Eva Sandor's Blog, page 2

Rules for repetition

A writer in a forum shared plans to repeat a sequence five times and asked for advice on how to pull it off. I replied…

This advice is just based on a hunch of what I would experience as a reader, but here goes: I would NOT let the impactfulness sag on times #2 and #4. That's almost guaranteed to look like a mistake.

If you're going to have something happen five times, you have to build it up and up, adding a new twist of some kind every time so that your reader is a) actually looking forward to yet another instance of whatever it is, rather than getting bored with it and b) is left in zero doubt that you are writing the repetitive sequence intentionally and with a mastery of your craft. The moment it sags, drags or looks like you're repeating yourself they'll put the book down.

On the very last time, you might get away with having it seem duller than the others...at first. But of course that's only a head fake to mask the biggest twist of all, because otherwise your reader will curse your name for putting them through all of that and then not paying it off big-time.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but like I said, I'm just telling you from a reader POV what the task you're setting for yourself is going to be. I hope you do in fact take it on, and with great success!

create a stranger

A fellow writer asked for help creating characters “who don’t all feel the same”. Here’s what I suggested:

Personality is the sum total of... how someone is. How they behave, how others react to them. If your characters all feel too similar, I believe that would be because you aren't making an effort to craft differentiated strangers.

To unpack that statement a little bit, think about what you're making your characters do and say. It's really effortless to just... write down the first thing you think of. Boom, done. It feels easy, and so you assume it's genuine, because everyone says that characters will "speak" to you.

But the truth is, that easy, glib, always-the-same character you keep creating over and over again might just be... you.

Truly unique characters only start "speaking in their own voices" once you've gone to the trouble of crafting them. Once you've made them different from one another-- carefully, deliberately-- only then do they reach a certain critical mass of unique characteristics and come alive.

I often go back and tweak details such as having one character always use dashes— and another, always use ellipses... because that makes them look different on the page. I check and make sure that if one character habitually uses a certain expression, then no other character uses it. If I'm writing eye dialect (the sound of their speech, a la Mark Twain or James Herriot) then I am careful not to have two characters using the same accent in the same scene.

It's work to do all this, but work you have to put in if you want their personalities to be distinctive. Don't settle for the familiar. Create strangers who will become familiar to you.

Poiple panic

I would say this: “purple prose” isn't about showing, telling, or any specific wordcraft technique. "Purple" is when it's embarrassing to read because it's gone beyond what the creation of a work of art requires, over the edge into self-indulgence (oblivious or otherwise).

There's a long gradient between describing a thing so that the reader can imagine it and... talking to yourself while the reader overhears. People have various preferences, or tolerances, for points along that gradient. When you're writing, ya gotta read too— read the room.

Lemme tell YA

A fellow writer on Reddit’s r/writing forum asked, “Are there any alternative to the “show, don’t tell” method”. Leaving aside the wrong form of the verb “be” and and the lack of a question mark, I got to the heart of the matter. Here’s my reply:

Yes. There's a reason the craft of fiction is called storyTELLING and that's because, if you "tell" it well, readers love it.

Let's look at the opening of The Hobbit:

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort."

Some might try to argue that was "showing" because it had vivid description in it. But look closer-- not one single thing here is actually SHOWING us Bilbo's actual home. We are TOLD it exists, and that he lives there; we are TOLD it's not a gross hole or a bleak hole; we are TOLD once again that it's a hobbit hole, and we're TOLD what that means.

Go forth and tell likewise, whenever appropriate. Today's sin is showing...and showing... and shoooowwwingggg way too much, when it could have just been told.

dreamworld

A fellow poster on one of Reddit’s writing forums sighed that he was living in his imagination. I concurred.

I’m feeling ya, fren. When you build an entire world and live there while expanding it from the inside out, it takes over your mind. Hard to be anywhere else, not fully. One neuron is always back there in your imagination, and you want people to join you THERE.

My *dream come true* is someday to hear people talking about my books the way they talked about Breaking Bad. And I’m in the same boat as you with the spouse, except my victim is my husband. Oy, poor guy!

You downloaded the audiobook sample? That is so, so cool of you! Please do listen, hope you love it and become a fan. These characters grow like crazy over the course of the next 2 books and it’s my dream to have people dig them the way they do The Venture Bros., Discworld, Letterkenny and other passionate fandoms. I want to add to people’s lives with my imagination.

hacking the hackneyed

Writers’ forum users were lamenting the overused “chosen one, because prophecy, but character refuses” trope. I weighed in.

It IS overused-- but only because it’s the very first part of “The Hero’s Journey” archetype. There are good reasons why we see this pattern again and again, so don't beat yourself up that you used it. It’s like saying “OMG I drew a circle. A fuckin’ circle!! Isn’t that an overused shape?”

If that bugs you, just think about the parts of it. Break it down. See if you can innovate.

One: character is “chosen”. Why is this? Well, because you can’t write about everyone in the world— your main character has to be singled out somehow. But can you come up with a fresh way to have her “chosen”? And why a prophecy, exactly? What does a prophecy do that some other type of choosing doesn’t— talk about the past? add gravitas? set up stakes? can you come up with an alternate way to do the same job?

Two: character wants nothing to do with it. Why not? Often it’s because we want the reader to get on board with rooting for the character. If they immediately sprang into action it could make the character look foolhardy, gullible or arrogant (but does it have to? can you find a way for it not to?). There are other reasons she might “refuse the call”— plot pacing, having other characters try to talk her into it, whatever. Look at the job this has to do, and see if you can freshen it up.

These are your opportunities as a writer. The more overused the trope, the more leverage you have on it to give it a big twist.

the buzz on was

According to writers’ forums, many authors struggle with overuse of the word “was”. One poster all but declared war on the unfortunate verb. My response WAS:

I think that advice is meant as a gentle reminder not to fall back on a lazy repetition of the "[Subject] was [adjective]", "[Subject] was [verb-ing]" and "[Subject] was [at location]" constructions.

In each case it’s not was, per se, that's the problem. It’s that this infomation can be imparted using sentences crafted in much more intriguing and variable ways.

Calvin was at the top of the sledding hill. Calvin stared past his sled, down the hill and into the scratchy bushes.

Calvin was plotting something. Calvin struggled to keep a sneaky look from contaminating his entire face.

Susie was Calvin’s nemesis. Susie and Calvin got along about as well as a pair of weasels tied back to back with a dirty shoelace.