Bill Conrad's Blog, page 37
December 5, 2018
Translating Books to Film
There are many great books available and a precious few are made into movies. When the conversion from book to script is made, the plot has to be trimmed. Sometimes this is a large effort and sometimes, just a few scenes are removed. Even in the best case, a movie will only contain 90% of the book’s plot.
Authors have unlimited freedom in their characters, location, story, and reality. For example, a character can be in New York one day and the next in Antarctica. Having a full movie crew in a big city like New York and an icy place like Antarctica is a huge undertaking.
Movie audiences have a vastly different set of expectations and needs. They require a faster plot, a more universal story that does not offend. Movie studios also have to discreetly advertise products, build actor’s egos, take filmmaking to the next level, please the lawyers and include a music score.
The result can be less than ideal from the perspective of a person who is familiar with the book. However, from the perspective of the person who is unfamiliar with the book, the movie usually is a good experience. With that in mind, let’s look at a few examples of books that I have read and the resulting movie.
Great movies and great books that did not resemble each other: City of Ember, The Shawshank Redemption, The Princess Bride, Ready Player One and A Wrinkle in Time.
All of these books were outstanding with strong plots, good dialog, and terrific characters. The movies had great plots, great actors, superb cinematography and memorable dialog. However, the underlying plots didn’t match.
Why was this done? In my opinion, the parts that made the book great were the attention to detail. The parts that made the movies great were the exciting plot additions, added humor and added character insight. In addition, some of the plot issues were corrected. Was there an improvement over the original work? Is it ethical to drastically change the plot for the sake of making an exciting movie? In my opinion, yes because I like a good movie.
Movies are visual, exciting and they have real people (or animated characters.) A book can say main character Bob had flowing red hair, with his trademark yellow hat, never smiles and is 17 years old. In the movie, the dashing Tom Cruise dramatically portrays the character. Through the film, he wears many different outfits, has many expressions and obviously does not have red hair. But, Tom Cruise sells a lot of tickets.
Bad book, great movie: How to Train Your Dragon and Drive.
These are two of my favorite moves and I immediately got the book. Both books had a slow wishy-washy story, under-developed character, ineffective drama, and ZERO character chemistry. It was clear that the screenwriter did a complete tear down of the entire plot. What was left was some of the basic premise, the title, and the character names.
The movies, of course, were astounding. Both are in my top 10 and I just cannot say enough about them. I really want to meet the screenwriters and directors who made these movies. But what about the book? My only comment was: The authors were really lucky to have their work considered for a film.
Great book, bad movie: Dune and Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
I have read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at least 3 times. Dune was just fantastic; so completely epic; such an original plot.
However, these books came with a catch. Neither one should ever be made into a movie. The only way to capture a story like Dune is in a 10 part mini-series. Any attempt to make a single movie would be doomed to failure. Ha, get the pun.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was the funniest books there have ever been. It is also one of the most creative science fiction books there has ever been. In addition, there is a lot going on with many subtle elements. This story was adapted into a great radio play and the author even wrote the movie screenplay. What made the book great was simply not possible to convey in a single film. The result was a bad compromise that disappointed audiences on many levels.
Great movie that matched the great book: Firefox.
This is the only movie that I have ever found to be exactly like the book. The screenwriter did a great job of capturing the best parts of the book in a fluid way that mirrored every single chapter. Why do so few books match their movies? Hard to say. My only guess is that the author of Firefox had a movie deal in mind when he wrote his book.
What will the future hold for movies that are translated into books? My guess will be more of the same. Talented screenwriters will take books and turn them into gems or flops. Movie audiences will expect more and want to pay less. Directors will continue to push the envelope and continue to dazzle moviegoers.
As for me, I will continue to read and watch a lot of movies. Perhaps someday, one of my books will make it onto the big screen. Will the move be a winner? I hope so.
Authors have unlimited freedom in their characters, location, story, and reality. For example, a character can be in New York one day and the next in Antarctica. Having a full movie crew in a big city like New York and an icy place like Antarctica is a huge undertaking.
Movie audiences have a vastly different set of expectations and needs. They require a faster plot, a more universal story that does not offend. Movie studios also have to discreetly advertise products, build actor’s egos, take filmmaking to the next level, please the lawyers and include a music score.
The result can be less than ideal from the perspective of a person who is familiar with the book. However, from the perspective of the person who is unfamiliar with the book, the movie usually is a good experience. With that in mind, let’s look at a few examples of books that I have read and the resulting movie.
Great movies and great books that did not resemble each other: City of Ember, The Shawshank Redemption, The Princess Bride, Ready Player One and A Wrinkle in Time.
All of these books were outstanding with strong plots, good dialog, and terrific characters. The movies had great plots, great actors, superb cinematography and memorable dialog. However, the underlying plots didn’t match.
Why was this done? In my opinion, the parts that made the book great were the attention to detail. The parts that made the movies great were the exciting plot additions, added humor and added character insight. In addition, some of the plot issues were corrected. Was there an improvement over the original work? Is it ethical to drastically change the plot for the sake of making an exciting movie? In my opinion, yes because I like a good movie.
Movies are visual, exciting and they have real people (or animated characters.) A book can say main character Bob had flowing red hair, with his trademark yellow hat, never smiles and is 17 years old. In the movie, the dashing Tom Cruise dramatically portrays the character. Through the film, he wears many different outfits, has many expressions and obviously does not have red hair. But, Tom Cruise sells a lot of tickets.
Bad book, great movie: How to Train Your Dragon and Drive.
These are two of my favorite moves and I immediately got the book. Both books had a slow wishy-washy story, under-developed character, ineffective drama, and ZERO character chemistry. It was clear that the screenwriter did a complete tear down of the entire plot. What was left was some of the basic premise, the title, and the character names.
The movies, of course, were astounding. Both are in my top 10 and I just cannot say enough about them. I really want to meet the screenwriters and directors who made these movies. But what about the book? My only comment was: The authors were really lucky to have their work considered for a film.
Great book, bad movie: Dune and Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
I have read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at least 3 times. Dune was just fantastic; so completely epic; such an original plot.
However, these books came with a catch. Neither one should ever be made into a movie. The only way to capture a story like Dune is in a 10 part mini-series. Any attempt to make a single movie would be doomed to failure. Ha, get the pun.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was the funniest books there have ever been. It is also one of the most creative science fiction books there has ever been. In addition, there is a lot going on with many subtle elements. This story was adapted into a great radio play and the author even wrote the movie screenplay. What made the book great was simply not possible to convey in a single film. The result was a bad compromise that disappointed audiences on many levels.
Great movie that matched the great book: Firefox.
This is the only movie that I have ever found to be exactly like the book. The screenwriter did a great job of capturing the best parts of the book in a fluid way that mirrored every single chapter. Why do so few books match their movies? Hard to say. My only guess is that the author of Firefox had a movie deal in mind when he wrote his book.
What will the future hold for movies that are translated into books? My guess will be more of the same. Talented screenwriters will take books and turn them into gems or flops. Movie audiences will expect more and want to pay less. Directors will continue to push the envelope and continue to dazzle moviegoers.
As for me, I will continue to read and watch a lot of movies. Perhaps someday, one of my books will make it onto the big screen. Will the move be a winner? I hope so.
November 21, 2018
Books I Didn’t Like
When I start reading a book and it becomes apparent that it is not worth continuing, I put it down. Life is too short to waste time on a bad book. In that same spirit, I don’t give books bad reviews because I never get far enough into them to have enough material to write a proper review.
In high school and college, I read several required books. Most were enjoyable, but I disliked a few. Shakespeare, for example, was terrible. I hated his writing style and I felt the plot was overrated. To me, it seemed to be an antiquated verbal puzzle. Granted, I am fully aware that it’s very challenging to write in prose and Shakespeare is considered to be the best author ever. Still, I have absolutely no interest in any of his works.
I found some books too complex to get into. For example, I was never able to finish any of Stephen Hawking’s works. They were difficult to comprehend and the writing style was arrogant. I was given a set of his books and they remain my bookshelf to this day. I have donated many other books to Goodwill since I got the set.
James Michener is an epic author. Tales of the South Pacific, Space, and Hawaii. These are fantastic books, but they simply did not grab my attention. To me, the plots were too bold, to epic and impossible to relate to. l like plots that are more down to earth and I can connect to the characters.
At present, I am reading the book Column of Fire by Ken Follett. Like all of his books, it has a complex plot with lots of characters. From the start, it was clear that this was not his best work. While the story has a great premise, the execution, setting, pace, and characters let it down. I think Ken put too much effort on the history and not enough into the flow. Overall, there is too much filler and not enough solid story. I am about half way through and while I have decided to finish it, the review is going to be poor.
Despite a lot of effort, I never got into Clive Cussler and Ian Fleming. I started several of their books, but I couldn’t finish a single one. I really wanted to read the James Bond and Sahara books. It was clear they were well written and had a strong plot. They just never held my interest. The characters were too arrogant and the heroes did not act like heroes. I wouldn’t even classify them as anti-heroes.
There are complete genres of book that I avoid. Mysteries, horror, romance, cowboy, comic, poetry and travel. I never walk through those aisles at the bookstore. Fortunately, there are many authors with many books. Next on my reading list is “So, Anyway...” by John Cleese. Will I make it through the first chapter? Stay tuned to find out.
In high school and college, I read several required books. Most were enjoyable, but I disliked a few. Shakespeare, for example, was terrible. I hated his writing style and I felt the plot was overrated. To me, it seemed to be an antiquated verbal puzzle. Granted, I am fully aware that it’s very challenging to write in prose and Shakespeare is considered to be the best author ever. Still, I have absolutely no interest in any of his works.
I found some books too complex to get into. For example, I was never able to finish any of Stephen Hawking’s works. They were difficult to comprehend and the writing style was arrogant. I was given a set of his books and they remain my bookshelf to this day. I have donated many other books to Goodwill since I got the set.
James Michener is an epic author. Tales of the South Pacific, Space, and Hawaii. These are fantastic books, but they simply did not grab my attention. To me, the plots were too bold, to epic and impossible to relate to. l like plots that are more down to earth and I can connect to the characters.
At present, I am reading the book Column of Fire by Ken Follett. Like all of his books, it has a complex plot with lots of characters. From the start, it was clear that this was not his best work. While the story has a great premise, the execution, setting, pace, and characters let it down. I think Ken put too much effort on the history and not enough into the flow. Overall, there is too much filler and not enough solid story. I am about half way through and while I have decided to finish it, the review is going to be poor.
Despite a lot of effort, I never got into Clive Cussler and Ian Fleming. I started several of their books, but I couldn’t finish a single one. I really wanted to read the James Bond and Sahara books. It was clear they were well written and had a strong plot. They just never held my interest. The characters were too arrogant and the heroes did not act like heroes. I wouldn’t even classify them as anti-heroes.
There are complete genres of book that I avoid. Mysteries, horror, romance, cowboy, comic, poetry and travel. I never walk through those aisles at the bookstore. Fortunately, there are many authors with many books. Next on my reading list is “So, Anyway...” by John Cleese. Will I make it through the first chapter? Stay tuned to find out.
November 14, 2018
I Never Understood Existential
Rule number one for a writer is to never use a misunderstood word. For example, “The comfortable chair felt deleterious.” What a sophisticated sentence. The definition of “deleterious” clearly means nice or pleasant. Makes perfect sense. Right? The correct definition of “deleterious” is: harmful often in a subtle or unexpected way. With this knowledge, this sentence clearly contained a mistake. While deleterious isn’t a common word, there are many readers who know the correct definition and they would certainly spot this obvious error.
When I first learned about the word existential in high school, I quickly understood its sophisticated meaning and incorporated this new word into my vocabulary. To put it mildly, I had no idea what that word meant. My incorrect use led to misunderstandings and bad grades. This was a very important life lesson.
Wikipedia defines existential as: “The belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. While the predominant value of existentialist thought is commonly acknowledged to be freedom, its primary virtue is authenticity. In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called ‘the existential attitude,’ or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.”
I often find this word in literature and technical articles. “He as an existential attitude.” “A great existential work.” Just this morning, the newscaster said, “A clear case of an existential crime.”
Still, I do not even have the basic idea what this word means. Is it describing a carefree philosophy? Is it a spirited lifestyle? Is it simply a description of many obvious traits in the modern age? If forced to answer, I define this word as, “being far out reserved.” In my mind, I see an existential person as a 1960’s hippy going to college to be a scientist. An existential situation is going to a planetarium to watch a high-tech laser show set to classical music. In short, existential is the contrast between old and new. The last glimmer of hope in a bygone age. Of course, my definition is quite different from the one in Wikipedia.
For this blog, I did a search to see if I could better understand this word. I came across many good articles and I now have a better understanding of what this word is supposed to mean. Still, even the trusted sources could not fully capture the word. In addition, the trusted sources had different definitions and examples.
Well, perhaps that’s the point. Somebody invented a word that had a confusing definition. They then sat back and watched people using the word incorrectly. Is that out of the question? A prank word? It wouldn’t be the first time.
For me, this word is off limits and I suspect that I will never understand the word. Is that bad? Perhaps it is and I probably should put more effort into understanding this word. The reality is that I have moved on to other challenges. In that spirit, this blog now has an existential ending. (Whatever that means.)
When I first learned about the word existential in high school, I quickly understood its sophisticated meaning and incorporated this new word into my vocabulary. To put it mildly, I had no idea what that word meant. My incorrect use led to misunderstandings and bad grades. This was a very important life lesson.
Wikipedia defines existential as: “The belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. While the predominant value of existentialist thought is commonly acknowledged to be freedom, its primary virtue is authenticity. In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called ‘the existential attitude,’ or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.”
I often find this word in literature and technical articles. “He as an existential attitude.” “A great existential work.” Just this morning, the newscaster said, “A clear case of an existential crime.”
Still, I do not even have the basic idea what this word means. Is it describing a carefree philosophy? Is it a spirited lifestyle? Is it simply a description of many obvious traits in the modern age? If forced to answer, I define this word as, “being far out reserved.” In my mind, I see an existential person as a 1960’s hippy going to college to be a scientist. An existential situation is going to a planetarium to watch a high-tech laser show set to classical music. In short, existential is the contrast between old and new. The last glimmer of hope in a bygone age. Of course, my definition is quite different from the one in Wikipedia.
For this blog, I did a search to see if I could better understand this word. I came across many good articles and I now have a better understanding of what this word is supposed to mean. Still, even the trusted sources could not fully capture the word. In addition, the trusted sources had different definitions and examples.
Well, perhaps that’s the point. Somebody invented a word that had a confusing definition. They then sat back and watched people using the word incorrectly. Is that out of the question? A prank word? It wouldn’t be the first time.
For me, this word is off limits and I suspect that I will never understand the word. Is that bad? Perhaps it is and I probably should put more effort into understanding this word. The reality is that I have moved on to other challenges. In that spirit, this blog now has an existential ending. (Whatever that means.)
November 7, 2018
Are Ghosts Real?
It’s the job of a fiction author to transport the reader from their grounded reality into a world of fantasy. Sometimes this is a simple leap and sometimes it’s vastly complex. For example, we know they’re far-out concepts like vampires, Vulcans, and zombies. Yet, we still love stories about them and want to relate to them. When we read a fantasy work, our minds disable the obvious logic stating that fantasy characters and situations aren’t real. In some ways, this leap makes an even better story.
What about ghosts? Science is 80% sure there is no basis for ghosts, but there remains that 20%. There have been videos of ghostly images and physical proof of mysterious events. In addition, there are hundreds of personal accounts. In college, I had a ghost walk right past me. I clearly remember the experience and I’m still 100% sure it was a real ghost.
Writers utilize this ghostly concept to the extreme. People die, became ghosts and live a full afterlife. One of my favorite books is “The Graveyard Book” by Neil Gaiman. This work takes the hypothetical existence of ghosts and transforms them into normal people who are simply dead. They have average lives and go about their daily activities just like the living. Side question. Do ghosts eat ghost food? Do they ghost poop? How does that work?
Is this fair to the reader? Should Neil Gaiman take a more scientific approach? My heart screams no, but my logical mind (very quietly) says yes. Stories like this make us want to believe. My Uncle Al recently passed away. Is he floating around somewhere and yelling at his neighbors to keep their dogs quiet? Is he is subtly helping people with his wisdom and making life better for the living?
I, of course, want to believe Uncle Al is out there, but my logical mind indicates that I shouldn’t. It is fair to taunt myself with this notion? I suppose it’s nice to have hope. I would like to think Uncle Al is there subtly guiding me. I think about his voice often. Is that the real definition of a ghost? The voice in my head? My memories? The pictures I have of him? Should I taunt others by writing about my Uncle Al? Am I taunting you right now with the belief that he is still with us? A good writer should not fear the subjects they choose to write about. With that in mind, I chose to lightly enter the topic of ghosts once. I was sure to include a quasi-logical scientific explanation to let the reader know what was going on in the transformation from person to ghost.
Is it fair to give readers false hope? My logical mind says no, but my heart says that I like to give readers a good story and let them decide what is real. Wow, what a cop out. Does that mean The Graveyard Book isn’t real? Clearly, it’s pure fiction, but nobody can deny that it’s a fantastic story. What about my ghost? I know what I experienced. Therefore, that leaves some middle ground. I suppose I should conclude that ghosts probably aren’t real. However, there is no harm in enjoying a story about them.
Just like a ghost, this blog floated around the issue. Books about ghosts are certainly popular. I think they are real, but I have no proof. Will I become a ghost when I die? Only one way to find out…
What about ghosts? Science is 80% sure there is no basis for ghosts, but there remains that 20%. There have been videos of ghostly images and physical proof of mysterious events. In addition, there are hundreds of personal accounts. In college, I had a ghost walk right past me. I clearly remember the experience and I’m still 100% sure it was a real ghost.
Writers utilize this ghostly concept to the extreme. People die, became ghosts and live a full afterlife. One of my favorite books is “The Graveyard Book” by Neil Gaiman. This work takes the hypothetical existence of ghosts and transforms them into normal people who are simply dead. They have average lives and go about their daily activities just like the living. Side question. Do ghosts eat ghost food? Do they ghost poop? How does that work?
Is this fair to the reader? Should Neil Gaiman take a more scientific approach? My heart screams no, but my logical mind (very quietly) says yes. Stories like this make us want to believe. My Uncle Al recently passed away. Is he floating around somewhere and yelling at his neighbors to keep their dogs quiet? Is he is subtly helping people with his wisdom and making life better for the living?
I, of course, want to believe Uncle Al is out there, but my logical mind indicates that I shouldn’t. It is fair to taunt myself with this notion? I suppose it’s nice to have hope. I would like to think Uncle Al is there subtly guiding me. I think about his voice often. Is that the real definition of a ghost? The voice in my head? My memories? The pictures I have of him? Should I taunt others by writing about my Uncle Al? Am I taunting you right now with the belief that he is still with us? A good writer should not fear the subjects they choose to write about. With that in mind, I chose to lightly enter the topic of ghosts once. I was sure to include a quasi-logical scientific explanation to let the reader know what was going on in the transformation from person to ghost.
Is it fair to give readers false hope? My logical mind says no, but my heart says that I like to give readers a good story and let them decide what is real. Wow, what a cop out. Does that mean The Graveyard Book isn’t real? Clearly, it’s pure fiction, but nobody can deny that it’s a fantastic story. What about my ghost? I know what I experienced. Therefore, that leaves some middle ground. I suppose I should conclude that ghosts probably aren’t real. However, there is no harm in enjoying a story about them.
Just like a ghost, this blog floated around the issue. Books about ghosts are certainly popular. I think they are real, but I have no proof. Will I become a ghost when I die? Only one way to find out…
October 31, 2018
I Love to Self-Edit
I can spend hours self-editing. I am constantly tweaking sentences and making other little adjustments. There is no pressure to create something new and I can make any change I want. To me, this process is relaxing and the best part of being an author.
I read countless posts where other authors hate to self-edit. They find it tedious and boring. I have also read posts from authors that meticulously self-edit for years. I suspect these authors have had more experience with critics dramatically pointing out their errors and it gives them much anguish. I have had some harsh criticism, but not at an extreme level. Perhaps that is why the process is still fun as there is no real pressure.
I make at least 20 passes before my book goes to my beta reader. The main improvement revolves around the flow. I try to ease the burden on the reader so they are not distracted by confusing sentences. Often this means moving, expanding, breaking up and combing sentences. While the same information is still conveyed, the sentences read much better.
Another aspect I check on is the logic. Last night, I discovered that I had been referring to rooms on a ship as bedrooms and not cabins. A simple search found all the instances where I had made this obvious mistake. Last week I found a subtle issue where the character was lying down and they walked away. I changed it to say they stood up and then walked away. While this may not seem like a major issue, it is a good example of something a reader should never encounter. Logic errors disrupt a reader’s concentration. A big error can upset a reader and translate to a bad review.
Another pass revolved around facts. Ideally, a book will be read by many people. These people will have wide backgrounds, vast experiences, and a completely independent perspective. So, it is very important to check every single fact before a reader gets it.
The majority of my self-editing starts by randomly selecting a page and start reading. I find all kinds of little things to change. During this time, I have no plan. Sometimes, I jump to another section and sometimes, I jump to another book.
Overall, this process is still fun. I do get a bit of a kick when I stumble across a good mistake. I clean it up and there is satisfaction over fixing the problem. Later, when I re-read that section, I can see the improvement. I think in a well-written work; the words seem to glide rather than bunch up.
Of course, with a big book, there are hundreds of opportunities to make all kinds of mistakes and eventually, the author has to stop self-editing. To me, that is a sad day. It is also a happy day because others can now view my work. Intimidating? Of course, it is, but all that hard work pays off with a nice compliment.
I read countless posts where other authors hate to self-edit. They find it tedious and boring. I have also read posts from authors that meticulously self-edit for years. I suspect these authors have had more experience with critics dramatically pointing out their errors and it gives them much anguish. I have had some harsh criticism, but not at an extreme level. Perhaps that is why the process is still fun as there is no real pressure.
I make at least 20 passes before my book goes to my beta reader. The main improvement revolves around the flow. I try to ease the burden on the reader so they are not distracted by confusing sentences. Often this means moving, expanding, breaking up and combing sentences. While the same information is still conveyed, the sentences read much better.
Another aspect I check on is the logic. Last night, I discovered that I had been referring to rooms on a ship as bedrooms and not cabins. A simple search found all the instances where I had made this obvious mistake. Last week I found a subtle issue where the character was lying down and they walked away. I changed it to say they stood up and then walked away. While this may not seem like a major issue, it is a good example of something a reader should never encounter. Logic errors disrupt a reader’s concentration. A big error can upset a reader and translate to a bad review.
Another pass revolved around facts. Ideally, a book will be read by many people. These people will have wide backgrounds, vast experiences, and a completely independent perspective. So, it is very important to check every single fact before a reader gets it.
The majority of my self-editing starts by randomly selecting a page and start reading. I find all kinds of little things to change. During this time, I have no plan. Sometimes, I jump to another section and sometimes, I jump to another book.
Overall, this process is still fun. I do get a bit of a kick when I stumble across a good mistake. I clean it up and there is satisfaction over fixing the problem. Later, when I re-read that section, I can see the improvement. I think in a well-written work; the words seem to glide rather than bunch up.
Of course, with a big book, there are hundreds of opportunities to make all kinds of mistakes and eventually, the author has to stop self-editing. To me, that is a sad day. It is also a happy day because others can now view my work. Intimidating? Of course, it is, but all that hard work pays off with a nice compliment.
October 25, 2018
My Russian Characters
When I wrote my first book, I needed to give the main character a great background from the 1500’s. Specifically, she needed to have a humble childhood foundation to allow her to become a powerful woman. Many years ago, I came across an astounding Smithsonian website featuring 3 part color photographs from the 1800’s by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collectio...
These early photographs have been painstakingly restored to show breathtaking images of Rural Russia. I used these photographs as inspiration as I pictured my main character growing up in this simple time. In the sequel, my other main character goes searching for her all across Russia. Then in my third book, there are Russian spies. It is clear to my readers that I have a lot of Russian influence in my character development.
Did I intentionally concentrate on Russians? To me, I thought it was a random choice. However, when I took some time to think about this fact and it’s clear that I do like Russian characters. I like their inner strength, their culture, and their vast country. As for the people, I treat them as reserved, intelligent and very perceptive.
What about the Cold War and communist aspect? I generally tread lightly in this area. My characters regret their negative past and have moved on to new challenges. For modern Russian culture, I view it as transforming into something new and powerful. This epic transformation contains a lot of great material and in my third book, I use this transition as a backdrop for the entire story.
I think it’s important for a character to have pride in themselves. When I think of a typical Russian, I picture a strong person with a deep connection to their heritage. I think this gives them tremendous inner strength. Russia has had many accomplishments and their influence is vast. In looking back on my writings, I like all of my Russian characters because they come from a rich culture that’s instantly recognizable. It’s clear that my writing will contain future characters with Russian backgrounds. In writing this blog, it is also now clear to me why I have so many of them.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collectio...
These early photographs have been painstakingly restored to show breathtaking images of Rural Russia. I used these photographs as inspiration as I pictured my main character growing up in this simple time. In the sequel, my other main character goes searching for her all across Russia. Then in my third book, there are Russian spies. It is clear to my readers that I have a lot of Russian influence in my character development.
Did I intentionally concentrate on Russians? To me, I thought it was a random choice. However, when I took some time to think about this fact and it’s clear that I do like Russian characters. I like their inner strength, their culture, and their vast country. As for the people, I treat them as reserved, intelligent and very perceptive.
What about the Cold War and communist aspect? I generally tread lightly in this area. My characters regret their negative past and have moved on to new challenges. For modern Russian culture, I view it as transforming into something new and powerful. This epic transformation contains a lot of great material and in my third book, I use this transition as a backdrop for the entire story.
I think it’s important for a character to have pride in themselves. When I think of a typical Russian, I picture a strong person with a deep connection to their heritage. I think this gives them tremendous inner strength. Russia has had many accomplishments and their influence is vast. In looking back on my writings, I like all of my Russian characters because they come from a rich culture that’s instantly recognizable. It’s clear that my writing will contain future characters with Russian backgrounds. In writing this blog, it is also now clear to me why I have so many of them.
October 17, 2018
Working With An Editor
When I think of an editor, I picture an old person hunched over a desk with stacks of paper in massive organized piles. They magically know how to spell every single word, have the entire thesaurus memorized and they have all the knowledge in the universes. Just like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator, they find every single mistake and they never sleep.
In some ways, this far-out description is true. Editors do find most mistakes and they are relentless in this effort. However, they are much more than that. They check facts, look at flow, move sections around, check logic, change descriptions, delete junk and make comments.
Authors write from their single perspective and this is the really good editors take over. For example, an author might use the word “trippy” 5 times on each page. Of course, this reads just fine to the author. The editor would see this tick and reduce this word use. The result is that the reader isn’t annoyed by word overuse. This is part of an overall effort to develop a universally appreciated document.
This example also highlights a major failing of programs like Grammarly. An author could write trippy in every sentence and as long as it’s grammatically correct, all would be fine. One of my habits is to describe something and two sentences later, I describe the same thing again. I’m not sure why I do this, I guess, it’s my logical nature. Programs like Grammarly would never catch this mistake. I have read many posts about how editors are now obsolete because of programs like Grammarly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Editors also have to look at the structure, flow and overall tone. They might delete sentences, move them around and add comments. For example, “Expand this section. More about the motivation. This doesn’t make any sense. Unnecessary, consider deleting.” They also check facts and logic. For example, “WWII ended in 1955.” A simple mistake like that would really upset readers. Programs like Grammarly will never be able to know what to do with a sentence like that. Does this story contain an alternate reality where this is a true statement? Is this statement from a student that incorrectly answered a question? Or is it a genuine mistake? Either way, it’s essential to prevent major mistakes from reaching the reader's eyes.
There is, of course, a downside to working with an editor. First, they make me depressed that my grammar isn’t better. They also bland the overall tone. An author might write a great colloquialism, “Dis is a funky-fresh day. Yo!!” The editor changes it to, “This is a nice day.” To me, their efforts take away the edge, but the result is much more universally understandable.
To me, the worst part of working with an editor is when they confront you with the fact that something just isn’t working. You have failed as a writer and it’s a really hard pill to swallow. My only condolence is that in life, the hardest lessons are the most important.
It is essential to locate a good editor. I looked up many reviews before selecting one. Editors are people and they have quirks, strong opinions, ethics and they make mistakes. To further complicate matters, an author can work with 2 or 3 of them. One editor thinks a sentence should read one way and the other likes it another way. The author turns into a rag doll that is just trying to get a book out.
Another difficult part of working with an editor is that they are expensive. Typically $40-75 per hour. As a self-published author, this expense represents a major burden. However, to be taken seriously, good editing is essential.
There are some ways to reduce editing costs. The first is to self-edit a lot. This means going over your work at least 20 times. The second is to show your work to friends. Even if they don’t have a writing background, they can be extremely useful. You want comments like, “This section doesn’t make any sense. Why did Bob leave the house? You keep saying trippy.” These comments are gold mines. The result is a more powerful document that the editor can better apply their skills instead of mucking about with trivial stuff.
Editors are a writer’s best friend. They make the difference between a rabble of words and a polished document.
In some ways, this far-out description is true. Editors do find most mistakes and they are relentless in this effort. However, they are much more than that. They check facts, look at flow, move sections around, check logic, change descriptions, delete junk and make comments.
Authors write from their single perspective and this is the really good editors take over. For example, an author might use the word “trippy” 5 times on each page. Of course, this reads just fine to the author. The editor would see this tick and reduce this word use. The result is that the reader isn’t annoyed by word overuse. This is part of an overall effort to develop a universally appreciated document.
This example also highlights a major failing of programs like Grammarly. An author could write trippy in every sentence and as long as it’s grammatically correct, all would be fine. One of my habits is to describe something and two sentences later, I describe the same thing again. I’m not sure why I do this, I guess, it’s my logical nature. Programs like Grammarly would never catch this mistake. I have read many posts about how editors are now obsolete because of programs like Grammarly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Editors also have to look at the structure, flow and overall tone. They might delete sentences, move them around and add comments. For example, “Expand this section. More about the motivation. This doesn’t make any sense. Unnecessary, consider deleting.” They also check facts and logic. For example, “WWII ended in 1955.” A simple mistake like that would really upset readers. Programs like Grammarly will never be able to know what to do with a sentence like that. Does this story contain an alternate reality where this is a true statement? Is this statement from a student that incorrectly answered a question? Or is it a genuine mistake? Either way, it’s essential to prevent major mistakes from reaching the reader's eyes.
There is, of course, a downside to working with an editor. First, they make me depressed that my grammar isn’t better. They also bland the overall tone. An author might write a great colloquialism, “Dis is a funky-fresh day. Yo!!” The editor changes it to, “This is a nice day.” To me, their efforts take away the edge, but the result is much more universally understandable.
To me, the worst part of working with an editor is when they confront you with the fact that something just isn’t working. You have failed as a writer and it’s a really hard pill to swallow. My only condolence is that in life, the hardest lessons are the most important.
It is essential to locate a good editor. I looked up many reviews before selecting one. Editors are people and they have quirks, strong opinions, ethics and they make mistakes. To further complicate matters, an author can work with 2 or 3 of them. One editor thinks a sentence should read one way and the other likes it another way. The author turns into a rag doll that is just trying to get a book out.
Another difficult part of working with an editor is that they are expensive. Typically $40-75 per hour. As a self-published author, this expense represents a major burden. However, to be taken seriously, good editing is essential.
There are some ways to reduce editing costs. The first is to self-edit a lot. This means going over your work at least 20 times. The second is to show your work to friends. Even if they don’t have a writing background, they can be extremely useful. You want comments like, “This section doesn’t make any sense. Why did Bob leave the house? You keep saying trippy.” These comments are gold mines. The result is a more powerful document that the editor can better apply their skills instead of mucking about with trivial stuff.
Editors are a writer’s best friend. They make the difference between a rabble of words and a polished document.
October 11, 2018
My Computer Isn’t a Typewriter
Years ago, I came across the book “The PC is Not a Typewriter” by Robin Williams. No this isn’t the “Good Morning Vietnam” Robin Williams. His book described how to make the transition from a typewriter to a word processor. It further described the many bad habits that were brought over from the typewriter.
When I was growing up, my father had an IBM Selectric typewriter that he pumped out several books with. When I was about 10, I used his typewriter to write reports, but it didn’t help too much because I made so many mistakes. Yes, in those days whiteout was my best friend. Around that time, we got our first computer. A Wang with a giant daisy wheel printer. It had an excellent word processor (for the time) and I got rather good at creating documents on it. However, it was still essentially an elaborate typewriter with very limited spell checking. Still, it was a lifesaver.
Later, there were word processors that had many fonts and a graphical method of viewing [typesetting] the document. This was a huge improvement for everybody. However, some bad writing traits remained. For example, it’s no longer necessary to add 2 spaces after a period. Way back when, this was essential for mechanical typesetting, but now that practice wastes paper. Another is monospaced fonts and old fonts like Times New Roman which is still the gold standard. We also have wide margins around the edges of the page, double spacing, ALL CAPITOL LETTERS and using spaces instead of tabs for alignment.
Fortunately, there have been some improvements that we have embraced. A really big one is the ability to import from other sources. For example, if I was writing a book about the The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I could copy that text from the internet and it will be spelled correctly. See, I just did it.
The internet is another superb resource. For example, it can be used as a spell checker. Let’s take the word, Metropolitan and pretend that I typed, “Metrooplatin.” Looks right? But, none of the suggested correctly spelled words from the word processor look correct. If we paste this word into a search engine, often it will auto-suggest the correct word and then pulls up a dictionary. Neat trick.
Modern word processors also allow us to import pictures, share documents, easily change the format, merge the text around objects and preview before printing. The internet allows us to change the document into a different language, find new sources of content, check facts and it has many guide for improving your writing.
I now use Ariel font for everything I can, I delete the second space, never use ALL CAPITOL LETTERS and use tabs for alignment. I also look for tips and tricks within my word processor to aid my writing. A new one is the add-in Grammarly. It really helps find those grammar problems and makes my documents read better.
Overall, writers can focus on their words and let the computer take care of everything else. They can also use the internet as a fact checker, thesaurus, “urban” dictionary, source of material and a means of distribution. The overall point I am attempting to make is that we now have the endless freedom to make our documents read and look better much better. My computer is no longer just a typewriter it is a word powerhouse. While I desperately wish the world would change from Times New Roman to Ariel font, I never want to go back to a typewriter.
When I was growing up, my father had an IBM Selectric typewriter that he pumped out several books with. When I was about 10, I used his typewriter to write reports, but it didn’t help too much because I made so many mistakes. Yes, in those days whiteout was my best friend. Around that time, we got our first computer. A Wang with a giant daisy wheel printer. It had an excellent word processor (for the time) and I got rather good at creating documents on it. However, it was still essentially an elaborate typewriter with very limited spell checking. Still, it was a lifesaver.
Later, there were word processors that had many fonts and a graphical method of viewing [typesetting] the document. This was a huge improvement for everybody. However, some bad writing traits remained. For example, it’s no longer necessary to add 2 spaces after a period. Way back when, this was essential for mechanical typesetting, but now that practice wastes paper. Another is monospaced fonts and old fonts like Times New Roman which is still the gold standard. We also have wide margins around the edges of the page, double spacing, ALL CAPITOL LETTERS and using spaces instead of tabs for alignment.
Fortunately, there have been some improvements that we have embraced. A really big one is the ability to import from other sources. For example, if I was writing a book about the The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I could copy that text from the internet and it will be spelled correctly. See, I just did it.
The internet is another superb resource. For example, it can be used as a spell checker. Let’s take the word, Metropolitan and pretend that I typed, “Metrooplatin.” Looks right? But, none of the suggested correctly spelled words from the word processor look correct. If we paste this word into a search engine, often it will auto-suggest the correct word and then pulls up a dictionary. Neat trick.
Modern word processors also allow us to import pictures, share documents, easily change the format, merge the text around objects and preview before printing. The internet allows us to change the document into a different language, find new sources of content, check facts and it has many guide for improving your writing.
I now use Ariel font for everything I can, I delete the second space, never use ALL CAPITOL LETTERS and use tabs for alignment. I also look for tips and tricks within my word processor to aid my writing. A new one is the add-in Grammarly. It really helps find those grammar problems and makes my documents read better.
Overall, writers can focus on their words and let the computer take care of everything else. They can also use the internet as a fact checker, thesaurus, “urban” dictionary, source of material and a means of distribution. The overall point I am attempting to make is that we now have the endless freedom to make our documents read and look better much better. My computer is no longer just a typewriter it is a word powerhouse. While I desperately wish the world would change from Times New Roman to Ariel font, I never want to go back to a typewriter.
October 3, 2018
Writing a Good Main Character
Books generally revolve around one or more main characters. When I wrote my first three books, I wasn’t thinking about structure or character development. I just jumped into writing the first page. Later in the editing process, I added a lot to the characters. They gained background, got better descriptions and had a clearer definition of their motives. This made my book a lot stronger with a good plot foundation. In my fourth book, I did something radically different. I started with an outline. In addition, I wrote a basic biography of each character. The result was a more structured plot with refined characters.
What are the elements of a good main character? First, when introducing a central figure, it’s essential to provide a solid background. This person will be leading the story and the reader has to connect to them. Next, the reader needs to know their motivation. The plot is going to revolve around the main character and readers require a solid connection to the characters decisions. Readers don’t react well to random decisions. Finally, the reader has to have a good character description. It’s the author’s job to place the body of the character into the reader's mind.
Now that the foundation has been laid, the character must become involved with the plot. A good character leads the plot. This means that they make the choices and interact with the consequences. For example, there is a fork in the road and Jane choose left. She did make her decision based upon her local knowledge. It turns out that the right path was the better choice. The author then describes how Jane regretted her decision.
As the plot builds, so should the characters. Characters are never static, they grow, fail, succeed and change. For example, car driver Bob wins many races and then he begins to lose races. How does losing effect Bob’s outlook and how does this affect the people around Bob? The author should provide this insight to build a clear picture of Bob’s inner workings. Readers should comprehend his troubles and relate to his ability to handle them.
It’s important to note that the characters personality should be different than the author’s personality. During the writing process, the author needs to ask questions about this person. For example, “Bob, how did you feel about losing that last race?” Mentally, the author needs to put themselves into the character Bob and answer that question. This is vastly different from an author thinking, “Alright, how would I feel about losing a race?” Character Bob is distinct and unique. For example, he might be arrogant and think, “It’s the car’s fault.” In the plot, Bob has motivations, distractions, limitations, and rewards. An author’s only motivation should be to write a great book.
By the end of the book, the reader should have a clear grasp of the main characters. How do I come up with my character framework? Some characters are based on people I know. In my second book tentatively titled Kim and Gabe Survive, I based one character on a former boss, Steve. Granted the character name is different, but when I was writing, I pictured myself asking Steve questions and estimating his responses. In that same book, I had a protagonist based on an evil co-worker. I even captured the tasteless way he dressed. This helped me to pump angry emotions into my words.
For the rest of my characters, I had a distinct idea of what kind of a person they were. I made sure to keep their personality separate from my own. In general, I make them stronger, weaker, smarter or wealthier. In this way, it is easier to distance them from myself and estimate how a distinctly different person would react to the situation that I have put them into.
Early on in my writing, many of my characters hit close to home. In my second book, the main character was an Electrical Engineer like me. He described a painful relationship breakup that was taken directly from my life’s experiences. As my fourth book started with an outline, I went to much greater lengths to distance my character from my personal life. My reasoning was that this would provide the characters with more depth. Or was it that I had run out of good characters form my life?
Are distant characters less real to the reader? There is a certain comfort in writing about a character based on a real person. I loosely biased a character on my Uncle Al. In my latest book, I have a completely made up prison warden. I gave him a verbal tick with reduced intelligence. Which character reads better? Difficult to say from my perspective; I like them both. I suspect that if asked readers would find the warden more amusing that character based on my uncle more interesting.
Writing is fun and I get a lot out of it. Next, to the plot, the main characters are the most important part of a book. Treat them well and they will treat you well.
What are the elements of a good main character? First, when introducing a central figure, it’s essential to provide a solid background. This person will be leading the story and the reader has to connect to them. Next, the reader needs to know their motivation. The plot is going to revolve around the main character and readers require a solid connection to the characters decisions. Readers don’t react well to random decisions. Finally, the reader has to have a good character description. It’s the author’s job to place the body of the character into the reader's mind.
Now that the foundation has been laid, the character must become involved with the plot. A good character leads the plot. This means that they make the choices and interact with the consequences. For example, there is a fork in the road and Jane choose left. She did make her decision based upon her local knowledge. It turns out that the right path was the better choice. The author then describes how Jane regretted her decision.
As the plot builds, so should the characters. Characters are never static, they grow, fail, succeed and change. For example, car driver Bob wins many races and then he begins to lose races. How does losing effect Bob’s outlook and how does this affect the people around Bob? The author should provide this insight to build a clear picture of Bob’s inner workings. Readers should comprehend his troubles and relate to his ability to handle them.
It’s important to note that the characters personality should be different than the author’s personality. During the writing process, the author needs to ask questions about this person. For example, “Bob, how did you feel about losing that last race?” Mentally, the author needs to put themselves into the character Bob and answer that question. This is vastly different from an author thinking, “Alright, how would I feel about losing a race?” Character Bob is distinct and unique. For example, he might be arrogant and think, “It’s the car’s fault.” In the plot, Bob has motivations, distractions, limitations, and rewards. An author’s only motivation should be to write a great book.
By the end of the book, the reader should have a clear grasp of the main characters. How do I come up with my character framework? Some characters are based on people I know. In my second book tentatively titled Kim and Gabe Survive, I based one character on a former boss, Steve. Granted the character name is different, but when I was writing, I pictured myself asking Steve questions and estimating his responses. In that same book, I had a protagonist based on an evil co-worker. I even captured the tasteless way he dressed. This helped me to pump angry emotions into my words.
For the rest of my characters, I had a distinct idea of what kind of a person they were. I made sure to keep their personality separate from my own. In general, I make them stronger, weaker, smarter or wealthier. In this way, it is easier to distance them from myself and estimate how a distinctly different person would react to the situation that I have put them into.
Early on in my writing, many of my characters hit close to home. In my second book, the main character was an Electrical Engineer like me. He described a painful relationship breakup that was taken directly from my life’s experiences. As my fourth book started with an outline, I went to much greater lengths to distance my character from my personal life. My reasoning was that this would provide the characters with more depth. Or was it that I had run out of good characters form my life?
Are distant characters less real to the reader? There is a certain comfort in writing about a character based on a real person. I loosely biased a character on my Uncle Al. In my latest book, I have a completely made up prison warden. I gave him a verbal tick with reduced intelligence. Which character reads better? Difficult to say from my perspective; I like them both. I suspect that if asked readers would find the warden more amusing that character based on my uncle more interesting.
Writing is fun and I get a lot out of it. Next, to the plot, the main characters are the most important part of a book. Treat them well and they will treat you well.
September 26, 2018
Full Time to Part Time Author
When I was working part-time, I spent 4 to 8 hours per day in front of the computer and I was able to write 4.5 books. Of course, that effort didn’t pay the bills and I eagerly accepted full-time employment when it was offered.
As I transitioned from a full-time author to part-time, I noticed several changes in my writing. The main change, of course, was the amount that I produced. This is a natural result of spending fewer hours per day. However, while my book writing output decreased, my blog writing increased. In addition, the quality of my writing increased.
Why? It takes tremendous focus to write. Obviously, I cannot write while at work and when I get home, my time is special. When I was at home all day, my life didn’t have any structure. Now with a 5-day work week, my writing has adapted to my routine. I spend a measured amount of time blog writing, self-editing and creating new paragraphs for my fifth book. There is a lot more focus and my time is better utilized. This is why I now have a new blog every Wednesday evening. When I was spending 4-8 hours a day writing, my blogs came out monthly.
I also noticed a change in my attitude. Before, my writing was a hobby. Now, it’s an exercise in freedom. My time at home is special and I use this precious time to write. Granted, I probably should be using this precious time to start a business, but that’s another story.
Am I disappointed that I no longer have the freedom to write all day long? I suppose. Writing is fun and I get a lot out of it. I do miss the days filled with endless creativity. There isn’t much freedom in technical writing. Electrons don’t have a sense of humor.
What about the bad parts of full-time writing? My hands hurt a lot from all that typing and I had eye strain. I placed a lot of pressure on myself to succeed and my limited book sales were very hard on me. I had to write 7 days a week to keep from going crazy. Now, I can take my time and the words follow a lot easier. I still have stress, but that is from work and it is to be expected.
Is my life better now? Mentally I’m in a much better place because I can provide for my family. My life also has a lot more structure which is important to me. Granted, I would prefer if I could make decent money from writing. In that effort, I’m going to keep trying and I can see a dim light at the end of a very long tunnel.
As I transitioned from a full-time author to part-time, I noticed several changes in my writing. The main change, of course, was the amount that I produced. This is a natural result of spending fewer hours per day. However, while my book writing output decreased, my blog writing increased. In addition, the quality of my writing increased.
Why? It takes tremendous focus to write. Obviously, I cannot write while at work and when I get home, my time is special. When I was at home all day, my life didn’t have any structure. Now with a 5-day work week, my writing has adapted to my routine. I spend a measured amount of time blog writing, self-editing and creating new paragraphs for my fifth book. There is a lot more focus and my time is better utilized. This is why I now have a new blog every Wednesday evening. When I was spending 4-8 hours a day writing, my blogs came out monthly.
I also noticed a change in my attitude. Before, my writing was a hobby. Now, it’s an exercise in freedom. My time at home is special and I use this precious time to write. Granted, I probably should be using this precious time to start a business, but that’s another story.
Am I disappointed that I no longer have the freedom to write all day long? I suppose. Writing is fun and I get a lot out of it. I do miss the days filled with endless creativity. There isn’t much freedom in technical writing. Electrons don’t have a sense of humor.
What about the bad parts of full-time writing? My hands hurt a lot from all that typing and I had eye strain. I placed a lot of pressure on myself to succeed and my limited book sales were very hard on me. I had to write 7 days a week to keep from going crazy. Now, I can take my time and the words follow a lot easier. I still have stress, but that is from work and it is to be expected.
Is my life better now? Mentally I’m in a much better place because I can provide for my family. My life also has a lot more structure which is important to me. Granted, I would prefer if I could make decent money from writing. In that effort, I’m going to keep trying and I can see a dim light at the end of a very long tunnel.
