to crash and all of a sudden, the main character reaches under the seat and discovers: “Oh my god, a parachute! I wonder how it got there?”
Duh! Some stupid author put it there, airhead!
Screw fake tension. Give me something real.
What do you think?
Gary Wedlund
Last week I watched the movie, The Strangers. In case you missed it, it features Liv Tyler, who is terrorized in a remotely located house by two teenaged girls and a man. She has a boyfriend who is as inept at defending himself as she is.
My comment to my wife upon leaving the theater was that every time they should have gone left, they went right. Every time they stood up they should have crawled. Seemingly, they were unable to employ basic reasoning to their situation (unfailingly). I’m going to save you from watching this claptrap and tell you that in the end they are both murdered by the knife Liv left sitting on the kitchen counter, in spite of the fact that she put it there and ran by it three times while trying to hide in the pantry. There was no plot twist at all. Let me give a list to show their ineptness.
1) She falls into a ditch, and though the ditch is in shadows and nobody’s seen her yet, crawls out stumbling with the ever-predictable sprained ankle.
2) Going into the tool shed, she sees that the axe is missing. It never occurs to her to pick up a pipe or a shovel.
3) At one point they get their hands on a shotgun, then find a way to lose it. This, of course, happens while the other people aren’t even armed.
4) Instead of leaving together, they split up. And, in fact, they never consider leaving at all, going into the dark woods, and making themselves impossible to track.
5) In spite of the fact that evidence shows the bad guys are in the house, they lock the door and tell each other they only have to wait it out.
6) When a friend comes by, holding a cell phone, he sees the car is trashed, the windows and door axed, and blood all over the front room. He slowly goes down the hall, yelling their names. 9-1-1, what is that, three buttons?
I hope you get my drift, because that’s just the tip of it. So, in the midst of the conversation with my wife, my wife says that they had to do it that way in order to build the tension. Well, of course, she’s absolutely right. I had to agree. This leads to two questions:
1) Is tension that is artificially derived by virtue of a bad writer’s hand, worth anything in the grand scheme of things? I mean, I started cheering for the bad guys in the end.
2) Is it necessary that every book or movie have this ultimate, death defying item known as tension? I mean it in the sense that I hear bandied about so often; tension that has us on the edge of our seats every minute of the viewing or read.
I say not. I tend to like authors such as Modesitt, who let their main characters win. A lot. Sure, they get kicked to the ground every so often, and even get cornered a few times, but by virtue of their own ability and forethought, win the day. The grand tension advocates will tell me that I’m nuts. We need vulnerability right up to the last word. But I’m thinking, oh really? Ninety percent of the time when I read those really tense books where the heroine goes into the basement without a baseball bat (causing me to lose all respect for her intellect), she end up getting out because of a golden parachute. I mean to tell you, it’s epidemic to the point of being expected anymore And, these freaks actually have the gall to say they write better books, when in fact they are really telling me that they can’t be more inventive with their characters, can’t create creative plot points and can’t write characters we like without putting them into a pit without a ladder.
Just for reference, a golden parachute is defined as that point in any plot where the airplane is going to crash and all of a sudden, the main character reaches under the seat and discovers: “Oh my god, a parachute! I wonder how it got there?”
Duh! Some stupid author put it there, airhead!
Screw fake tension. Give me something real.
What do you think?
Gary Wedlund
Some good comments on POV from the group here. A couple of important things to note, though:1) A master of a craft can break the rules when s/he wants, but you have to learn the rules before you can break them. Starting authors should stick to learning the rules and abiding by them. Doing so will make their writing better -- and help them make sales as well.
2) Switching POV used to be the norm in the days of Edgar Rice Burroughs and many other classic authors. Today, though, that style is seen as old-fashioned and even naive. Today's editors want and expect stories to be told with a "strong" and "consistent" POV.
That means sticking with _one_ POV per chapter/section. If you have to break from that POV, you should use an obvious device (usually 1-3 asterisks) to set off the change in POV. (Often, those asterisks are changed to line breaks in a printed book.)
If you're writing a chapter or a short story and you see lots of asterisks on your page, chances are you're using too many POV shifts. At that point, you need to ask yourself which of those shifts -- if any -- you actually need. Then go back and rewrite to eliminate the unnecessary ones.
Most modern editors _hate_ unnecessary POV shifts. They will spot the only place you've (accidentally) done it in an entire story and unfailingly flag that paragraph for revision.
And rightly so.
Strong and consistent POV helps your readers to buy into your world and characters.
One of the best examples of this in today's market is the Harry Potter series. The books are told entirely from Harry's POV, with very few exceptions (the "villain chapters" that appeared, usually as prologue, in the later books).
In HP, everything we see, hear, and feel is filtered through Harry. When Ron and Hermione have a fight, we _don't_ know what they're thinking (unless they tell Harry), but we know what _Harry_ thinks they're thinking. That's one reason we buy into the boy wizard and his problems. (Excellent plotting is another.)
So, to sum, up...
Beginning authors should learn to write from a single POV in their work, and also learn how to indicate to their readers when they're switching POV. Doing so will avoid confusing readers.
And, as we all know, a confused reader is much more likely to stop reading your work.
We don't want that!
Good luck!
-- Steve Sullivan
www.stephendsullivan.com
One solution to excessive POV shifts is to show what a character is thinking and feeling through action and dialogue. For example:
Jane's glowing smile had faded completely by the time John had finished talking. He could understand her disappointment, but his mind was made up.
"You bastard," she hissed as she turned and marched out of the room.
In this short example we know Jane went from happy to angry with John without being inside her head.
If you really want to show something from two points of view, you can even retell the same event from someone else's eyes in the next chapter.
Goodreads Sci-Fi/Fantasy Authors
unread topics | mark unread
