"Plot Points and Pacing and Getting Unstuck," which I wrote for A. C. Grant's Creative Writing Toolbox, has just been added to my Revision Strategies page. About two weeks ago, I added "Female Characters and the Readers Who Love Them" to the Characterizations page. The characterizations page has pictures now as well, mainly because the one of Agatha Heterodyne was too good not to include, so I had to add the ones of Gregory Peck and Alan Rickman as the characters Atticus Finch and Severus Snape.
The characterizations posts were sort of a tangent for A. C.'s blog, and once I got started, it was like a runaway train. If only my fiction writing went so smoothly.
I've found a couple of interesting articles on female characterizations. Give me some time to write a decent post on them.
See you next week.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
I got nothin'
I'm currently blocked. But Neil Gaiman isn't. I can't wait to read whatever it is he's working on.
Full post here.
It's a weird thing, writing.
Sometimes you can look out across what you're writing, and it's like looking out over a landscape on a glorious, clear summer's day. You can see every leaf on every tree, and hear the birdsong, and you know where you'll be going on your walk.
And that's wonderful.
Sometimes it's like driving through fog. You can't really see where you're going. You have just enough of the road in front of you to know that you're probably still on the road, and if you drive slowly and keep your headlamps lowered you'll still get where you were going.
And that's hard while you're doing it, but satisfying at the end of a day like that, where you look down and you got 1500 words that didn't exist in that order down on paper, half of what you'd get on a good day, and you drove slowly, but you drove.
And sometimes you come out of the fog into clarity, and you can see just what you're doing and where you're going, and you couldn't see or know any of that five minutes before.
And that's magic.
The rest of the post goes on to say that his current project is taking a different direction from where he'd originally planned.
It's exciting and scary to stare into the abyss, even if you see the other side. How awesome to trust the magic.
I'm not there yet. But after some research and a few outlines, and a cure for insomnia, maybe I will be.
Thanks for stopping by.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Commonly-Confused Words: Don't Be Discreet When Citing a Site
Saw some really messed-up usages on Yahoo! this week, so I thought I’d share with you how to use these words correctly.
discreet/discrete:
Unfortunately, they’re both adjectives, so there’s no easy memory gimmick to help you with these. Discreet is judicious, decorous, modestly unobtrusive. Taking somebody aside to tell them they botched the assignment is much more discreet than yelling at them in front of their coworkers. From the same Latin root as our modern word “discern.” To use discretion is to be judicious or thoughtful when making a choice. Discrete, on the other hand, means detached, separated, as in: “The students were in discrete groups for the mythology unit: some groups researched Greek myths, some Roman, and some Egyptian.” From the Latin discretus, meaning “separated.”
site/ cite/ sight:
Site is a noun, and only a noun. It is used as a synonym for place. “The photographer was shown the dig site where the pottery shards were found.” “The new site for the store has excellent freeway access.” It’s been compounded into the word website, which is, simply, “a place on the Web.”
Cite is a verb, and only a verb. It means to quote, to mention or support, or to call attention to. “Don’t neglect to cite your sources in your research paper.” “The candidate cited her experience with a local Board of Education when listing her qualifications for State Board of Education.” “The soldier was cited for bravery on the battlefield.” Equally, “My brother was cited yesterday for going 45 in a 30 zone.”
Sight can be noun and verb and its past participle can be adjectival. As a noun, it can simply refer to vision: “I’m angry with you and I need you out of my sight for awhile.” Or as a metaphoric reference to a firearm: “You obviously cannot be trusted, so be warned I have you in my sights.” As a past-tense verb: “She was sighted coming out of The Coffee Cave yesterday.” It’s a little silly and pretentious to use it instead of seen, but at least it’s used correctly; I’ve seen sited used in that context. The past participle sighted is also used as an adjective. “All but one of the Gleeson’s children were sighted; the youngest lost his sight to diabetic retinopathy.”
discreet/discrete:
Unfortunately, they’re both adjectives, so there’s no easy memory gimmick to help you with these. Discreet is judicious, decorous, modestly unobtrusive. Taking somebody aside to tell them they botched the assignment is much more discreet than yelling at them in front of their coworkers. From the same Latin root as our modern word “discern.” To use discretion is to be judicious or thoughtful when making a choice. Discrete, on the other hand, means detached, separated, as in: “The students were in discrete groups for the mythology unit: some groups researched Greek myths, some Roman, and some Egyptian.” From the Latin discretus, meaning “separated.”
site/ cite/ sight:
Site is a noun, and only a noun. It is used as a synonym for place. “The photographer was shown the dig site where the pottery shards were found.” “The new site for the store has excellent freeway access.” It’s been compounded into the word website, which is, simply, “a place on the Web.”
Cite is a verb, and only a verb. It means to quote, to mention or support, or to call attention to. “Don’t neglect to cite your sources in your research paper.” “The candidate cited her experience with a local Board of Education when listing her qualifications for State Board of Education.” “The soldier was cited for bravery on the battlefield.” Equally, “My brother was cited yesterday for going 45 in a 30 zone.”
Sight can be noun and verb and its past participle can be adjectival. As a noun, it can simply refer to vision: “I’m angry with you and I need you out of my sight for awhile.” Or as a metaphoric reference to a firearm: “You obviously cannot be trusted, so be warned I have you in my sights.” As a past-tense verb: “She was sighted coming out of The Coffee Cave yesterday.” It’s a little silly and pretentious to use it instead of seen, but at least it’s used correctly; I’ve seen sited used in that context. The past participle sighted is also used as an adjective. “All but one of the Gleeson’s children were sighted; the youngest lost his sight to diabetic retinopathy.”
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why there was no post this weekend
This is my talented husband playing a Native American style flute on stage with Nino Reyos at the Moab Arts and Recreation center, for a flute festival which took place over President's Day weekend. I've been trying to have some kind of predictability to my posting, usually timing them to hit on either Sunday or Monday every week, but I dropped the ball this weekend. I was making new friends and renewing some old friendships, basking in the music and talent and positive energy of the people who make flutes and the beautiful music of those who play them. And I was blissfully off the grid, only checking the computer once to see if we should be trying to cross Soldier Summit in a snowstorm at 2 in the morning (we didn't--it turned out to be a wise choice).
When I write, I agonize over every word. I edit and re-edit and often end up completely scrapping things I'd spent a good deal of time on. In other words, my process is pretty slow and I'm hard on myself. There are times I'll go back and re-read some of these posts and think, "jeez, everybody knows this. Why do I bother?" There are times I feel like taking down everything I've ever written online and crawling back into my cave of relative anonymity.
Especially when I read something like this. It's Neil Gaiman's praise for Jonathan Carroll and other writers who inspire him, put so eloquently that it makes me want to bury my own keyboard and never write again.
Here's a snippet, but I encourage you to go and read the entire post:
There are millions of competent writers out there. There are hundreds of thousands of good writers in the world, and there are a handful of great writers. And this is me, late at night, trying to figure out the difference for myself. That indefinable you-either-got-it-or-you-ain't spark that makes someone a great writer.
And then I realise that I'm asking myself the wrong question, because it's not good writers or great writers. What I'm really wondering is what makes some writers special. Like when I was a kid on the London Underground, I'd stare at the people around me. And every now and again I'd notice someone who had been drawn - a William Morris beauty, an Berni Wrightson grotesque - or someone who had been written - there are lots of Dickens characters in London, even today. It wasn't those writers who accurately recorded life: the special ones were the ones who drew it or wrote it so personally that, in some sense it seemed as if they were creating life, or creating the world and bringing it back to you. And once you 'd seen it through their eyes you could never un-see it, not ever again.
There are a few writers who are special. They make the world in their books; or rather, they open a window or a door or a magic casement, and they show you the world in which they live.
As much as being in the presence of talented and loving people inspires me, it also brings all my insecurities to the surface. The comfort zone isn't very interesting, but it is safe.
Sorry for the personal wangst. I'll be back to my critical analytical wordnerdy self next post.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Genres and Tropes: Historical Fiction
Or, “Everything I Know About History I Learned From Literature”
This is one of the most difficult posts on genres and tropes I’ve written yet, probably because it’s mostly “genre” and not much “trope.”
Historical fiction deals with fictional characters placed in a historical setting. You have practically limitless possibilities here, as long as you’re willing to do the research necessary to do justice to your subject.
You could choose a “major historical event” such as the Nazi Holocaust, the Russian Revolution, or the American Civil War and place your characters in or near the action. Your characters can be “ordinary” people caught up in extraordinary circumstances or they can be friends or acquaintances with some major historical figures of the time in which your story is set. Most authors opt for the “ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances” trope because this presents much less difficulty (both of fact and of logistics) than, for example, creating a character who’s a BFF for Eva Braun.
This is one of the most difficult posts on genres and tropes I’ve written yet, probably because it’s mostly “genre” and not much “trope.”
Historical fiction deals with fictional characters placed in a historical setting. You have practically limitless possibilities here, as long as you’re willing to do the research necessary to do justice to your subject.
You could choose a “major historical event” such as the Nazi Holocaust, the Russian Revolution, or the American Civil War and place your characters in or near the action. Your characters can be “ordinary” people caught up in extraordinary circumstances or they can be friends or acquaintances with some major historical figures of the time in which your story is set. Most authors opt for the “ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances” trope because this presents much less difficulty (both of fact and of logistics) than, for example, creating a character who’s a BFF for Eva Braun.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Some final (I hope) thoughts on reader reviews
In my past two entries, I’ve ranted about author shenanigans in response to online reviews by readers. There are writers who create accounts under assumed names, aka “sockpuppets,” in order to praise or defend their own books. They go on Twitter and encourage their friends, relatives and fans to vote down negative reviews and vote up positive ones, or to join a dogpile to criticize a negative review or attack the reviewer.This week, I turn to thoughts on amateur book reviews.
Once we've bought or borrowed a book, spent time reading it, succeeding or failing to relate to it, we feel a certain ownership. For this reason, I believe that readers have every right to call an author out for not doing research for a historical novel or for one set on the other side of the world. A writer giving a novel a present-day setting has no excuse for not checking an atlas or Google Earth to verify whether Istanbul is located in the middle of a desert or not. A writer who presumes to write about an ethnicity or culture about which they know very little deserves any criticism she gets for not accurately portraying those people, their culture, their history or folklore. I personally consider it disrespectful and arrogant to co-opt a culture without their knowledge and consent. A writer writing historical fiction has to remember that he is placing fictional characters in an historical setting and treat that setting with appropriate respect. This includes anything steampunk, science fiction, or presented as alternate history. Whatever your alterations, we readers can tell if you know your stuff or not.
Once we've bought or borrowed a book, spent time reading it, succeeding or failing to relate to it, we feel a certain ownership. For this reason, I believe that readers have every right to call an author out for not doing research for a historical novel or for one set on the other side of the world. A writer giving a novel a present-day setting has no excuse for not checking an atlas or Google Earth to verify whether Istanbul is located in the middle of a desert or not. A writer who presumes to write about an ethnicity or culture about which they know very little deserves any criticism she gets for not accurately portraying those people, their culture, their history or folklore. I personally consider it disrespectful and arrogant to co-opt a culture without their knowledge and consent. A writer writing historical fiction has to remember that he is placing fictional characters in an historical setting and treat that setting with appropriate respect. This includes anything steampunk, science fiction, or presented as alternate history. Whatever your alterations, we readers can tell if you know your stuff or not.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
More Authors Behaving Badly and a few thoughts on amateur book reviews
And the fun continues. . . This time an author calls the reviewer a b*tch and encourages her fans, via Twitter, to go to this reviewer's Goodreads page and "like" all the four and five-star reviews. She didn't have to tell them to leave a few flames while they were there. Here's the link to the original GR post and the ensuing crapstorm. I'm sorry to be devoting two entire posts to this, but it's like I just landed on Mars or something. I knew there were whiny authors out there; Anne Rice has been famous for complaining about negative reviews for at least the last 30 years. I just had no idea there were writers, supposed professionals, who would go to such great lengths to trash people who didn't like their books. My concern is not for myself as I step hesitantly into authorland, but more for the utter lack of civility and maturity that exists in the publishing world. It makes it hard to know whom to trust as one makes connections and forms friendships with other writers. It seems to me that an author this petty and childish isn't somebody I can trust, nor would they be somebody I'd want to have coffee with. How can I know that some of the vitriol directed at a reader wouldn't also be directed at myself? I don't really want to be walking around the publishing universe worrying about where the next knife in my back will be coming from.
I have written far harsher reviews than "Wendy"'s and have been flamed a couple of times by other GR posters, but I have, thankfully, managed to fly under the radar of any authors. I admit I keep a pretty low profile over there, though. I thought "Wendy"'s objections to Cass's book were thoughtfully written, and she supported all of her assertions with passages from the book. After struggling valiantly through 168 pages, she was criticized for not finishing. Most readers give up after 20 or 30 pages; "Wendy" only continued reading so she could write a more objective and thoughtful review. A book this poorly thought out, with dialogue and description this *facepalm*ingly cheesy for the first 168 pages isn't suddenly going to become awesome at page 169, so the flames for not finishing the book were completely groundless.
That same week, another Amazon review gets some underhanded treatment (brief explanation here) from the author and her fans. There are references to the author having apologized in the OP's comments, but one gets the impression that it was a less than gracious one, justified, in the author's mind, by having had her feelings hurt over a negative review. Call the waaaaaambulance. EVerybody gets bad reviews.
My problem is with sockpuppeting and flaming of dissenters being treated by authors as if it were perfectly normal and justifiable as they invite family, friends and fans to join the dogpile. Again, I refer you to the final paragraphs of this article from the UK's Guardian.
Here are two much more balanced views on the subject: one from Veronica Roth at YA Highway on the ambiguity of the dynamics of the author-reviewer relationship, and a very contrite one from Hannah Moskowitz, who is obviously embarrassed at the nursery-school behavior of her fellow writers. Hannah's post contains sentence enhancers, so consider yourself warned.
Finally, a few words from Neil Gaiman: Scroll past the top paragraphs about The Venerable Bede to get to the advice on how to reply to bad reviews. Among other things, he writes: "I suspect that most authors don't really want criticism, not even constructive criticism. They want straight-out, unabashed, unashamed, fulsome, informed, naked praise, arriving by shipload every fifteen minutes or so."
And:
"When you publish a book -- when you make art -- people are free to say what they want about it. You can't tell people they liked a book they didn't like, and there is, in the end, no arguing with personal taste. Different people like different things. Best to move on and make good art as best you can instead of arguing." In other words, how to reply to bad reviews? Don't. How to react to bad reviews? Here's help from Kingsley Amis: "A bad review might spoil your breakfast, but you shouldn't let it spoil your lunch."
Next week: Thoughts on the writing of reviews.
I have written far harsher reviews than "Wendy"'s and have been flamed a couple of times by other GR posters, but I have, thankfully, managed to fly under the radar of any authors. I admit I keep a pretty low profile over there, though. I thought "Wendy"'s objections to Cass's book were thoughtfully written, and she supported all of her assertions with passages from the book. After struggling valiantly through 168 pages, she was criticized for not finishing. Most readers give up after 20 or 30 pages; "Wendy" only continued reading so she could write a more objective and thoughtful review. A book this poorly thought out, with dialogue and description this *facepalm*ingly cheesy for the first 168 pages isn't suddenly going to become awesome at page 169, so the flames for not finishing the book were completely groundless.
That same week, another Amazon review gets some underhanded treatment (brief explanation here) from the author and her fans. There are references to the author having apologized in the OP's comments, but one gets the impression that it was a less than gracious one, justified, in the author's mind, by having had her feelings hurt over a negative review. Call the waaaaaambulance. EVerybody gets bad reviews.
My problem is with sockpuppeting and flaming of dissenters being treated by authors as if it were perfectly normal and justifiable as they invite family, friends and fans to join the dogpile. Again, I refer you to the final paragraphs of this article from the UK's Guardian.
Here are two much more balanced views on the subject: one from Veronica Roth at YA Highway on the ambiguity of the dynamics of the author-reviewer relationship, and a very contrite one from Hannah Moskowitz, who is obviously embarrassed at the nursery-school behavior of her fellow writers. Hannah's post contains sentence enhancers, so consider yourself warned.
Finally, a few words from Neil Gaiman: Scroll past the top paragraphs about The Venerable Bede to get to the advice on how to reply to bad reviews. Among other things, he writes: "I suspect that most authors don't really want criticism, not even constructive criticism. They want straight-out, unabashed, unashamed, fulsome, informed, naked praise, arriving by shipload every fifteen minutes or so."
And:
"When you publish a book -- when you make art -- people are free to say what they want about it. You can't tell people they liked a book they didn't like, and there is, in the end, no arguing with personal taste. Different people like different things. Best to move on and make good art as best you can instead of arguing." In other words, how to reply to bad reviews? Don't. How to react to bad reviews? Here's help from Kingsley Amis: "A bad review might spoil your breakfast, but you shouldn't let it spoil your lunch."
Next week: Thoughts on the writing of reviews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)