Elizabeth Moon's Blog, page 31
January 4, 2012
Things that make you glad you read the ms. one more time...
"She had to kill a Marshal back in spring, before you got her," is not the same as "She had to kill a Marshal back in spring, before you got here."
One little letter. So much wrong with its absence.
Read your manuscript again.
January 3, 2012
A few notes on writing
Thanks to Twitter, I have windows into quite a few venues where writing of varied quality may be read and--sometimes--laughed at. Not talking about humor, here, but about writing that is unintentionally bad. Recently, in the guise of research, I've been following medievalists.net on Twitter, clicking through to the articles that looked interesting. Quite often these are theses or dissertations, straight academic writing...and some of these...some of these would have benefited from some editorial guidance. The usual response to a complaint about academic writing is that it's all bad and the students are taught to write that way...but that's not true. Having recently bulldozed my way through more than a dozen such papers, it's clear that some of the degree candidates learned to write well, and some weren't given enough time in the trenches of spelling, punctuation, grammar, and syntax.
The same was true when I was in graduate school in biology and reading papers in multiple scientific journals. Some were well-written (I still recall some papers by Anne O. Summers, on various ecological topics in the Chesapeake Bay area as exemplary in writing) and some were...well...sludge scraped off the bottom of a polluted pond comes to mind. Whatever data may have been in them had been well concealed in murky writing.
As a fiction writer, I face some requirements nonfiction writers can ignore: clarity matters to both, but the kind of data a biologist needs to convey (whether it's the change in growth rate of algae in reaction to a specific contaminant, or details of animal behavior) remains factual--appealing to the intellect, not the emotions. Stating the hypothesis, the methods--how the experiment or observation was carried out, the results (including the logic used to arrive at the results) in language that does not obscure any of these is sufficient. The fiction writer has more to do with the same linguistic tools: we must convey not only the "facts" (who said what, who did what, the chronological order in which characters said and did things) but the character--the psychology--of the characters, the nature of the culture in which the story is set, the effect on the characters of that culture and the physical setting (including terrain, infrastructure, weather...), the emotional tone of every interaction (or tones, I should say, as characters interacting may be--should often be--in different emotional states), the overall tone of the story, the overall "pull-through" or "impulsion" of the plot. Just for starters.
I've read a lot of novice stories (other than my own) in workshops and in the clandestine sharing of slush pile remnants by editors with favorite writers. The same problems I see in indifferent-to-bad academic writing show up even more vividly in fiction, because fiction demands more. The clumsy sentence, the stacked adjectives, the participle dangling in the wind of ridicule, the paragraph that's upside down (what should be first is last) or inside out (the "meat" is on the outside, the top and bottom slices of bread--the transitions into and out of the "meat" are in the middle)--they're found in both nonfiction and fiction.
Although I've been scolded for saying so, I still think Strunk & White's Elements of Style would help novice writers fix most of the pond-sludge-mess writing I see. Why? Because part of the sludge comes from the writers' attempt to be formally correct, rather than clear. The current misuse of apostrophes and reflexive pronouns, for instance, arises from concern for formality (I know that because I've asked those who've shown me their manuscripts with such horrors as ""There is a place that is known as a place where things happen; it is called [nameofplace]" or "They gave it to myself.") Many novice writers are afraid of "I" and "me" and use the reflexive. Others are convinced (from signs and the growing misuse) that apostrophes signal plurals. In both academic writing and fiction, I find sentences and passages that struggle to be impressive, intellectual, important...and instead reveal the writer's inability to express the meaning clearly.
I will agree with the linguists that many grammatical rules do not "make sense"...logically, that is. But they do "make sense" of writing: they make it easier to grasp the writer's meaning. And the point of writing (unless your purpose is to shock and dismay the reader) is to convey something--be it data from an experiment or the mood of a character in a story--as smoothly and effortlessly from page to a reader's understanding as possible. Writers who do not know most of the rules write passages that take longer to read and understand. It's not a matter of words per sentence--a well constructed long sentence is easier to read than a badly constructed short one. There are long, intricate sentences in Ruskin, for instance, that unroll easily in the mind, each phrase with its meaning flowing into the next. And I've read a book designed for people with reading difficulties written in turgid short sentences of short words....reading it feels like being hit in the face with a brick, over and over.
As it's late at night and I've been writing through a migraine--and I began this with no clear end in view--this is another example of faulty writing. A ramble with no goal, idle comments on the roadside briars and flowers. As a writer of quite a few books and stories and articles over quite a few years of publication, I know my own imperfections. (I'm finishing a book which once again revealed--as I plowed through the layers of revision--where I go wrong, which is exactly where everyone who writes goes wrong, more or less. Sentences out of order, clunky phrases, less-than-perfect word choice, idiosyncratic punctuation where standard would be more effective. ) When healthy and first-drafting in the daytime, I automatically avoid some mistakes I used to make--that many make. That reflexive thing? Not happening. Apostrophe abuse? No. Passive voice where it doesn't belong? No. (But--weasel-active verb forms that pretend to be active? Yes. They sneak in. I catch them in revision.) When stressed, sick, worried, overtired (and after midnight, which it is now) everything but the habit of clicking on the keys may go awry.
Clarity. Simplicity. Directness. Good things. Bumbling around piling adjectives on adverbs. Bad things.
January 1, 2012
New Snippet Post at Paksworld blog
This side-story converges with the forthcoming book, Echoes of Betrayal, so the snippets will stop before any spoilers emerge. Only three more to go...
And now...to bed.
Newt Gingrich: Amateur Paleontologist (really?)
Now right there you have proof of the Newt's mental status: ignorant and confused and not entirely honest.
Although the mental image of the Newt poring over fossils with a hand lens and reading geology books is kind of endearing--there's the little boy, wide-eyed with curiosity about the world--what the Newt actually spends a lot of time doing is sucking up to the rich and right wing, with the aim of getting more power, making speeches, running around the country campaigning, etc. Any knowledge he has of "the Earth's temperature for a very long time" he got from someone else's chart, glanced at quickly.
If the Newt knew anything much about paleontology, he would know that data from paleontology are only part of the data used by climate scientists (a different discipline) to figure out how this planet's climate works. Yes, they're interested in ancient climates, and yes, some of their data are used to illuminate ancient climates...but they are not climate scientists per se, and relying on paleontological data alone for information on what the physics and chemistry of climate are...is stupid. Like relying on a plumber to tell you how nuclear fission works. An amateur plumber at that.
His claim to be an "amateur" paleontologist is laughable in another way. Anyone who's ever gone "Gosh wow!" over a fossil and can tell one fossil from another--or who was a dinosaur enthusiast at some point in their life--can call himself an amateur paleontologist. Presumably, the Newt can tell a dinosaur skeleton from an oyster shell from a petrified tree...(maybe. I'd really like to see him demonstrate some paleontological knowledge...) But most people know that it's only the exceptional amateur anything who's as good at it as the professional anything. Mystery books aside, the neighborhood amateur detectives aren't usually as good as professional ones; many an amateur plumber has to call in the professionals; the accident rate for amateur pilots is higher than for professional ones. So what does this "amateur" actually know about paleontology? Anything really relevant? Or did he just throw out a big long word to impress people he figured wouldn't know any better?
His snide remark about "computer models" is typical of the right, which continues to pretend that global warming exists only in the models rather than--very obviously--in current observations. There's ample data now--current data--but the right don't want it known. (For instance: Rick Perry quashed the part of a report from Texas A&M on the future of the Texas Gulf Coast that indicated how much of the coast would be under water over the next fifty years. Republicans in Congress have refused to let the National Weather Service discuss climate change in ways useful to farmers, fishermen, coastal communities, etc.) I read the original papers in the 1970s and have followed the scientific evidence in those journals (not the popular media) for almost 40 years now. As predicted by the much maligned early computer models after the carbon dioxide hypothesis was published, global warming started bumping out of the "within normal limits" in the early 1990s, and was clearly out of the starting gate by 2001. It doesn't take a computer model to show the retreat of glaciers around the world, the rise in sea level, the increase in ocean temperature, the changes in rainfall patterns, the changes in vegetation (at all latitudes, but very, very obvious in the Arctic), the changes in migration patterns, etc, etc, etc.
So is the Newt really that stupid, or just that greedy for power? Or both? And--more of concern--why the dickens does anyone believe him? Or the others who say the same thing in different words (most of them won't claim to be amateur paleontologists, because their constituencies are opposed to the whole idea of fossil evidence and geologic timespans.)
December 31, 2011
Why There's Still a Need for Feminism: 2 parts out of ???
One wonders who at the BBC--what gender, that is--decided on the ones they did pick, including Sweetie. (I suppose we should be glad there weren't more non-human females: a dolphin with a calf, a mare nuzzling a child, a bitch who'd nursed a kitten, a hen protecting her chicks...after all, if a panda is a fit substitute, why not?)
Of the human females chosen, one of two female politicians from the US was Michelle Bachmann, ignorant, spiteful, venomous, and not Elizabeth Warren, intelligent, thoughtful, moderate. The other was Gabby Giffords, more for her having been shot & recovered than for her political stance and her long-time courage in facing death threats. No problems with that choice, though.
The non-US politician, the first woman president of Brazil, is a choice I'd agree with (though not the only female politician of note in 2011.)
Four women "notable" only for their relationship, however tenuous, to a man: Charlene Wittstock (almost didn't marry a prince), a Spanish duchess (married a younger man), Pippa Middleton (sister married a prince), the US Marine who asked Justin Timberlake to the Marine Ball.
Two more were celebs: a tennis star and a singer.
Two more were victims of sexual violence, one in Libya and one in the US.
But consider: Three women shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Not one of them was on the BBC list.
Elizabeth Warren, as I mentioned, has been bucking the "meanness" trend in politics with common-sense,intelligent, and well-supported arguments for the past several years.
Forbes lists "10 most powerful women authors" . Jennifer Egan won the Pulitzer Prize in fiction (novel) this year. Kay Ryan won the Pulitzer Prize in poetry this year. Around the world, women have written notable fiction and nonfiction this year.
But the BBC couldn't find a single woman writer worth including anywhere in the world. Not the bestsellers in fiction. Not women writing solid, worthwhile nonfiction. Not journalists. Nope: women who write just don't count.
And not a single woman scientist. Not a single woman composer. Not a single woman human-rights activist. Not a single woman entrepreneur or even CEO of a major company...or for that matter a minor company. No women in agriculture. No women in aviation or space exploration. No women in banking, other finance fields. No women in communications. The only military woman chosen for having asked a celebrity to a dance.
So what did they find instead? What made them "female faces of the year?"
4 women attached (even peripherally) to a man.
3 women victims of crime (2 sexual assault, one attempted assassination)
1 athlete
1 pop singer
1 head of state (yay!)
1 really lousy politician (close to the worst the US has to offer)
and a panda named Sweetie.
So mostly...not women chosen for their accomplishments (tennis, singing and head of state excluded.
The male faces of the year included all humans (gee, no rare male animal flaunting his handsomeness and maybe named "Studly?" ) Two were crime victims (a policeman killed by a bomb, a student suffering assault and robbery during riots), one was a suicide (and counts as one of the two athletes as well), one was a US admiral, one was a US presidential candidate caught in sex scandal, one was an actor, one an undercover cop pretending to be an activist, one a farmer who disapproved of a pop star's clothing (yawn), one was a golfer (the second athlete), one was a businessman close to a political personage, one was journalist and phone-hacker, and one was a rapper whose political rap went viral. In other words, what led to their being chosen was their own actions and/or the political significance of the outcomes. None of the men were notable for being attached to a woman (let alone being the brother of someone who married someone notable.)
Part two: Those who confront misogyny--whether in its violent forms of rape, assault, and abuse or in its less violent forms--are used to the "Yes, but--" response. Here's an excellent article to ponder: "Why Yes, But is the Wrong Response to Misogyny". Most women have heard most of those Yes, but...excuses and more besides. "But" is not joined at the hip to "Yes," and those who speak as if it is need to surgically excise that pair from their vocabulary.
December 30, 2011
Orbit's "12 Days of Ebooks" list
I found it interesting that although my next book with them is epic fantasy--the third of the Paladin's Legacy group, Echoes of Betrayal--they started with the military SF. I don't mind--I'm delighted to be part of this list at all--and I like that they're talking about more than just the next book. It makes sense, with the present audience focused on the current group of books, to bring up the others first.
The list doesn't provide extra links (to the authors' websites, blogs, etc.) so just in case there's someone reading this who doesn't know: the current group has its own dedicated website with a lot of information about the previous books and the world in which they're set--places, people, religions, etc., and one free short story. And there's an embedded blog where (at the moment) I'm putting out my own "12 days"--this one of episodes in a side-story that fits between Kings of the North and Echoes of Betrayal.
December 28, 2011
Nose to the Grindstone
Gaps have been filled in, bridged, and it's now possible to travel quite a long way without gaps--except those produced by over-enthusiastic use of the revision chainsaw. Luckily, there are files of things chainsawed out (brushpiles, as it were, of lopped branches, whole trees, etc.) but fishing these out and putting them back in place so that their little adventure with trauma isn't obvious is only slightly easier than sticking a chain-sawed juniper back in the ground and making it grow. Transitions...the rough-chewed ends chain-sawing leaves must be trimmed and grafted back into place, then smoothed and given a shot of growth hormone so the seam in the bark doesn't show.
Getting anywhere with this required almost a week away from it (the music rehearsals and Christmas stuff last week helped divert the mind wonderfully), two good nights sleep in there somewhere, and going offline for hours at a time. Switching metaphors, the book that had quit moving down the track and seemed determined to meander slowly about the margin of the track plucking a bit of grass here and there has now come back into the bridle and has picked up a nice strong trot toward the finish line. I was hoping for a full out run, but today's gone better than the day before and yesterday was better than Monday. The book is moving in the right direction and seems to know its goal, so I'm applying whatever music works (Bach organ, Beethoven piano sonatas, and Smetana's Bartered Bride so far) and planting self in front of the keyboard many hours a day.
I'm using a side-story that actually fits between Kings of the North and Echoes of Betrayal to provide posts & snippets for people who follow the Paksworld blog, http://www.paksworld.com/blog/ (the link button isn't working right now.) If you're interested, look for the posts titled "Christmas Present: Snippet #...." Sergeant Vardan, of Halveric Company, and her patrol, are coping with scathefire and the Pargunese invasion.
December 26, 2011
What's Cooking....
This time the bean varieties included black-eyed pea, kidney beans, black beans, baby lima beans, and a second spotted bean (red & black spotted.) Because I had three ham bones in the freezer to deal with (but only two would fit in the pot) I used the 12 quart pot, which is now full of 2 ham bones, 2 quarts dry beans partly swollen up from soaking, and an onion. Needs another onion, some garlic, and some herbs. My Aunt Rena (a Dutch aunt, but no less my aunt for that!) used to say that beans could not have too much pork (ham bone or salt pork), too much salt, or too long cooking...I know others disagree, but her beans were incredible when you thought you were coming down with a cold, or had a sore throat, or life had gone dull and flavorless and not worth bothering with. I have gone out to their trailer when feeling next door to rotten, had a mess of her beans and cornbread, and come home feeling I could lick tigers singlehanded.
This will make way more bean soup than we want to eat all at once (it would take days) but having pulled the ham bones out of the freezer, there will be room for some containers of bean soup.
One ham bone from a 9-11 pound ham with some shreds of ham on it will season 4 cups of dry beans. With salt pork or bacon, you'll have to figure your own amount (I used to use salt pork, because we rarely had a ham; it does the job but is best if you cut it up in small cubes.) The hams you usually get aren't that salty, so you'll also need to salt it to taste. One medium onion, diced, per ham bone/4 cups of dry beans. At least 6 cloves of garlic per ham bone/4 cups of dry beans/onion. Soak the beans at least a couple of hours in cold water, drain, rinse, and put into a big pot with the ham bone, diced onion, garlic. Cover with water, bring to boil, turn down to simmer. I add peppercorns, a bay leaf, whatever other herbs smell good with that batch of beans and ham (depends in part on what I used on the ham when cooking it.) Later on, I may add mustard.
The foodie "al dente' thing is not to be considered. If a bean doesn't melt in your mouth, it's not cooked enough: boo hiss on breaking a tooth or even a floury "dry" interior. You should feel the beans as individuals, but no more than that--silken skins, lush interiors. Black beans are the slow-pokes in most bean mixes...and though they eventually melt into a wonderful meaty flavor, the floury stage is not to my taste at all. Long, slow cooking....checking the black beans preferentially, since they're slow to finish. The liquid should be thick, opaque, delicious on its own without a bean in it. Pot likker, it was called in my childhood.
Cooking a mess of beans with ham reminds me why it's so wrong to put beans in chili. Beans and pork are a natural pairing...beans and beef get along fine, if the beans have been cooked with pork. Beans served beside chili--great. Beans who've never been embraced by pork withhold some of their goodness from (to a bean) mere beef.
Cornbread is good with bean soup, of course. Pork, beans, and cornbread...ahhhhhh. But any bread stout enough to dip in the pot likker is good with bean soup. If in serious danger of a cold attack, put a slug of pico de gallo or other hot sauce in the bowl--scour those virus particles right off your mucus membranes. If you have enough bean soup, and an immersion blender, take some of it, with little of the liquid, put it in a tall container, and make it into a sort of mush. Best bean dip you ever put a tortilla chip into. I made a bean soup with black-eyed peas and some leftover lentils once, and tried out my new immersion blender on it...wow. We sat there eating bean-soup-dip on anything we could scoop it out with: chips, dry bread, and finally off spoons.
December 24, 2011
Christmas Eve
I'll be singing at two Christmas Eve services (and rejoicing in the presence of a brass quartet--always a delight to have them with us) and then we'll come home and fall into bed. I have to quit working on the book now, and work instead on the music we'll be singing, to make sure I really am confident on the various tricky bits. One of the anthems is by Britten, which ensures tricky bits, but the others also have tricky bits.
Meanwhile it has turned cold and wet. Well, cold for us, that is. It's supposed to "nearly-freeze" or freeze tonight. We have a fog/rain/mist mix at the moment, shifting between light rain (once it was sleet) and mist, mostly.
December 20, 2011
Baby Elephant Stomp
Young Republicans learn political behavior from older Republicans, and it's clear Cassie and Lauren (and maybe the rest of the club) are following in the footsteps of the divisive, the racist, the fact-avoidant, those who confuse sound-bites with facts, rumors with truth, insults with cleverness, and whose behavior is roughly on the level of third-to-fifth grade mean-girls' cliques. They expect their behavior to be excused--to be laughed off indulgently--because they are who they are. They don't expect to be held accountable (and it's hard to hold a Republican accountable...you cannot get most of them to face facts and add two and two.) (It is worth noting that the Elephants are exquisitely sensitive to criticism from the other side, and cry foul and politicizing as if their toenails were being pulled out.) But still--these young women aren't children anymore, and they should be learning how to assess sources, how to assess the logic of someone's argument, etc. Beyond that, they're plenty old enough to learn that some forms of discourse make diverse communities stronger and some do not. They're old enough to find for themselves (since their parents and culture so far have not handed one on) a value system that puts the health of a community above the giggle-content of a snarky remark. They have had, in college, the opportunity to learn to think...and clearly they have not.
Lauren Pierce did issue a rather weasel-like apology for her tweet (saying it was "tasteless"--no, dear, it was actionable if you'd said it in a line at an airport. Where joking about things like shooting presidents or wanting to shoot presidents gets you yanked off your flight and into a windowless room.) She gets five points out of a hundred for that, though, because it was probably the best she could do. Cassie Wright, so far, has no points on the board. She's not saying anything (and nor is the student Republican club...you'd think someone would have the guts to say something.)
So here's the thing, Misses Pierce and Wright: it's past time to grow up. Understand that you don't live in the protective bubble of Elephantine isolation when you engage in social media. You can say whatever you want--but others can say whatever they want about what you said. Not just other Elephants patting you on the back for being clever, but...everybody.
Elizabeth Moon's Blog
- Elizabeth Moon's profile
- 2621 followers
