Trudy Myers's Blog, page 48

Evolving Characters

Humans are said to 'learn' and to 'grow'. This is indicated by the old sayings, "Grow up," and "Act your age." And most humans do manage to remember what they've learned so far in their life, add to it whatever they've learned lately. Putting these things together, they adjust their thoughts, their decisions and actions. They learn, grow and mature.
In writing, characters are said to 'evolve', if the writer is any good.
I'm not sure why a different phrase is used for characters, who are created as representatives of human beings.
I mean, let's look at this. Wherever the story opens, the characters have a personality, and to have that, they have a backstory ... basic life events that have formed them into the 'person' they are. The author is supposed to have that all thought out, even if s/he doesn't actually say any of it in the story.
As the story proceeds, the character is challenged, reacts, learns and adjusts. Woops, I mean, he 'evolves'.
I don't know, to me, 'evolve' means 'become something new'. That sounds like a character who starts at Personality A suddenly makes a complete change to become Personality Z. I have trouble believing people do that, even when that person is a story character.
Person or character, I have a much easier time believing someone starts at Personality A and as a result of the challenge, reaction, learning and adjusting, winds up as Personality A1. A character who does that is much more believable to me.
What do you think?

Open Letter to Internet Advertisers

I can understand why businesses would take advantage of the opportunity to expand their customer base to those on the internet. I even understand that doing so means there are ads trying to gain the attention of every internet user. But the increase and insistent proliferation of those ads - interfering in every aspect of my use of the internet - is really beginning to P**S me off!

Example 1 - Every time I try to sign in to check my email, I am instead rerouted to a request to take a survey. This despite my browser being set to prevent pop-ups. That is like stepping onto my porch to retrieve my snail mail, and being accosted by someone demanding I take their survey instead. Or trying to call a friend for a chat, and finding myself talking to an automated survey that only responds to answers to its questions.

Example 2 - Whenever I play an on-line game, I have to wait through an ad. It wasn't so bad when one viewing would get me to the game, but recently, I've had to wait through that ad for EACH level of the game. Really? That's like reading a book and having to wade through an ad between the chapters.

Example 3 - Every website I visit anymore has more ads than content. And if my cursor wanders over one of those ads, that ad enlarges to cover most of the screen. And far too often, the means to close that ad is hard to find, or possibly non-existent. That would be like driving along a highway and being unable to see any scenery because the billboards are lined up to completely block the view.

Well, I grew up with television ads interrupting my shows every few minutes. I guess I need to learn to tune out these new types of ads, too. I already don't watch the ads for the games, I close the surveys without taking them, just like I close the ads that get accidentally enlarged. But all of these reactions take time away from my life. That's why I get so mad.

You advertisers need to find a way to get the business' messages across without wasting the time of the people you want to be customers. How you do that is your problem. Ours is to find what we actually want to get to on the internet.

When to Listen

It seems like for every book, movie or gadget that comes along, there are plenty of people willing to tell everybody else how good or bad it is. Some of them actually get paid for it.
 Do you listen to any of them?
Years ago, the local newspaper had a movie reviewer. It didn't take long for my friends and I to realize that any science fiction movie that came along, he hated. Since we liked science fiction, why would we listen to him? Obviously, our opinions didn't agree with his.
More recently, I've noticed lots of people on Facebook writing their thoughts on this movie or that movie. It's understandable. Who do you talk with about movies you've seen if not your friends? I listen to these comments. Then I decide whether or not they will influence my decision about seeing that movie.
Other people's opinions are fine. Everybody is entitled to have their own opinion. If I listen to the comments of someone I know shares my likes and dislikes, then their opinion might effect my decision. If they have completely different likes and dislikes, their comments are not likely to effect my decision.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?
What about you? Seen any good movies lately? Read any good books?

Science Fiction Conventions

Science fiction conventions are frequently attended by authors of books in many different genres; sf, fantasy, horror, paranormal, even mystery, romance and erotica. Some of these genres used to be sub-genres of science fiction, others have been blended with science fiction. No attendee of these conventions is surprised to learn that these authors write in more than one field.
But why do authors pay for their own travel, lodging and a ticket to the convention in the first place? Wouldn't they be better off staying home and writing?
A lot of them would probably rather be at home, writing. But these days, most authors also have to devote time to marketing their work to the public. So they choose which conventions they will attend, they contact those conventions and volunteer to participate on panels. They give readings. They have autograph sessions.
In fact, there are several ways an author may 'profit' by attending an sf convention:
·       They meet with fans and potential fans of their work.
·       They sell a few copies of their books.
·       They network with other authors, giving them a chance to compare notes.
·       (At some conventions) They might network with editors, agents and publishers.
·       For a weekend, they step away from their work schedule, which could give their imagination a chance to 'recharge'.
There may be other things I haven't thought about. And other than all that, authors might attend a convention for the same reason non-writers attend them - they're a lot of fun!
What do you think? What's your favorite convention?

Practice What You Preach

I read several newsletters and blogs to learn how to write better; how to open a novel and grab the reader, how to involve all the senses, ... that sort of thing. One of the first things I was taught was that your first draft is not your last draft. (Took me a lo-o-ong time to learn that lesson.)
Your first draft is where you get the basic ideas out of your head and onto paper - or computer file, or whatever. Then you spend time going through that project a few times to add descriptions, select a more precise verb, make sure the reader understands what you intended to say.
And then, you polish it.
Remember back in school, when you learned about subjects, verbs, direct objects, punctuation, and all of that? That's the stuff a writer worries about in the final polish. Because as a writer, you want others to see your work in its best condition. If your work is full of misspelled words, incorrect choice of pronouns, and 'sentences' that don't make sense because you forgot your punctuation, the readers won't be able to understand what your are trying to say.
I understand that bloggers and newsletter editors have a limited amount of time, but this is a very important part of writing. Unfortunately, not every writer remembers that before they post their blog or article. And I have found some that I am thinking of not following anymore because I have to work so hard to figure out what they are trying to say. Repeated words. Extra pronouns from when they rewrote the sentence, but didn't get it completely cleaned up. Missing commas that - if they were there - would tell the reader 'I've finished that thought, now I'm moving on.'
It's sad when a group of people manage to forget the lingual necessities that they continually remind each other are so important. I hope I never get that sloppy with my blogs. If you catch me at it, feel free to call me out about it.

Dogs of the World

I like dogs. (I love cats, but that's another story.) Lately I've been reading a few articles having to do with the genealogy of dogs, particularly in the Americas.
When I was a kid, school described North American indian tribes as having horses and ponies. I was too young to question that at the time. Later, it was explained that the ponies originated with the Spanish explorers in Mexico, and that they quickly spread throughout North America. I assumed the indian dogs were a similar story.
But it turns out that dogs had already been here when the Spaniards, the Vikings, and other Europeans arrived. It had been assumed that when the indigenous people died out, their dogs died with them, having no one to take care of them.
These recent articles explained that the original 'American' dogs came over the land bridge from Asia and Siberia with the people who became indigenous indian tribes. Those dogs did not die out and were not supplanted by European dogs. They survived, interbred with the European dogs, and are still here.
This was discovered by comparing the DNA of American dogs with that of Asian and European dogs. The American DNA was much closer to the Asian DNA than the European DNA. This was true as far east as Greenland.
So the Mexican hairless, the Peruvian hairless, and any number of other breeds are about as American as they can get.
My family has a mutt. He's a great addition to our family, and I assume he's an 'American' mutt. How about you? Tell me about your dog.

Billions of Possibilities

I ran across a headline a few days ago that stated that scientists now estimate that there may be billions of planets in the galaxy capable of supporting life. What took them so long to arrive at that conclusion?
The Science Fiction writers I grew up reading - Asimov, Clark, Bradbury, Biggles, Haldeman, to name a few - assumed there were plenty of planets that could support life, and that many of them had intelligent occupants. It seemed pretty logical to me.
This is the way I thought about it: solar systems like ours were created by the laws of physics. A star is born surrounded by swirling dust, the dust clumps together to form planets circling that star. Since that's how it happens, why wouldn't it happen around other stars as well? It happens because of physics, so it would.
So, plenty of planets out there.
Capable of supporting life? Some of those planets were certain to be in the 'Goldilocks Zone', where water could exist as liquid and not only as ice. And it didn't make any sense to me that out of all of those planets in the various Goldilocks Zones, ours was the only one that had an atmosphere, the only one that wasn't a gas giant or a small lump of rock. The math - in my mind - just didn't support the idea that out of all the solar systems in this galaxy, there was only one planet that could support life.
Supports an intelligent life? Why not? Whatever circumstances happen to create life, there are billions of possibilities for those circumstances to be replicated on other planets. And it actually only happens once? Again, the math doesn't support that outcome. And if we accept that has happened, then it only seems logical that some of that life would develop intelligence. Because, after all, even on Earth, man is not the only animal that has intelligence.
Perhaps, as scientists, they needed proof of the existence of all those other planets. This also seems strange to me. Why wouldn't they have followed the physics and math to the hypothesis that were many other planets out there that might be interesting? Instead, it seems to me that they went with the theory that we were the only planet with intelligent species, and now they are working to disprove that theory.
I think that's backwards.

Not a Survivor

I enjoy stories of survival. You know the plot types: a spaceship crash lands and the crew/passengers have only their wits to figure out how to survive; a spaceship has severe technical difficulties, and the people aboard have to figure out how to survive; after some type of apocalypse, a rag-tag band of people have to figure out... Basically, a group of people are stripped of all the luxuries they are accustomed to having, and maybe some of their necessities as well, and they are forced to concentrate on basic survival.
I learned a little bit about camping as a kid; don't pitch your tent in a ravine, how to build a campfire and make sure it's out, building a make-shift shower, how to make burnt toast over your campfire... I learned enough to know I don't like it and never want to do it again. And we never went camping in winter, so I have no experience dealing with cold as well as everything else.
Last Monday, a storm blew through town at about 70 mph, taking down tree limbs, full-grown trees, power lines and doing a number on some street lights and traffic signals. We were without power for 3 days.
No lights. No air conditioning. No fans. No cold drinks. Don't open the freezer or refrigerator. No cooking (kitchen is all-electric). No computers. No television or radio.
Know what I discovered? I probably would not survive, if thrown into one of those survival plots. When the weather is hot, I tend to just sit, with no energy to do anything. When the temperature is cold, I wrap up in blankets and sit, or crawl into bed, just trying to keep warm.
What do you think? Do people who can't handle a situation live through it vicariously by reading about others who manage to survive?

Story That Isn't a Story #2

Last week I told you about a story that hadn't satisfied me because the writing style was too old and it left far too many questions unanswered. The second story did not disappoint as far as writing style, but it still left too many questions unanswered.
Story 2 takes place in a world populated by various mythical creatures, some familiar to this reader, others not so much. On that world is a land populated by centaurs. The centaurs are of two types. The High Ones I see as the nobility of the country. Their strain is older and they have a touch of magic in their blood. But they mix freely with the commoners; the current king has married a commoner, and they have three children. Apparently, the High Ones' magic flows through the generations undiluted, which is just a little boggling to the science side of my mind, but I beat my disbelief into submission. I did the same for the question of if the High Ones are an older strain and magic flows through them undiluted through the generations, where did the commoners come from?
The country is about to be plunged into war. The king must lead his troops, which leaves his wife to take on the responsibility of supervising the protection of the palace. The queen is uncertain, having no background in strategy or warfare. This was something I could get into; a character who had to learn to use skills she didn't necessarily have. I settled in to see how she did at it.
The army marched off to the east. There were some troubling raids on the north edge, which kept the remaining troops busy. Then everything goes wrong, magic kills all the High Ones, the palace is overrun, and the queen barely gets away with a handful of followers to hide from their enemies until they can exact justice.
End of story.
I just about fell off my seat.
I felt somebody had just read me chapter one and then thrown the book away. I had prepared to watch the queen learn and work and become the new leader of her people, but instead, all I got was the circumstances that would put her on that path. She never actually followed the path.
To me, this is like telling the story of Sleeping Beauty, and ending it when SB succumbs to the spell that puts her to sleep. Incomplete!

Stories That Are Not Stories #1

A couple days ago, I went to bed early, but found myself too tired to go to sleep. I had enough time to read 2 stories I had recently purchased from a regional publisher.
After reading, I slept through the night and found myself thinking about those 2 stories all the next day. They had both left me disappointed. I felt I hadn't gotten any ending.
Today I will analyze why Story #1 disappointed me, and next week, I'll examine Story #2.
Story #1 was written in an old style, as something that might have been written in the 19th century. The scene was a dinner party, and the 'action' of the people attending this dinner consisted of taking bites and refusing to acknowledge the existence of a newly discovered tribe, even though one member of that tribe was seated at the table with them. The 'story' of the discovery of that tribe was told in flashback by the two anthropologists who had searched for them. The tribe had not wanted to be found, and had always - throughout the centuries - dealt with strangers coming to find them, as well as tribe members who wanted to leave. Before the entire story is told to the dinner party, there is a scream in another part of the house, which everybody rushes to investigate, and when they find ... apparently nothing, they discover the tribe member has disappeared without a trace. End of story.
No wonder I was disappointed by that one. I can drag myself through stories written in the 19th century, but it isn't easy. The style of writing has changed so dramatically. These days, authors are expected to "show, don't tell". But in Story #1, even the bits of information in the flashbacks were told to the reader, not shown. And since the scene was presented as a dinner party, it was just one big 'info dump', another thing that is frowned on these days. Finally, although the reader has a really strong suspicion what has happened to the tribal member, it is left undetermined. Like so many of today's horror movies, I was left wondering when the 'monster' would make its next appearance. To me, an unclear ending is not an ending.